IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v44y2017i5p645-655..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Moving towards Mode 2? Evidence-based policy-making and the changing conditions for educational research in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Mike Zapp
  • Justin J. W. Powell

Abstract

The ‘Mode 2’ approach is among the most widely used to analyze changes in contemporary science and innovation systems. This approach suggests that application-driven, transdisciplinary, reflexive, and contextualized scientific knowledge will be produced by an increasingly heterogeneous set of organizations, with universities no longer as dominant. Analyzing the case of educational research (ER) in Germany, which has undergone profound institutional and paradigmatic change since 2000, allows us to ask whether the Mode 2 thesis holds. Considerable investments in ‘empirical’ research and the top-down setting of the research agenda have, we argue, fundamentally altered the research infrastructure of this increasingly diverse multidisciplinary field, challenging the traditional humanities-based Pädagogik. Especially based on waves of large-scale assessments of school performance, the rapidly-growing ‘empirical’ ER field is characterized by quantitative and policy-relevant (applied) knowledge claims. Finally, we identify risks associated with rapid and policy-induced shifts in ER from Mode 1 to Mode 2.

Suggested Citation

  • Mike Zapp & Justin J. W. Powell, 2017. "Moving towards Mode 2? Evidence-based policy-making and the changing conditions for educational research in Germany," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(5), pages 645-655.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:44:y:2017:i:5:p:645-655.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scw091
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hessels, Laurens K. & van Lente, Harro, 2008. "Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 740-760, May.
    2. Laurens K. Hessels & Harro van Lente, 2008. "Re-thinking knowledge production: a literature review and a research agenda," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-03, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Feb 2008.
    3. Leydesdorff, Loet & Meyer, Martin, 2006. "Triple Helix indicators of knowledge-based innovation systems: Introduction to the special issue," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1441-1449, December.
    4. Helen F. Ladd & Edward B. Fiske, 2008. "Handbook of Research in Education Finance and Policy," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 3(1), pages 149-150, January.
    5. Kristoffer Kropp & Anders Blok, 2011. "Mode-2 social science knowledge production? The case of Danish sociology between institutional crisis and new welfare stabilizations," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(3), pages 213-224, April.
    6. Leuze, Kathrin, 2008. "Bildungswege besser verstehen: Das nationale Bildungspanel," WZBrief Bildung 02, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. J. M. Santos & H. Horta & H. Luna, 2022. "The relationship between academics’ strategic research agendas and their preferences for basic research, applied research, or experimental development," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(7), pages 4191-4225, July.
    2. Katherine Leanne Christ & Roger Leonard Burritt, 2019. "Implementation of sustainable development goals: The role for business academics," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 44(4), pages 571-593, November.
    3. Enrique Acebo & José-Ángel Miguel-Dávila & Mariano Nieto, 2021. "The Impact of University–Industry Relationships on Firms’ Performance: A Meta-Regression Analysis," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(2), pages 276-293.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Laurens K. Hessels & Harro van Lente & Ruud Smits, 2008. "In search of relevance: The changing contract between science and society," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-16, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised May 2008.
    2. Thai Thi Minh & Carsten Nico Hjotrsø, 2015. "Relational dynamics in the multi-helices knowledge production system: A new institutionalism perspective," Globelics Working Paper Series 2015-08, Globelics - Global Network for Economics of Learning, Innovation, and Competence Building Systems, Aalborg University, Department of Business and Management.
    3. Ivan Cucco, 2014. "Network-based policies and innovation networks in two Italian regions: a comparison through a social selection model," STUDI ECONOMICI, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2014(114), pages 78-96.
    4. Julia Olmos‐Peñuela & Paul Benneworth & Elena Castro‐Martínez, 2015. "Exploring the factors related with scientists’ willingness to incorporating external knowledge," CHEPS Working Papers 201504, University of Twente, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS).
    5. Andreas Bjurström & Merritt Polk, 2011. "Climate change and interdisciplinarity: a co-citation analysis of IPCC Third Assessment Report," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(3), pages 525-550, June.
    6. van Rijnsoever, Frank J. & Hessels, Laurens K., 2011. "Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 463-472, April.
    7. Llopis, Oscar & D'Este, Pablo & McKelvey, Maureen & Yegros, Alfredo, 2022. "Navigating multiple logics: Legitimacy and the quest for societal impact in science," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    8. Froese, Anna & Woiwode, Hendrik & Suckow, Silvio, 2019. "Mission Impossible? Neue Wege zu Interdisziplinarität: Empfehlungen für Wissenschaft, Wissenschaftspolitik und Praxis," Discussion Papers, Research Group Science Policy Studies SP III 2019-601, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    9. Niels Stijn & Frank J. Rijnsoever & Martine Veelen, 2018. "Exploring the motives and practices of university–start-up interaction: evidence from Route 128," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 674-713, June.
    10. Dorothea Jansen & Regina Görtz & Richard Heidler, 2010. "Knowledge production and the structure of collaboration networks in two scientific fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(1), pages 219-241, April.
    11. Hubeau, Marianne & Marchand, Fleur & Coteur, Ine & Mondelaers, Koen & Debruyne, Lies & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2017. "A new agri-food systems sustainability approach to identify shared transformation pathways towards sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 52-63.
    12. Mari Jose Aranguren & James Karlsen & Miren Larrea & James R. Wilson, 2013. "The development of action research processes and their impacts on socio-economic development in the Basque Country," Chapters, in: Roger Sugden & Marcela Valania & James R. Wilson (ed.), Leadership and Cooperation in Academia, chapter 14, pages 216-233, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Yoguel, Gabriel & Brixner, Cristián & Lerena, Octavio & Minervini, Mariana, 2021. "The relationship between universities and business: identification of thematic communities," Revista CEPAL, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), December.
    14. Michaela Trippl & Tanja Sinozic & Helen Lawton Smith, 2015. "The Role of Universities in Regional Development: Conceptual Models and Policy Institutions in the UK, Sweden and Austria," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(9), pages 1722-1740, September.
    15. James Cunningham & Paul O’Reilly & Conor O’Kane & Vincent Mangematin, 2014. "The inhibiting factors that principal investigators experience in leading publicly funded research," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 93-110, February.
    16. Atiase, Victor Yawo & Kolade, Oluwaseun & Liedong, Tahiru Azaaviele, 2020. "The emergence and strategy of tech hubs in Africa: Implications for knowledge production and value creation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    17. Fisher, Erik, 2019. "Governing with ambivalence: The tentative origins of socio-technical integration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1138-1149.
    18. Srinivasan, M.S. & Jongmans, C. & Bewsell, D. & Elley, G., 2019. "Research idea to science for impact: Tracing the significant moments in an innovation based irrigation study," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 181-192.
    19. Ismael Rafols & Alan Porter & Loet Leydesdorff, 2009. "Overlay Maps of Science: a New Tool for Research Policy," SPRU Working Paper Series 179, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    20. Rodríguez, Hannot & Fisher, Erik & Schuurbiers, Daan, 2013. "Integrating science and society in European Framework Programmes: Trends in project-level solicitations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1126-1137.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:44:y:2017:i:5:p:645-655.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.