By: John Marshall

John Marshall — Wed, 14 May 2008 12:28:04 +0000

In ‘The New Production of Knowledge’ Michael Gibbons and his co-authors introduced the notion of mode 2 research, which is newly emerging, context-driven, problem-focused and interdisciplinary knowledge production. This he and his colleagues distinguished from traditional mode 1 research, which is academic, investigator-initiated and discipline-based (Gibbons et al, 1994). They identify a fundamental change in the ways that scientific, social, and cultural knowledge are being produced. The basic qualities of this new production of knowledge are: complexity, hybridity, non-linearity, reflexivity, heterogeneity, and transdisciplinarity. This hybridisation reflects the need to accomplish tasks at the boundaries and in the spaces between different communities (Gibbons, et al 1994, p.37). These enable collaboration, integrative problem solving, and development of new hybrid fields. ‘Mode 1’ is concerned with first principles in which questions and problems are dealt with in a context governed by the largely academic interests of a specific community of practice (CoP). ‘Mode 2’ research is based on a context of application in response to the demand for solutions to problems from a community of interest (CoI). The first mode of research is primarily disciplinary in nature whereas the second is characterised as being transdisciplinary in nature. An objective of my PhD research project was to establish if a trend towards a hybrid model of art & design practice is emerging out of the use of computer-based tools and if so, what implications this might have for future practice. The research has shown a considerable shift in the thinking of practitioners that make use of computer-based design and fabrication technologies. All of the practitioners I interviewed pointed out that their practice had been transformed by the use of computer-based tools. In addition, a third of them stated that the nature of their practice was now defined by the use of these technologies and indicated that use of these technologies had changed how they think about or see the world. For me, this indicates the possibility of a form of ‘technology-led-practice’. I think this can apply equally to disciplinary-based, transdisciplinary or (speculatively) post-disciplinary modes of practice. Michel Foucault (1977, p.113-138) discussed the idea of a ‘transdiscursive position’ – those who are initiators of new discursive practices, not just of individual texts. These all sit happily under your ‘undisciplinary’ umbrella.

Comments on: Studio Visit at "dividual" and A Slow Conversation

By: John Marshall