Advertisement

Higher Education Policy

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 153–166 | Cite as

Strategic Research, Post-modern Universities and Research Training

  • Arie Rip
Article

Abstract

The old division of labour between fundamental and applied or problem-oriented research has almost disappeared, and with it, the functional distinctions between universities, public labs and industrial and other private research. Doctoral research training can then also become diversified in terms of its content and its location. Closer analysis of ongoing changes, in particular, the emergence of a regime of strategic science, is necessary to specify requirements for a career in science in the coming decades. Disciplines as we know them may not be of major importance, but interdisciplinarity as such is not the answer. For universities, the key challenge is to diversify and recombine, both cognitively and institutionally, into what I call a post-modern university, which includes overlaps and alliances with centres (of excellence and relevance), public labs and various private organizations. In such a university, a doctoral student can wend his or her way through the types of locations, just as is to be expected of his or her later career.

Keywords

doctoral programmes science careers science technology and society 

References

  1. Becher, T. (1989) Academic Tribes and Territories. Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines, Milton Keynes: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (1996) ‘Universities in the Digital Age’, in Change (The Magazine of Higher Learning) July/August 1996, 11–19.Google Scholar
  3. De Boer, H., Huisman, J., Klemperer, A., vd Meulen, B., Neave, G., Theisens, H. and vd Wende, M. (2002) Academia in the 21st Century. An analysis of Trends and Perspectives in Higher Education and Research, The Hague: AWT (Adviesraad voor het Wetenschaps-en Technologiebeleid), September 2002.Google Scholar
  4. Disco, C., Rip, A. and vd Meulen, B. (1992) ‘Technical innovation and the universities: divisions of labor in cosmopolitan technical regimes’, Social Science Information 31(3): 465–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (2000) ‘The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations’, Research Policy 29: 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. European Science Foundation . (2002) Agents for Change. Bringing Industry and Academia together to Develop Career Opportunities for Young Researchers, Policy Briefing 17 [Report of a meeting sponsored by ESF with Science Magazine Next Wave and the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm (Sweden), 24–25 March 2002].Google Scholar
  7. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Homburg, E., Rip, A. and Small, J.S. (2000) ‘Chemici, hun kennis en de industrie’, in J.W. Schot, H.W. Lintsen, A. Rip, A.A. Albert de la Bruhèze (eds.), Techniek in Nederland in de twintigste eeuw, deel II, Zutphen: Walburg Pers., pp. 299–316.Google Scholar
  9. Irvine, J. and Martin, B.R. (1984) Foresight in Science. Picking the Winners, London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
  10. Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2001) Re-Thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  11. Rip, A. (1992) ‘Expert Advice and Pragmatic Rationality’, in N. Stehr and R.V. Ericson (eds.) The Culture and Power of Knowledge, Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, pp. 357–373.Google Scholar
  12. Rip, A. (1997) ‘A cognitive approach to relevance of science’, Social Science Information 36(4): 615–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rip, A. (2000) ‘Fashions, Lock-Ins, and the Heterogeneity of Knowledge Production’, in M. Jacob and T. Hellström (eds.) The Future of Knowledge Production in the Academy, Buckingham: Open University Press, pp. 28–39.Google Scholar
  14. Rip, A. (2002a) ‘Regional innovation systems and the advent of strategic science’, Journal of Technology Transfer 27: 123–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rip, A. (2002b) A co-evolutionary perspective on ELSI, CTA and other attempts at re-contextualization of science and technology in society. Paper Presented to the Bi-annual Conference of the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology, York (UK), 31 July–3 August 2002.Google Scholar
  16. Rip, A (2002c) ‘Science for the 21st Century’, in P. Tindemans, A. Verrijn-Stuart and R. Visser (eds.) The Future of the Sciences and Humanities. Four Analytical Essays and A Critical Debate on the Future of Scholastic Endeavour, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 99–148.Google Scholar
  17. Stokes, D.E. (1997) Pasteur's Quadrant : Basic Science and Technological Innovation, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  18. Ziman, J. (1994) Prometheus Bound. Science in a Dynamic Steady State, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Universities 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arie Rip
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Twente, Science, Technology and Society (Faculty of BTT)The Netherlands

Personalised recommendations