SKIKT - 8 April Helge Godø SKIKT Researchers Conference 8th April 2002 Doing innovative ICT-research: methodological challenges in leveraging the best of three worlds

Helge Godø SKIKT research conference, 8 April 2002

SKIKT - 8 April Introduction: Creating useful knowledge and innovations The ICT-sector is R&D-intensive, very large and extensive in terms of knowledge production. If successful, ICT-R&D has a significant impact on our future. Research related to social and cultural aspects of ICT must become futures-oriented, i.e. participate in Mode 3. Mode 3 is at present not so strong in ICT – however – it is consolidating, possibly reemerging. Prior to the 1990s, Mode 3 was successful  strong “innovation regimes” guided and designed the future of ICT Mode 3 may require adjustments of research methodologies. Methodology = theories of, and reflections on, knowledge  procedures and rationales for creating knowledge  how and why explanations and theories are constructed. Methodology should reflect purpose of creating knowledge and innovations.

SKIKT - 8 April Structural changes in the ICT-sector Hegemony of liberalistic ideologies: - Thatcher& Reagan - Berlin-wall falls 1980s 1990s Deregulation Liberalization Market- competition ”Innovation-regimes” of ICT: - co-operation - future-oriented ICT-successes: Internet GSM Digitization Lower costs

SKIKT - 8 April Reorganizing ICT-related R&D Business units established - became ”profit centers” - BPR - Business Process Reengineering - one of many mantras R&D activities subject to “market- oriented governance models” Business logic: cost reductions and profit maximization = avoid R&D-cost, only R&D for ”own” benefit (improve present portfolio) – R&D became conservative Long-term, explorative R&D reduced – migration of R&D to universities. International R&D collaboration became difficult - innovation regimes deteriorated, or became more proprietary

SKIKT - 8 April Search for new ways of understanding innovations and knowledge production Growing dissatisfaction with the classic linear innovation (and knowledge) model: Academic research did not contribute to the Wealth of Nations - a crisis of legitimacy was emerging. A search for alternative models: research on research, STS, debates on knowledge production, etc., blossomed. Kline and Rosenberg’s ‘chain-linked’ innovation model (1986) initially influential among policy&decision makers. 1994: A book by Michael Gibbons et al.  Knowledge production in society consists of two distinct modes: Mode 1 and Mode 2. The book created debates and controversy. (More explanation in the paper, or: Read the book!!) 1980s

SKIKT - 8 April Emergence of two distinct knowledge production systems (highly stylized as): Mode 1 Academic context Disciplinary boundaries Homogeneity in perceptions Quality control and relevance defined by peers, i.e. within the discipline Hierarchical-static structure and organization Internal accountability Academic freedom and 'quest for knowledge' Mode 2 Context of application Multi-disciplinary Heterogeneity in perceptions External principals decide on quality and relevance Ad-hoc organizations and flat structures External accountability Users and interests define the agendas

SKIKT - 8 April Rethinking Science (2001) – Agora A new book, Rethinking Science,” by ”team Gibbons” (Helga Nowotny et al.) - introduced the idea of agora. Agora defined as: ”..the new public space where science and society, market and politics, co-mingle…”(p. 203) Agora = how to deal with uncertainty, i.e. the future. Generally abstract, advocating a type of ”Öffentlichkeit”, should be self-organizing and encompass all interests. Many moral prescriptions given, however, diffuse and vague.

SKIKT - 8 April The usefulness of research is in futures Mode 1 and Mode 2 is not comprehensive, too simplistic, but agora is too vague – no satisfactory methodology. Agora does not relate itself to research efforts dealing with the future, such as: –“strategic research’ - aimed at bridging the gap between ‘basic’ research and ‘applied’ research –Research foresight exercises (planning research agendas of the future) –Constructive technology assessment (NL) –“Triple Helix”-model of university-industry-government relations What is lacking: A clear idea of Mode 3? If Mode 3, then how should Mode 1 and Mode 2 relate to this? How does the best of three worlds look?

SKIKT - 8 April What is the best of the three worlds? Mode 1: An explanation- oriented world –Strength: Building solid knowledge – explaining ”why” – ex-post perspectives –Based on academic culture, specialized in disciplines –Prediction is an ambition – this is difficult

SKIKT - 8 April What is the best of the three worlds? Mode 2: A solutions- oriented world –Strength: Making viable solutions, ”how- and-now”-oriented, responsive to external demands (markets) –Strongholds: R&D- labs of ICT-industry –Naïve ideals of creating “technological fixes”

SKIKT - 8 April What is the best of the three worlds? Mode 3: A futures-oriented word Strength: Creating radical system innovations demanding a long-term perspective – backbone in “innovation regime” Strongholds: Traditionally, in technical standards setting bodies - affiliated with R&D-community of ICT – deteriorated during the 1990s because of structural changes in the ICT-sector Key: “anticipatory standardization” – defining and creating technologies and systems of the future – 10, 15, sometimes 20 years ahead Indications that the “innovation regimes” will re-emerge, become more powerful in the future, with broader participation

SKIKT - 8 April Mode 3: A futures-oriented word Mode 3 is not utopian – it is almost contemporary. Successes: GSM, ISDN – from USA: Internet. Failures: Many. At present (2002) some initiatives have Mode 3 elements: –eEurope-plan (short-term) – EU’s Framework Programmes –ETSI’s ”3GPP” related to UMTS –The ”Open Source”-movement (e.g.: Linux) Mode 3 should exist for the benefit of society – not just the industry

SKIKT - 8 April Mode 3: A futures- oriented word Research on social and cultural aspects of ICT (now: mostly Mode 1) – should reorient itself to Mode 3 – participation is more efficient than detached criticism – its more gratifying too! Mode 3 will welcome solid knowledge on social and cultural aspects of ICT – a spirit of open-mindedness prevails Mode 3 will need solid knowledge on: –Scenarios, policy implications and socio-economic impacts –Cultural factors and behavioral patterns – increased awareness of gender aspects and importance of aesthetics and games –Human factors and interface in technological design criteria and assumptions