I recently read about Michael.Gibbons et al. co-authored New Model of Knowledge Production, originally published in 1994 and translated into Chinese in 2011.We must marvel at the sensitivity of foreign scientists, who, as early as the end of the last century, began to think systematically about major social changes, impacting universities and knowledge systems.The book's ideas are still instructive. After nearly 30 years, some of them seem to have been verified, but most of them are still on paper.
On the whole, the book is half-hearted.The summary and prediction of knowledge generation mode 2 are very forward-looking, but in the end, the suggestion of solving the contradiction between mode 1 and mode 2 is not professional.It's a bit like the argument in the Utopia. To build an Utopia, you need to have ideal builders and managers, each in his or her own place.To resolve the problems of cooperation and competition arising between Mode 1 and 2, managers need to be flexible in dealing with this boundary, wander from the edge of cooperation and competition, and establish harmonious policies.It takes so many ideal conditions to make a row that it is impossible to execute.
First of all, I would like to emphasize once again my basic frame of mind.To some extent, it should be my limitation, but if I don't have my own ideas, I won't be able to organize and integrate them, and I won't be able to build my own cognitive system.
I'm a neutral mode of thinking, analogous to riding a bike, by adjusting from side to side, keeping the way forward.In my view, any unilateralism has its limitations, obscuring old problems with new ones, which can cause more damage.
Before we discuss Model 2, we need to clarify a few traditional concepts.
First, is science closed?
This issue is the basis for discussion of the new model of knowledge production and innovative education.At present, the innovator's opinion is that science has entered a certain closed state, self-contained system, and there is a clear boundary between disciplines, which hinders the communication between disciplines.For example, to break the old "flexible" pattern of the academic department, to problem-oriented, outline the principles, as much as possible to let multidisciplinary knowledge cross-fusion.
Is science and discipline in a closed state?
The emergence of science stemmed from the accumulation of knowledge.Sub-divisional management is an efficient management method.The connotation of science is not only a subject, but also a whole system of thought and philosophy, and it has been undergoing changes, gradually incorporating some new knowledge into our knowledge system.The construction of university knowledge system is in the process of dynamic evolution and adaptation to the needs of social development.From this point of view, universities, especially those in basic subjects, remain the main producers.
Is the boundary between science and technology clear?
Science has been closely related to observation since its inception.Scientific instruments play an important role in the evolution of science.Towards the end of the twentieth century, major scientific achievements have often been aided by high-end instruments, such as the discovery of gravitational waves by LIGOS and the construction of protein structures by frozen electron microscopy.In the current scientific context, no one will completely separate science from instruments.In particular, prestigious research universities use large scientific installations and key laboratories as important supporting platforms for science.
Is the knowledge system of the discipline closed?
This problem is at the centre of much controversy.Different scholars have come to very different conclusions from different perspectives.With the development of discipline today, there are two characteristics of open and closed, and the difference of dual attributes between different disciplines is more obvious.For example, the pure mathematics part of mathematics, in my opinion, is like a heavenly book, there is no communication at all.This mystique kept me in a natural awe and respect for mathematicians, and I couldn't understand how they constructed the scientific problems of mathematics in their minds.However, most disciplines are open, at least partially.If you stay in middle school to understand the subject of physical and chemical biogeography, the understanding of the university's major will be superficial.In fact, many of these subjects are already cross-disciplined and closely linked to scientific instrument measurement in universities.Biomedical engineering, for example, involves knowledge of biology, medicine, materials, chemistry, and so on.Compared with the author's oceanography direction, the knowledge background required by the group also involves physics, chemistry, biology, computer simulation, data processing, etc.
The conservative type of university discipline depends on the normality and evaluability of discipline construction.In the long-term evolution of each major, gradually precipitate some of the required fixed course combinations of this major, called compulsory courses.And then equipped with certain elective courses to meet the new knowledge and new direction of expansion.In fact, interdisciplinary interaction has already been carried out among different departments and discipline groups.But overall, the conservatism of the discipline prevails.
In some new-type research universities and new-type universities, it is difficult to establish a new subject direction to meet the standard curriculum requirements of the Ministry of Education.Therefore, the second approach is to use superposition to meet the current curriculum requirements, and then increase the number of elective courses to expand the knowledge system, or to make up for it by double degrees.
Knowledge is not rigid and conservative; it is dynamic in itself.To seek social cooperation outside the university district is the intrinsic motivation of knowledge.
At the same time, as universities have produced many talents, a large number of them have overflowed from universities, serving in different sectors of society and carrying out corresponding scientific research.For example, research institutes run by large companies, etc.Thus the mode 2 of knowledge generation naturally appears, and the large-scale interdisciplinary knowledge fusion appears as problem-oriented.As time goes by, knowledge production outside the university becomes not only a supplement to Mode 1 of knowledge production inside the university, but also a competitor and challenger.
Universities are, after all, small in size and small in funding, unable to support the environment and conditions needed for growing large-scale technology.In addition to not recruiting undergraduate students, the research institute can also be classified as Model 1.The emergence of ChatGPT is a case in point.Such large-scale software engineering can only be supported on a corporate and capital-driven basis for a long time, and cannot be implemented within universities.
In order to meet the new needs of society, Model 2 knowledge production, a truly cross-disciplinary model of problem-oriented knowledge production and education, is gaining market and starting to try in some universities.
The impact of Mode 2 is obvious, and to ask my attitude towards Mode 2, I tend to be supportive but conservative.
The innovation that this knowledge generates is supported because it does reflect the needs of the community.The biggest characteristic of today's society is that the rate of change is increasing and society is changing day by day by day.Old Model 1 knowledge production may not keep up with the times.However, in addition to production, knowledge needs to be evaluated and precipitated to be inherited.How to make the knowledge produced in Mode 2 scientific is a new problem.Many large companies are also touting how many high-end SCI articles they have published, presumably a shortcut to getting the traditional scientific system to recognize their new knowledge.
Corresponding to Mode 2 knowledge production, educators put forward the education mode of multi-disciplinary integrated education accordingly. One example is the problem-oriented education mode.Teaching basic knowledge or learning application skills, if both are not available, how to choose, is a difficult question for every educator.
One school of scholars believes that the university is only a stage of learning and requires continuous learning ability and follow-up development.Therefore, college students should take the foundation as the standard, only by laying a solid foundation can they adapt to the complicated work in the future.
Another group of scholars believes that the key is to learn how to solve problems because you can't acquire all the knowledge in a university.Therefore, learn what is useful and useful with the help of some clear questions.After mastering this process, spiral up again and continuously improve oneself.Therefore, this learning method does not fully value the comprehensive learning of basic knowledge.In this way, a new question arises: How much basic knowledge do students learn in education?How far have you learned?
In fact, this new way of learning is more demanding for both teachers and students.Students know what they want to learn, and they have to take the initiative to make up their own shortcomings.In order to improve the efficiency of learning, educational reformers will further enhance the curriculum teaching model.For example, abandon the traditional teaching mode, try to reduce course credits, increase practical courses.In-depth communication in team discussions.This pattern significantly improves teamwork, problem analysis, and problem-solving skills.