+1 Recommend
1 collections

      If you have found this article useful and you think it is important that researchers across the world have access, please consider donating, to ensure that this valuable collection remains Open Access.

      Prometheus is published by Pluto Journals, an Open Access publisher. This means that everyone has free and unlimited access to the full-text of all articles from our international collection of social science journalsFurthermore Pluto Journals authors don’t pay article processing charges (APCs).

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Science transformed? A comparative analysis of ‘societal relevance’ rhetoric and practices in 14 Canadian Networks of Centres of Excellence

      Pluto Journals


            One of the most hotly debated ideas in science studies is the claim that contemporary science is in the midst of a transformation. While ‘transformationalist’ arguments and concepts vary, their core principle is that the norms, values and practices that have enforced the separation of science from society are being challenged by new expectations that scientists pursue closer connections with industry, government and/or civil society, and address research questions of immediate value to non-academic partners. While many major funding agencies have embraced this idea and now pressure scientists to enhance the ‘societal relevance’ of their work, the impact of these changes on scientific practices is still unclear. This paper reports findings from a comparative meso-level analysis of 14 large Canadian research networks funded by an agency with an explicit transformationalist mandate - the Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE) programme. Documents and web communications from these 14 NCEs, as well as from the central programme administration office, are analysed and compared to key transformationalist concepts, such as Mode 2 science, post-normal science, the triple helix model, academic capitalism and strategic science. We find that transformationalist ideas have a strong rhetorical presence across the 14 NCE projects and the central office, but that a great deal of inconsistency and confusion exists at the level of implementation and assessment of outcomes. Easily quantifiable outputs, such as the commercialization of research findings, are favoured over softer qualitative outcomes, such as public engagement and knowledge sharing. We conclude by arguing that the NCE programme is having an observable impact on the rhetoric of science, but any resulting transformations in practice are incremental rather than radical.


            Author and article information

            Pluto Journals
            1 June 2016
            : 34
            : 2 ( doiID: 10.1080/prometheus.34.issue-2 )
            : 133-152
            aline.coutinho@ 123456uottawa.ca
            Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
            © 2016 Pluto Journals

            All content is freely available without charge to users or their institutions. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission of the publisher or the author. Articles published in the journal are distributed under a http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

            Custom metadata

            Computer science,Arts,Social & Behavioral Sciences,Law,History,Economics


            1. Ackland, R. (2013) Web Social Science: Concepts, Data and Tools for Social Scientists in the Digital Age, Sage, London.

            2. ArcticNet (2012a) Inuit Research Advisors, available from http://www.arcticnet.ulaval.ca/research/advisors.php [accessed July 2012].

            3. ArcticNet (2012b) Rationale, available from http://www.arcticnet.ulaval.ca/aboutus/rationale.php [accessed July 2012].

            4. Atkinson-Grosjean, J. (2006) Public Science, Private Interests: Culture and Commerce in Canada's NCEs, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

            5. Beck, U., Giddens, A. and Lash, S. (1994) Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order, Stanford University Press, Stanford.

            6. Bouckaert, G. and Van de Walle, S. (2003) ‘Comparing measures of citizen trust and user satisfaction as indicators of “good governance”: difficulties in linking trust and satisfaction indicators’, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 69, 3, pp.329-43.

            7. CAN (2012a) Frequently Asked Questions, available from http://www.arthritisnetwork.ca/about_can/about_FAQ_en.php [accessed July 2012].

            8. CAN (2012b) Research & Development, available from http://www.arthritisnetwork.ca/r_and_d/randd_services_en.php [accessed July 2012].

            9. Coleman, G. (2010) ‘Ethnographic approaches to digital media’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 39, pp.487-505.

            10. CWN (2012) Knowledge Mobilization, available from http://www.cwn-rce.ca/our-approach/knowledge-mobilization/ [accessed July 2012].

            11. Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (1997) Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations, Pinter, New York, NY.

            12. Fazey, I., Evely, A., Reed, M., Stringer, L., Kruijsen, J., White, P., Newsham, A., Jin, L., Cortazzi, M., Phillipson, J., Blackstock, K., Entwistle, N., Sheate, W., Armstrong, F., Blackmore, C., Fazey, J., Ingram, J., Gregson, J., Lowe, P., Morton, S. and Trevitt, C. (2012) ‘Knowledge exchange: a review and research agenda for environmental management’, Environmental Conservation, 40, pp.19-36.

            13. Fisher, D., Atkinson-Grosjean, J. and House, D. (2001) ‘Changes in academy/industry/state relations in Canada: the creation and development of Networks of Centres of Excellence’, Minerva, 39, pp.299-325.

            14. Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J. (1993) ‘Science for the post-normal age’, Futures, 25, 7, pp.739-55.

            15. Garcia, A., Standlee, A., Bechkoff, J. and Cui, Y. (2009) ‘Ethnographic approaches to the Internet and computer-mediated communication’, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 38, 1, pp.52-84.

            16. 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, SAGE, London.

            17. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C. and Scott, P. (2011) ‘Revisiting Mode 2 at Noors Slott’, Prometheus, 29, 4, pp.361-72.

            18. Halliwell, J. and Smith, W. (2011) ‘Paradox and potential: trends in science policy and practice in Canada and New Zealand’, Prometheus, 29, 4, pp.373-91.

            19. Hansen, J. (2009) ‘Mode 2, systems differentiation and the significance of politico-cultural variety’, Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, 5, 2, pp.67-85.

            20. Hessels, L. and van Lente, H. (2008) ‘Re-thinking new knowledge production: a literature review and a research agenda’, Research Policy, 37, pp.740-60.

            21. Hessels, L., van Lente, H. and Smits, R. (2009) ‘In search of relevance: the changing contract between science and society’, Science and Public Policy, 36, 5, pp.387-401.

            22. Hine, C. (2005) ‘Internet research and sociology of cyber-social-scientific knowledge’, Information Society, 21, pp.239-48.

            23. Industry Canada (2007) Mobilizing Science and Technology to Canada's Advantage, Government of Canada, Ottawa.

            24. Lane, J. and Rogers, J. (2011) ‘Engaging national organizations for knowledge translation: comparative case studies in knowledge value mapping’, Implementation Science, 6, 1, pp.1-13.

            25. Lave, R., Mirowski, P. and Randalls, S. (2010) ‘Introduction: STS and neoliberal science’, Social Studies of Science, 40, 5, pp.659-75.

            26. Leisyte, L. (2011) ‘University commercialization policies and their implementation in the Netherlands and the United States’, Science and Public Policy, 38, 6, pp.437-48.

            27. Lovejoy, K. and Saxton, G. (2012) ‘Information, community, and action: how nonprofit organizations use social media’, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 17, 3, pp.337-53.

            28. Marginson, S. and Considine, M. (2000) The Enterprise University: Power, Governance and Reinvention in Australia, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.

            29. Metcalfe, A. (2010) ‘Revisiting academic capitalism in Canada: no longer the exception’, Journal of Higher Education, 81, 4, pp.489-514.

            30. Minke-Martin, V. (2016) ‘Narratives of nature’, Fisheries, 41, 3, pp.114-15.

            31. Mirowski, P. and Sent, E.-M. (2008) ‘The commercialization of science and the response of STS’ in Hackett, E., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M. and Wajcman, J. (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp.635-89.

            32. Morse, J. (1994) ‘Emerging from the data: the cognitive process of analysis in qualitative inquiry’ in Morse, J. (ed.) Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods, Sage, London, pp.23-43.

            33. NCE (2005) Annual Report 2004-2005, Networks of Centres of Excellence, Government of Canada, Ottawa.

            34. NCE (2009) Delivering Research Excellence and Innovation: The Networks of Centres of Excellence Year in Review 2008-2009, available from http://www.nce-rce.gc.ca/_docs/reports/.../Annual_Report_08-09_Rapport_Annuel-e.pdf [accessed January 2017].

            35. NCE (2012a) Networks of Centres of Excellence: Program Guide, Networks of Centres of Excellence Secretariat, Ottawa.

            36. NCE (2012b) NCE Secretariat Chair's Message, available from http://www.nce-rce.gc.ca/About-APropos/ChairsMessage-MessagePresidente_eng.asp [accessed July 2012].

            37. NCE (2012c) About the Networks of Centres of Excellence, available from http://www.nce-rce.gc.ca/About-APropos/Index_eng.asp [accessed July 2012].

            38. Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2001) Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

            39. Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2003) ‘Mode 2 revisited: the new production of knowledge’, Minerva, 41, pp.179-94.

            40. Olsen, W. (2012) Data Collection: Key Trends and Methods in Social Research, Sage, London.

            41. Pauwels, L. (2005) ‘Websites as visual and multimodal cultural expressions: opportunities and issues of online hybrid media research’, Media, Culture & Society, 27, 4, pp.604-13.

            42. Pauwels, L. (2012) ‘A multimodal framework for analyzing websites as cultural expressions’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, pp.247-65.

            43. PrioNet (2012) Strategic programs, available from http://www.prionetcanada.ca/detail.aspx?menu=3&app=108&cat1=485&tp=2&lk=no&title=Strategic+Programs [accessed July 2012].

            44. Rip, A. (1994) ‘The republic of science in the 1990s’, Higher Education, 28, 1, pp.3-23.

            45. Rip, A. (2004) ‘Strategic research, post-modern universities and research training’, Higher Education Policy, 17, 2, pp.153-66.

            46. Rip, A. (2011) ‘The future of research universities’, Prometheus, 29, 4, pp.443-53.

            47. SCN (2012) About Us, available from http://www.stemcellnetwork.ca/index.php?page=about-us [accessed July 2012].

            48. Shinn, T. (1999) ‘“Change or mutation?” Reflections on the foundations of contemporary science’, Social Science Information, 38, 1, pp.149-76.

            49. Shinn, T. (2002) ‘The triple helix and new production of knowledge: prepackaged thinking on science and technology’, Social Studies of Science, 32, 4, pp.599-614.

            50. Singh, G., Tam, J., Sisk, T., Klain, S., Mach, M., Martone, R. and Chan, K. (2014) ‘A more social science: barriers and incentives for scientists engaging in policy’, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 12, 3, pp.161-66.

            51. Slaughter, S. and Rhoades, G. (1997) Academic Capitalism and the New Economy, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

            52. Stilgoe, J., Lock, S. and Wilsdon, J. (2014) ‘Why should we promote public engagement with science?‘, Public Understanding of Science, 23, 1, pp.4-15.

            53. Thomas, D. R. (2006) ‘A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data’, American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 2, pp.237-246.

            54. Thoren, H. and Breian, L. (2016) ‘Stepping stone or stumbling block? Mode 2 knowledge production in sustainability science’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 56, pp.71-81.

            55. Tuunainen, J. (2005) ‘“Hybrid practices?” Contributions to the debate on the mutation of science and university’, Higher Education, 50, pp.275-98.

            56. Varis, P. (2016) ‘Digital ethnography’ in Georgakopoulou, A. and Spilioti, T. (eds) Routledge Handbook of Language and Digital Communication, Routledge, New York, NY, pp.55-68.

            57. Weingart, P. (1997) ‘From “finalization” to “Mode 2”: old wine in new bottles?‘, Social Science Information, 36, 4, pp.591-613.

            58. Wyatt, S. (2015) ‘Mode 2 in action: working across sectors to create a center for humanities and technology’, Scholarly and Research Communication, 6, 4, pp.1-8.

            59. Young, N. and Coutinho, A. (2013) ‘Government, anti-reflexivity, and the construction of public ignorance of climate change: Australia and Canada compared’, Global Environmental Politics, 13, 2, pp.89-108.

            60. Young, N., Nguyen, V., Corriveau, M., Cooke, S. and Hinch, S. (2016) ‘Knowledge users’ perspectives and advice on how to improve knowledge exchange and mobilization in the case of a co-managed fishery', Environmental Science and Policy, 66, pp.170-78.

            61. Ziman, J. (2000) ‘Postacademic science: constructing knowledge with networks and norms’ in Segerstrahle, U. (ed.) Beyond the Science Wars: The Missing Discourse About Science and Society, SUNY Press, Albany NY, pp.135-54.


            Comment on this article