Knowledge‐system theory in society: Charting the growth of knowledge‐system models over a decade, 1994–2003

Abstract

The second half of the twentieth century saw the emergence of three knowledge-system models: Mode 2 knowledge production, the Triple Helix, and Post-Normal Science (PNS). Today, this emphasis on knowledge use is the focus of such important health movements as evidence-based medicine. Building on the methodological work of Shinn (2002) and the theoretical work of Holzner and Marx (1979), we conducted a bibliometric study of the extent to which the three knowledge-system models are used by researchers to frame problems of health-knowledge use. By doing so, we reveal how these models fit into a larger knowledge system of health and evidence-based decision making. The study results show clearly that although these knowledge models are extremely popular for contextualizing research, there is a distinct lack of emphasis on use of the models in knowledge utilization or evidence-based medicine. We recommend using these models for further research in three specific dimensions of health systems analysis: (a) differences in language use, (b) transformative thinking about health-knowledge functions, and (c) ethical analysis of institutional linkages. IntroductionAnnouncements of the birth of a new type of society proliferated in the period following World War II. Attempts to name the new society were numerous, and included, among others, post-industrial society, post-modern society, information society, network society, science society, and the knowledge society (Böhme, 1997;Feather, 1998). A common feature of all these concepts was the emphasis on an increased role for knowledge, particularly scientific and technical knowledge, in the domains of economic development, public policy-making, and professional practice (Dickinson, 2003).Not surprisingly, efforts to understand and manage knowledge-related processes also became increasingly explicit and important. Machlup (1962) was the first to measure the production and distribution of knowledge in the United States in an attempt to empirically demonstrate the scope and significance of the emerging knowledge economy (Sohng, 1996, p. 77; Neelameghan, 1999, p. 111). The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the World Bank continue these efforts on an international level (Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, 2004; World Bank, 2005).Also starting in the 1960s, a substantial body of literature developed that was focused on the transfer and utilization of scientific knowledge in the context of policy-making and professional practice.1 This literature identified numerous facilitators and impediments to those processes. These included the nature of the research and decision-making processes, the content of research knowledge, and the form and media of its dissemination. This research showed that decision makers consistently reported being unaware of the existence of relevant research, or that they were aware that relevant research existed, but it was physically, cognitively, or temporally inaccessible to them, or that they knew that research exist...

The knowledge‐based economy and the triple helix model

“…The other subdynamics (markets, organizations) reflexively counteract upon and thus buffer against the transformative power of the knowledge base. Graham and Dickinson (2007), for example, noted that political discourse may be particularly resistant to the idea that it itself is only one among other subdynamics in a knowledge‐based economy.…”

Questioning two myths in innovation literature

“…My personal view is that there are reasons to believe that many myths and power-games inside the university world tend to cement old paradigms (cf. Graham & Dickinson, 2007).…”

Food Safety in China: The Structure and Substantive Foci of an Emerging Field of Social Science Research

“…Invariably, however, both the recommendations and the audiences to which they were directed were poorly defined. Also, because none of the abstracts identified an explicit knowledge transfer strategy, there was no indication that the research was informed by, or conformed to, the general methodological principles known to characterize the effective transfer and use of research knowledge (El-Jardali and Fadlallah 2015; Graham and Dickinson 2007;Ivey et al 2012;Murage et al 2011;Wikipedia, s.v. Knowledge Transfer).…”