The ISA Handbook In Contemporary Sociology Edited by Ann Denis and Devorah Kalekin-Fishman SAGE Studies in International Sociology

Editorial arrangement © Ann Denis and Devorah Kalekin-Fishman 2009 First published 2009 SAGE Publications Ltd 1 Oliver’s Yard 55 City Road London EC1Y 1SP Library of Congress Control Number: 2008932231 British Library Cataloguing in Publication data ISBN 978-1-4129-3463-3

Contents Diagrams, Figures, and Tables viii Preface xi Acknowledgments xiv Reviewers xvi About the Contributors xix INTRODUCTION 1 1 Introduction 3 Ann Denis and Devorah Kalekin-Fishman PART ONE: ANALYSES OF APPROACHES TO RESEARCH 7 2 Alienation: Critique and Alternative Futures 9 Lauren Langman and Devorah Kalekin-Fishman 3 Identity, Citizenship and Contemporary, Secure, Gendered Politics of Belonging 29 Nira Yuval-Davis 4 Sociological Practice and the Sociotechnics of Governance 42 Kjeld Hogsbro, Hans Pruijt, Nikita Pokrovsky and George Tsobanoglou 5 Law Through Sociology’s Looking Glass: Conflict and Competition In Sociological Studies of Law 58 Reza Banakar 6 New Ways of Relating Authority and Solidarity: Theoretical And Empirical Explorations 74 Elisa P. Reis 7 New Collaborative Forms of Doing Research 91 Jaime Jiménez

PART TWO: TRENDS IN CONCEPTUALIZING CONFLICT, COMPETITION, AND COOPERATION IN SUBFIELDS OF SOCIOLOGY 107 8 Conflict, Competition, and Cooperation in the Sociology of Development and Social Transformation 109 Ulrike Schuerkens 9 Health Sociology: Conflict, Competition, Cooperation 124 Elianne Riska, Ellen Annandale and Robert Dingwall 10 Sociological Theories of Professions: Conflict, Competition and Cooperation 140 Julia Evetts, Charles Gadea, Mariano Sánchez and Juan Sáez 11 Competition, Conflict and Cooperation, and the Naturalization of Social Difference in Sport 155 Fabien Ohl 12 Controversies as Sites of Conflict and Collaboration: Insights from the Sociology of the Arts 170 Jan Marontate 13 Rethinking the Sociology of Childhood: Conflict, Competition And Cooperation in Children’s Lives 185 Robert van Krieken and Doris Bûhler-Niederberger 14 The Lifecourse of the Social Mobility Paradigm 201 Stéphane Moulin and Paul Barnard PART THREE: RESEARCH ON SOCIAL ISSUES – INTERWEAVING PROCESSES 221 15 Health, Illness, and Mortality in Less Developed Countries: Convergence Divergence, and Stagnation 223 Bali Ram and Shefali S. Ram 16 Conflict, Competition, and Cooperation in Twenty-First Century Military Peacekeeping Operations 236 David R. Segal, Christopher Dandeker, and Yuko K. Whitestone 17 Conflict, Competition and Cooperation in the Social Division of Health Care 250 Paul Leduc Browne 18 Markets Against Society: Labour’s Predicament in the Second Great Transformation 265 Edward Webster and Robert Lambert 19 Political Consumerism: An Extension of Social Conflict or a Renewed Form of Economic Collaboration 278 Marco Silvestro

CONTENTS vii 20 Modes of Structured Interplay in the Modeling of Digital Futures 291 Markus S. Schulz 21 Sociological Theory, Social Change, and Crime in Rural Communities 305 Joseph F. Donnermeyer, Pat Jobes, and Elaine Barclay PART FOUR: ILLUSTRATIVE CASE STUDIES 321 22 Hunger and Plenty: Fragmented Integration in the Global Food System 323 Mustafa Koc 23 Social Movements in Brazil: Characteristics and Research 336 Maria da Glória Gohn 24 Making Sense of Social Justice and Social Mobilization in Latin America: A Discourse Analysis 351 Victor Armony 25 Industrial and Labour Studies, Socio-Economic Transformation, Conflict, and Cooperation in KwaZulu Natal 368 Ari Sitas 26 Economic Globalization and Singapore’s Development Policies: Competition, Cooperation, and Conflict 384 Alexius A. Pereira 27 The Dynamics of Local-Global Relations: Conflict and Development 400 Henry Teune 28 Negotiating Identity, Conflict, and Cooperation within a Strategic Model of Address 416 Sandi Michele de Oliveira 29 Conflict and (Ethno-Linguistic) Diversity: Canada/Québec 433 Philippe Couton, Ann Denis, Leslie Laczko, Linda Pietrantonio, And Joseph-Yvon Thériault PART FIVE: CONCLUSION 459 30 Conflict, Competition, and Cooperation: Means and Stratagems For Shaping Social Reality in the Twenty-First Century 461 Ann Denis and Devorah Kalekin-Fishma Index 468

7

New Collaborative Forms of Doing Research1

Jaime Jiménez

INTRODUCTION

As we enter the twenty-first century, it becomes apparent that the economic advancement of nations in both the first and the third worlds is based on the way they apply knowledge. It is clear that in terms of the globalized economy, those countries with advanced technology have a competitive advantage over those less developed. Although the cheap labor factor still constitutes an element of relative importance in the geographical location of ‘maquila’ plants, this factor will gradually become less relevant in light of the technological developments that require firms to move to second and third generation ‘maquilas’, involving a more skilled labor force (Gerber and Carrillo, 2006). Since the end of the twentieth century, the idea that society as a whole was nearing a new era, the ‘era of knowledge’ (Albrow and King, 1990; Crook et al., 1992; David, 1992) became fashionable. It was a novelty to associate the birth of a new century with the beginning of a new era. But, what is behind the recognition of a new global paradigm?

Globalization of the economy: This trend, which began at the end of World War II with the establishment of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs in 1947, gained momentum in the decade of the 1990s, with the creation of the World Trade Organization in 1995 (World Trade Organization, 2006) and the establishment of diverse free trade agreements geared to promote, regulate, and standardize free trade throughout most parts of the world. As of 1997, these covered ninety percent of all international trade, encompassing most countries except China, some former communist countries, and a few other small countries (Anderson and Cavanagh, 1997).

Competition for world markets: The large global economic blocs are engaged in a battle to conquer world markets, where products and services with greater technological content and lower cost, flood the markets of the entire globe without being noticed by the population at large. It is clear to the large corporations that the investment in research oriented to applications and

THE ISA HANDBOOK IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY 92

frontier technology, results in economic benefits in the mid- and long-term, and at times in a reasonably short-term.

Vertiginous technological develop-ment: The scientific and technological research that took place during World War II was the basis for the impressive technological advance observed in the second half of the twentieth century. Developments in micro and nano-technology, bio-medicine, genetics and other disciplines and trans-disciplines, have set the pace for the constitution of a society that cannot be understood without examining contributions of the scientific and technological knowledge attained in recent decades.

Advancement in communications: The speed at which any type of information is disseminated today surpasses the most fertile imagination of the past. The new information and communication technologies (ICT) allow both the information related to current research, and that related to international trade, markets, and the state of global finances, to be disseminated almost in real time.

‘Reification’ of science and techno-logy: The fact is that science and technology are increasingly treated as a commodity, thought of in terms of markets, competitiveness and commercial product development (Elzinga, 2004).

The common belief that ‘knowledge is power’: This assertion assigns to scientific knowledge the capacity to dominate the economic, political, and social spheres, as knowledge itself is held to be the most important factor of production. The world’s arrival in the era of knowledge (Albrow and King, 1990; Crook et al., 1992; David, 1992) is changing the perception of the role of science and technology in society. In part, scientific production appears to be linked to the needs of the global market. However, in the past several years, alternative forms of ‘doing science’ have emerged throughout the globe, which

really are more socially accountable than existing models. These new alternative forms respond to the need to make scientific research more participative, including social sectors that have a stake in the application of scientific findings. In the following, two alternative forms of doing research in Latin America are reviewed, and a comparison is made with the main features of the model (‘Mode 2’) defined by Gibbons et al. (1994) and Nowotny et al. (2001, 2003, 2005), which to our mind is mostly limited to research related to the satisfaction of the global economic market needs and therefore does not go far enough in terms of change. The conclusion is that some segments of society are concerned with the consequences of scientific research and are putting in practice new decision-making models that confront current trends. These new forms of doing research are two samples of cooperation among segments of society in search of innovative ways to approach regional development, to improve the quality of collective life.

A NEW PARADIGM PROPOSED FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

At the end of the twentieth century, some authors observed that in previous years, the way of ‘producing knowledge’ had changed, and proposed a new model (Gibbons et al., 1994). Concurrently, other authors observed that research in universities was undergoing some significant changes in the forms of knowledge it produces (Fuller, 2000, 2003). The importance of the work of Gibbons and his associates resides in the fact that they have continued research on this topic (Nowotny et al., 2001, 2003, 2005), attempting to reply, not always successfully, to the observations of their critics. According to Gibbons and his associates, this new way co-exists with the traditional form, and it includes not only science and technology but also the social sciences and the humanities, to the extent that these areas of knowledge

NEW COLLABORATIVE FORMS OF DOING RESEARCH 93

approach the modes of operation of the ‘hard’ sciences. It affects:

• what knowledge is produced, • how it is produced, • the context in which it is pursued, • the way in which production is

organized, • the systems of reward it activates, • the mechanisms that control the quality

of what is produced. (Gibbons et al, 1994 : 7).

These characteristics are firmly articulated in the case of the ‘hard’ sciences: physics, chemistry and biology. Inasmuch as the social sciences and humanities have tried to follow the ‘hard’ sciences in rigor, similar social systems have been implemented to govern production of knowledge in these areas (Gibbons et al., 1994: vii). To distinguish them from the traditional form, these authors call the new mode of knowledge production ‘Mode 2’, and name the classical way, ‘Mode 1’. What follows are some characteristics of Mode 2 in the context of application:

• Problems are not restricted to a discipline or a group of disciplines (multi-disciplinary), they are trans-disciplinary.

• The work is carried out in non-hierarchical, heterogeneous, and transitory organizational forms.

• No preference is allocated to university institutionalization.

• The work involves the close interaction of many actors.

• In light of the above, the production of knowledge becomes more socially accountable.

• This type of research utilizes an ample range of criteria to apply quality controls.

• Mode 2 becomes more flexible and deeply affects what counts as ‘good science’. (Gibbons et al. 1994: 3-8).

In contrast, the term ‘Mode 1’ refers to a form of production of knowledge -- a complex of ideas, methods, values and norms -- that has been developed to disseminate the Newtonian model to more and more fields of inquiry and insure that what is considered ‘established scientific (formal) practice’ is observed. Table 7.1 compares the main characteristics of the two modes of producing knowledge, as set out by the authors. Mode 2 research includes a larger group of ‘practitioners’, who are temporary and heterogeneous, collaborating on a problem defined in a specific, localized context. According to this orientation, there is a potential imbalance between the volatility and the permanence of institutions that cultivate Mode 2 knowledge production. This is a new situation that appears to be intermediate between stable and flexible organizational forms. The production of knowledge is less and less a self-contained activity. It is neither the ‘science’ of the universities nor the ‘technology’ of industry (Gibbons et al. 1994: 156). The authors assert that a fundamental change that is effected by Mode 2 research is that the production of knowledge is a more ‘socially distributed’ process (Gibbons et al. 1994: 156), meaning that this type of knowledge is both supplied by and distributed to individuals and groups across the social spectrum. This assertion is based on the following attributes of Mode 2:

Table 7.1 Comparison of the characteristics of Mode 1 and Mode 2 of knowledge production. Problems proposed and resolved by a specific community

Problems proposed and resolved in the context of application

Disciplinary Trans-disciplinary Homogeneity of research teams Heterogeneity of research teams Hierarchical organization Heterarchical organization Permanent Transitory Peer quality control Quality control by diverse actors Less socially accountable More socially accountable and reflexive Source: derived from Gibbons et al. (1994: 3).

THE ISA HANDBOOK IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY 94

• It is highly contextualized. • It produces ‘marketable knowledge’. • There is a porosity of disciplinary and

institutional boundaries. • Scientific careers are interchangeable:

a person may interchangeably be an administrator, head a laboratory, be a scientific entrepreneur, etc.

• It introduces trans-disciplinarity in other than ‘hot’ topics.

• It signals a growing importance of hybrid fora in the configuration of knowledge.

• The fora are constituted by experts and non-experts as social actors. (Gibbons et al, 1994: 156).

Policy of technological innovation.

The explanation that the proponents give for the emergence of this new model of doing science is that the economic decline of the 1980s and increased competition on a world scale, forced policymakers to narrow their perspective on the role of science in the achievement of national objectives, and to ‘straddle’ the scientific activity of industrial innovation and competitiveness. Science policy moved toward technology as a more effective way of supporting national industry. In part this change is a response to the reduced competitiveness of the United States vis-à-vis Japan. To some extent, decision-makers reached the conclusion that the technological base of the world economy had come to an end.

Impact of this change on the university

The vision of the university in Mode 2 changes from having a monopoly of knowledge production, ‘a social technology for the production of universal knowledge’ (Fuller, 2003: 217), to being a ‘partner’ in the national and international contexts. This role change will imply a redefinition of excellence among

academics (professional aspirations, contributions to the discipline, institutional loyalties). Since competition will be more open, the university will need to identify ‘niches’ of specialization where it can become more competitive (Gibbons et al., 1994:157). According to Nowotny et al. (2005), Mode 2 was espoused most warmly by politicians and civil servants struggling to create better mechanisms to link science with innovation. This linkage does not necessarily correspond to increased social accountability. Moreover, the research examples given in Gibbons et al. refer to applications benefiting a reduced number of stakeholders, without any reference to general societal needs. The Boeing 700 series and the Phillips cassette are examples given by Gibbons et al. (1994: 60) of Mode 2 projects primarily favoring Boing and Phillips stockholders, not society at large.

A NEW ‘SOCIAL CONTRACT’

Toward the end of the 1990s, the role that science plays concerning society and development came under serious scrutiny. In the past, science policy was based mainly on acts of faith. It was propelled by faith that research activity would naturally lead to technological innovation, which in turn would guarantee economic growth, and thus social cohesion and peace. It was believed with a certain naïveté that ‘what is good for science, is good for humanity’, leaving science policy decisions in the hands of scientists. Currently, such acts of faith are severely challenged in light of the fact that scientific and technological advances that have contributed to economic development, have also brought about irreversible ecological deterioration, technological disasters, and the development of low cost weaponry of mass destruction which is difficult to dismantle. All the above are unfortunately associated with the exacerbation of social inequality, exclusion, and the increase in

NEW COLLABORATIVE FORMS OF DOING RESEARCH 95

asymmetries between nations, in terms of wealth and power. The above challenges motivated UNESCO to organize the World Conference on Science: ‘Science for the 21st Century’ (1999, a, b), in Budapest in 1999. The objective of the Conference was the formulation of a new relationship between science and society. They advocated. a relationship that would replace the excessive confidence society placed in the good judgment of scientists, that is, a new ‘social contract’ (Mayor, 1999), based on the assumption that science is to be subjected to public scrutiny. At this conference, the debate on the need for a democratic discussion of scientific priorities, the size of its budget, its institutional structure, and the use that is given to the results of scientific labor, was renewed. It was asserted that such decisions cannot be left simply in the hands of scientists and government officials. At the Budapest Conference, emphasis was also placed on the point that scientists must not orient their research solely toward topics that appear attractive in terms of the availability of grants, such as military research and research that responds to market requirements. They must also orient their work to topics related to general social interest. Furthermore, scientific research must not be developed as isolated disciplines, but must be based on inter- and trans-disciplinary approaches that will bring about a convergence between the natural and the social sciences. This was heralded as a means to understand reality fully, and to transform it. What is sought here is to confront the challenges that the twenty-first century presents with greater possibilities of success in advancing toward a society with greater liberty and equality among men throughout the world. From the Budapest Conference it is acknowledged that we must create the framework for a new social contract with science, one that is based on the participation of large sectors of society, and not only on those who currently have a stake in the decision-making of science . In the new contract, decisions should be made on the basis of the interests of large

social networks. This is not to say that organizational forms for decision-making that have been perfected in the past and which, in general, have produced good results for the advancement of science, must be dismissed. The objective is to obtain a wise balance between academic autonomy and social responsibility, access to results and benefits produced by science and the legitimate individual interests of those who promote it, a redistribution of knowledge and copyrights, economic growth and ecological equilibrium, demands that originate in the market and those that do not, long-term and short-term projects, collective and individual interests. The agenda for a new social contract with science appears complicated. On the one hand, it is not clear whether ‘hard’ scientists are willing to yield the privileges they have traditionally enjoyed, in order to share their decisions with society at large. On the other, it is not clear how social groups can involve themselves in an informed manner. The ideal situation is to identify ways that allow the points discussed in Budapest to be understood as legitimate topics of public interest, subject to new decision-making mechanisms that go beyond those that utilize experts in relevant sectors. This set of ideas constitutes the ‘Spirit of Budapest’.

NEW WAYS OF GENERATING KNOWLEDGE

The scientific community, decision-makers and society in general, have responded to the challenges that globalization and the emphasis placed on the use of knowledge in all societal activities impose on the motivations and on the ways and means of generating knowledge. In the past few years, new forms of producing knowledge have been observed which, although they do not correspond to Mode 2 as described above, present several of its characteristics, and distance themselves from the traditional way of doing science (Mode 1). These forms are

THE ISA HANDBOOK IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY 96

an attempt to incorporate beneficiaries of scientific and technological research in the plethora of decisions involved in scientific work, from decisions on what to research to judgments on how to apply results for the benefit of society as a whole. They are a response to the globalization of science, and constitute interesting alternatives to the ‘reification’ of scientific research. They constitute a `third´ way which puts emphasis on social responsibility. I am calling them `Mode 3´, as opposed to Mode 1 and Mode 2.

Venezuela’s ‘Research Agendas’

For the past forty years, Venezuela has attempted to put into practice some form of scientific policy through its guiding body, the National Council for Scientific and Technological Research (‘Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas, CONICIT’), now called the National Fund for Science, Technology and Innovation (‘Fondo Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación, FONACIT’). Like other countries in Latin America, through the creation of the CONICIT, Venezuela sought to be able to rely on a steering organ for science and technology which would be responsible for the growth of the country’s scientific and technological apparatus according to a policy that privileges development (Jiménez and Escalante, 1995: 89). Despite a periodic formulation of national science and technology plans, drawn up by four different governments, that established priorities with respect to the type of science the country required, the conduct of science has been in the hands of the scientific community, which has long enjoyed full permanent ownership of policy (Vessuri, 1992: 29). Attempts have been made to associate the growth of the scientific infrastructure with the production of social benefits, according to what is commonly known as the ‘linear innovation model’. The allocation of resources, however, was perceived more as an expense rather than as an investment, more as an ‘ideological

luxury’ than as a program associated with a socio-economic development plan (Vessuri, 1984: 14). In practice, scientific activity was managed autonomously, on the assumption, in line with the linear model of scientific development, that applications are an automatic and inexorable sub-product. The role assumed by CONICIT was that of a supplier of resources for science, for those scientists who carried out their work according to this conception. Thus, the contract between science and society was limited to a ‘sponsorship’ by society of mode 1 type of research, which was not appropriate for the local needs (González et al., 1992: 359). With that perspective, the possible social use of knowledge was not considered an issue of concern for scientists. Thus, scientific research in Venezuela was an activity carried out by researchers, following their own objectives, even in the case of ‘applied’ research (Vessuri, 1992: 31). In consequence, ‘peer review’ was crucial to decide what it is that is allowed, and what is not. Moreover, peer review was the basic method of evaluation, of recognition, and compensation for notable performance and the generation of results, all of it almost exclusively evidenced by scientific publications (González et al., 1996: 89; Escalante and Jiménez, 1998: 68, Escalante and Jiménez, 2003: 338). Peer review thus becomes a sort of ‘accountability among colleagues’ that does not leave room for the participation of external judges or the opinion of ‘non-peers’, that is, people who could contribute with a social evaluation of what should be done (Ávalos and Rengifo, 2003: 186). Research Agendas In 1996, in contrast with the framework presented, CONICIT, subsequently continued by FONACIT, began the program ‘Research Agendas’ (Ávalos and Rengifo, 2003), as a new approximation to the formulation of techno-scientific policy in Venezuela. The program was designed as a process for building bridges between research, knowledge and technology, on the one hand, with the needs and opportunities of society, on the other, in an effort by

NEW COLLABORATIVE FORMS OF DOING RESEARCH 97

officials from non-scientific spheres, to find ways for scientists to return part of the investment made in them by the Venezuelan society at large. It is an interactive public policy based on the coordination of diverse social agents around common problems, supported by the legitimacy and autonomy of several participating interests, and oriented toward the happy culmination of diverse negotiations. As expected, participation plays a very important role in the process, and replaces bureaucratic or technocratic decision-making concerning the orientation of research and the use of its results. Decisions cannot be imposed as pre-established and final, rather, they are the result of interaction by participating institutions, and it is possible to submit them to revision at any stage of the process (Ávalos and Rengifo, 2003: 188). Agendas are stipulated in a process where interactive actor networks define problem networks that should be assumed by knowledge networks, not exclusively of scientific research. A dynamic of interaction is generated, defined by the nature of the problem networks: the social origin of the problem situation, the projects negotiated by cooperation, the means of evaluation -- which go beyond considerations of purely scientific or technological merit -- for the selection of projects. This negotiation is based on trust, cooperation and co-financing, on transparent rules with shared benefits and risks, on the decentralization of decision-making and participation, and on the social orientation and evaluation of results (Ávalos and Rengifo, 2003: 188). According to this orientation, scientific research should be financed not as a response to a proposal for sponsorship from some specialized scientific group, but as a response to a larger agenda of interests, that includes social concerns. The process implies the delimitation of a social space in which different actors identify and demand responses/solutions/support of socially produced knowledge by inter- and trans-disciplinary networks of institutions and individuals, beginning with the confluence of resources and capacities from inter-institutional sources, and incorporating

considerations of the context for applications of the findings by the final users/beneficiaries/clients. Therefore the values that go hand in hand with the process are cooperation, commitment to multiple legitimate interests, and links to national objectives of modernization, equity, productivity, democratization, and environmental sustainability, among others. The organizational climate associated with the process is of learning and creative problem-solving, easing the complex process of negotiations that the creation of an agenda necessarily implies (Ávalos and Rengifo, 2003: 189). Some agendas have had an impact in terms of ‘tangible’ results. For example the Cocoa Agenda, financed by the State and private producers, achieved an increase in the average cocoa production per hectare from 200 to 650 kilograms in some areas of the country, trained over five thousand farmers, created a germoplasm bank with the best plague resistant, quality seeds, and mapped potentially productive areas. The Rice Agenda, funded by Fundarroa an important production association, and public resources, produced four improved varieties of rice, increased productivity by 70% in some areas of the country, and improved yield from 3.2 to 7 tons per hectare. Other agendas of a different nature, such as the Oil Agenda, produced very important knowledge in the field of mathematical modeling for the oil industry (Genatios and La Fuente, 2004). The Research Agendas program has contributed significantly to experimenting with new approaches and practices in the field of public policy on research and development in Venezuela. This experiment has facilitated the emergence of similar initiatives that have been welcomed more favorably.2 The major contributions of the Agendas are:

• the adoption, in a limited way, of a knowledge production model (different from the conventional one) emphasizing trans-disciplinary work, new project evaluation criteria involving peers and non-peers, and a research orientation developed according to specific needs;

THE ISA HANDBOOK IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY 98

• the emergence of an innovative concept of research on public policies;

• the possibility of new forms of work based on alliances with other organizations, public or private, in the network modality, assuming new values associated with cooperative work;

• the beginning of a new institutionality, including some official regulations for more adequate policies in this area;

• the opening of new dialogue spaces related to the subject of research, making reference to problems of social concern, allowing the inclusion of new sectors, actors and agents;

• the enhancement of financial support from both the private sector and some international agencies (Ávalos, 2006).

This way of working suggests the emergence of a new way of doing research directly and unquestionably linked to societal needs, in line with the “Spirit of Budapest, baptized in this text as “Mode 3”.

Regional scientific communities in Mexico

In Mexico, a group of established researchers in the fields of the life sciences, working mostly in public institutions, aware of the need to break with traditional models of higher and graduate education and to create new regional research centers that truly respond to regional needs, have taken it upon themselves to innovate in these areas of human livelihood (CIDE, 2003). The idea was born of the recognition that the demand for higher education and scientific research for the first 20 years of the twenty-first century will not be satisfied via the traditional educational systems. The researchers have taken advantage of this reality to initiate innovative education systems based on learning and on the identification and solution of problems. Concretely this means that once a problem is identified, the student searches and finds the

knowledge that is pertinent and will lead to a solution. The researchers assert that:

The rise of these systems is based on advances in cognitive sciences, which demonstrate that learning is accomplished -- especially when referring to higher abilities and levels of cognitive performance -- when the emphasis is changed from teaching to learning, based on personal and group study carried out by the students (CIDE, 2003: 1. Free translation by the author, italics added).

These systems consider the heterogeneity of the students’ conditions, academic and otherwise, and this makes it necessary for the programs to be non-uniform. They are adapted to the circumstances of each student, thus liberating the education process from the dogmas of traditional pedagogy. Orienting and carrying out their own learning process, the students reach intellectual independence through the permanent exercise of critical judgment. The idea of regional scientific communities began to crystallize when the ‘La Laguna’3 College of Veterinarians brought this up as a demand to a group of scientists. The veterinarians were looking for a way to satisfy the needs of local professionals in the agriculture and livestock sciences, and to continue their academic training without having to abandon their daily work activities. In light of this scenario, the academics’ concept of teaching and research is developed as an answer to a heterogeneous set of individuals with different social, professional, and economic backgrounds. The innovative conceptualization of teaching and research was formalized many years after the start of activities, through the creation, in 1999, of an umbrella establishment named the Center for Innovation and Educational Development (CIDE), for ‘La Laguna’ and its surrounding area (CIDE, 2003: 1). CIDE recognizes that Mexican society needs scientists, and that the independent development of societies in the world cannot come about without the formation of a critical mass, capable of approaching scientific and technical problems that will allow them to grow, based on the acknowledgement and protection of their natural resources and their rational and

NEW COLLABORATIVE FORMS OF DOING RESEARCH 99

sustainable exploitation. It modifies the way in which learning takes place to reach the levels of quality that are sought, and accommodate a greater number of applicants, without affecting or increasing requirements for physical infrastructure. CIDE has constituted itself as a learning community whose basis is scientific activity and methodology, as well as the appropriation of a scientific and technological platform, made possible by the use of up-to-date information technologies. It is composed of a group of professor-researchers of the highest academic credentials from different educational institutions of the country, each one with more than 20 years experience in the design and operation of innovative undergraduate and graduate programs. They accommodate a student body that is heterogeneous in academic background, work experience, ideology, age, and economic condition, who share a democratic ideal, one humanist vocation, and one objective vision of the world, based on scientific thought (CIDE, 2003: 4). Keeping information current: In science, the information explosion has created a desperate need for constant updating and perfecting. Demand for information has never been as high, and this increase in demand makes it necessary to guarantee the supply of reliable information of the highest quality. To insure that its proposals and actions are solidly based on facts reported in the updated, high quality literature, CIDE assumes that the search and use of up-to-date relevant information published in the scientific mainstream is a fundamental premise for the fulfillment of its objectives. The aforementioned principle implies keeping up-to-date on the acquisition and control of the latest available versions of information resources which makes the exchange of information and communication among academic peers possible, regardless of their place of residence. Currently, science is man’s most dynamic and important productive force (Chomsky and Dietrich,

1996), and like any other social activity, it is a product of a persevering and collective effort. However, it is constantly in a process of development, with advances, regressions and limitations (CIDE, 2003: 3). Therefore, the members of CIDE are committed to permanent updating in the areas of computing, science, pedagogy, and communications in the foreign languages that are dominant in the dissemination of advances, and go beyond the thinking of Bronowski (1976), when asserting that science seeks consciously to adapt to the future, by considering that the most effective way of predicting the future does not consist in imagining it, but in producing it (CIDE, 2003: 3). The learning-research model: For CIDE, learning and research are two sides of the same coin. The student learns to research as part of a general learning process. He/she develops a great ability to use information tools in order to obtain the scientific information he/she needs to bring him/her closer to the solution of the problem which is the object of his/her research. At the same time, CIDE identifies and incorporates in a systematic way the new tools and technologies for independent and continuous learning, sustained in a flexible academic organization that stimulates group and personal study activities concurrently. It encourages a new model of interaction, both between teacher and student, as well as among students at diverse levels and degrees of advancement. CIDE personnel place special emphasis on learning activities of students and tutors, study habits, logical and mathematical capabilities, the use of information systems, the development of rhetorical and linguistic logic abilities, to improve their capacity to communicate research results, as well as facts and scientific explanations. Because of the nature of its student body, the CIDE incorporates substantial curricular modifications that allow students to adjust their study activities to the time they have available. Not counting

THE ISA HANDBOOK IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY 100

on infrastructure to carry out teaching activities, facilities are negotiated in the area where the regional scientific communities are located: the use of libraries from other institutions, laboratories, computers with access to global communication systems such as the Internet, sites for the recovery of empirical data, among others. Group work emerges in the ‘socialization’ (Radosevic, 1991) of results among teachers and students, and it takes place in any physical space that provides the facilities to gather all of its members: mentors, students, collaborators and observers. CIDE’s collegial body and group of advisers know the time required for learning in each one of the different phases of the graduate training process, at both the Master’s and the Doctoral level. In consequence, they have the ability to evaluate the progress of the students in each phase, in line with the time that has been invested individually in the student’s educational process and according to his / her particular situation. The individual does not compare him / herself to peers, since neither previous attributes nor the disposition of time will ever be the same. The arrangements described above imply that effective work time is what determines the presence and stability of attributes that characterize a scientific worker, and that the pace of learning will be a function of the time invested in processes of academic work, rather than of any rigid schedule marked by the school calendar. Evaluation: CIDE defines student academic evaluation as the development of individual attributes, measured as the fulfillment of specific activities common to any graduate program of quality. Among other standard graduate requirements, these activities may include the number of pages read, the number of filing cards formulated, the quality of the information analysis, the formulation of bibliographic retrieval lists, the logical organization of the facts identified in the files consulted, the interpretation demanded by the identified facts, and the formulation of a glossary of new terms.

In addition, due to the unusual nature of this program, the student also has to learn to identify and negotiate with the relevant individuals, firms, agencies, or institutions where he can carry out field work that may include observations, experimentation and measurements of the object of study. Likewise, students have to develop the ability to assess the time, monetary resources and instrumentation necessary for their experimental work. Emphasis is put in the student’s capacity for self-expression both orally and in writing, including the ability to correspond with scholars by e-mail. This capacity is necessary in order to succeed in a program demanding additional initiative and creativity from the student. The individualized curricular design and the educational practices in CIDE acknowledge the diversity of individualities, temperaments, aspir-ations and vocations needed to assure equal opportunities to each and every one of the students by offering a method, a pace, and a way of learning that suits both the specific needs of the student and the object of study. Institutional Planning Institutional policy includes elements that tend to democratize learning in a context of deep economic and social differences. These elements include the promotion of financial support for students of lesser economic capacity, in an effort to achieve equality of access to graduate education. CIDE’s policy favors activities for the training of teacher-advisers and students, through projects that emphasize the use of information of excellence, the study of problems located at the frontier of knowledge, the socialization of knowledge, periodic evaluation (by peers) of the academic activity, and the establishment of links with individuals and institutions dedicated to scientific research. CIDE recognizes the importance of having a presence in mainstream science, but maintaining academic work within the bounds of research relevant to regional and national needs. Therefore, CIDE’s objectives in the production of knowledge include the development of an innovative

NEW COLLABORATIVE FORMS OF DOING RESEARCH 101

model of research where projects are linked to social needs; reach an internationally competitive level in research results through scientific production in visible publications; produce reliable, precise and repeatable research results with scientific relevance, within the limits set by standards of measurement. CIDE promotes inter-institutional agreements that will make the achievement of institutional educational objectives possible, and produces scientific knowledge that will aid national development by searching for solutions to problems related to the biological environment. To make the promotion of human resources a reality, CIDE’s objectives also include maintaining a link between teaching and research, to promote academic collaboration with national and international research centers, to identify and promote new paradigms of learning, to establish training in alternative teaching practices, to modernize cybernetic learning units, to maintain constant updating of study plans in accordance with society’s structural changes, the advancement of scientific knowledge and the organic knowledge of learning processes.

Financing: How is this project financed? According to several inquiries made by the author, it is mostly self-financed, and, compared to any other alternative, public or private, is not expensive. In an interview with Dr. Rafael Rodríguez (2007), CIDE’s Coordinator in Torreón, Coahuila, he explained that students do not pay either registration or periodical fees. The transportation expense of external advisors is covered with funds raised among the students themselves. External advisors stay in the home of either local advisors or students. Laboratory facilities are negotiated individually by the students, according to their needs. For example, the seat of CIDE in Torreón is “La Laguna” branch of the Antonio Narro University. Since the Torreón advisors are full-time academics of “La Laguna”, they allow the students to carry out the experimental work in the University laboratories, with the consent of University authorities. Another instance of individual negociation

is the case of Rocío González, a microbiologist working for her Ph D. She works in the Microbiology Laboratory of the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS), the national social security agency that covers workers in the private sector. González carries out her experimental work in her laboratory, with permission of the authorities. Students purchase their own disposable laboratory materials.

CIDE’s coordinators and advisors do their job as a social contribution to regional development, as a way of returning to society some of what they have got from it; hence they do not expect a regular economic compensation. Since CIDE does not have a physical infrastructure, or Faculty salaries, it is capable of keeping expenses at a low level.

Regional Scientific Communities: The objective of CIDE is to form regional scientific communities (López-Pérez, 2004). The community is formed based on a group of ‘brains’ who have in common an interest in scientific development, and put everything they have at hand to reach that objective. Generally this is an individual decision, where people from educational institutions, research centers and firms participate. In the words of one of its founders: ‘we are above all interested in forming brains that will develop professional activity in the real world (firm, farm, etc.)’. It is clear that these communities are not produced in the universities, even when they carry out research, since they have different characteristics and objectives. These communities have developed research centers, in some cases. Such is the case of the first community established, working out of Colima, the capital of the State of the same name, where there is a biotechnology laboratory, producing scientific data and results that are published in prestigious international journals. CIDE has established regional scientific communities in Colima (1982), Torreón (1999), Sinaloa (2001), Puebla (2001) and one is in the process of creation (in 2005) in Nayarit (2005).

THE ISA HANDBOOK IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY 102

Recently, a new scientific community (CEJUS, 2004) was initiated in the Justo Sierra Study Center (‘Centro de Estudios Justo Sierra, CEJUS’) in Surutato, an isolated village located in the mountains of the northwestern state of Sinaloa (Jiménez and Ramón, 1989; Jiménez, 1992; Jiménez and Escalante, 1999). CEJUS is a unique educational experience based on the same educational and human principles advocated by CIDE. It was created in 1978 by the family heads of Surutato to improve the quality of education their children were receiving from the government, and to prepare them with working skills appropriate to the labor needs of the region. After a long period of struggle and confrontation, the Surutato community was able to mold the official education institutions according to their needs. Parents participate by donating labor and materials for the creation and maintenance of their educational center. The federal government contributes with salaries for the teachers and scholarships for the students (for more details see Jiménez and Escalante, 1999). The scientific community initially offers undergraduate studies in various professional careers related to the sustainable exploitation of the region’s natural resources, namely, the water, the land, the forest, and the weather. CEJUS is the meeting point for `socialization´ of results of CIDE’s students spread in the northwestern region of the country, in the states of Sinaloa, Nayarit, Sonora and Durango. With time, CEJUS will become a research center similar to the CIDE centers already in existence.

MODE 3: A NEW WAY OF DOING SCIENCE

Both the Venezuelan ‘Research Agendas’ and Mexico’s ‘Regional Scientific Communities’ respond to the need to do socially relevant science. Both are innovating ways of creating knowledge. Research Agendas are born within the bounds of official science, as an initiative

of CONICIT, whereas Regional Scientific Communities are a ‘grass-roots’ initiative, arising as a private concern of established academics coming mostly from public universities, as a response to felt needs of individuals and groups in rural communities. Both could serve as examples of Mode 2 research, however the property of ‘social accountability’ whose presence is a debatable aspect in Mode 2, is of the foremost importance in these new forms of doing science in Venezuela and Mexico. Indeed, we are in the presence of a different mode of doing science, “Mode 3”, which salient property is the genuine response to social needs, missing in Mode 2. The research agendas of Venezuela and the regional scientific communities of Mexico are only two Latin American examples of new forms of doing research with emphasis in social responsibility. Vessuri (2003: 270) reports two additional Latin American examples: one in Brazil involving a number of scientists as well as producers who have managed to produce soil fertility in the Brazilian cerrados to achieve an efficient and productive agriculture. The other one, in Costa Rica on specific poisons of Central American snakes, is benefiting the whole region with antidotes, developing ‘undergraduate and graduate education, and a broad social intervention to establish training programs for prevention and handling of ophidian accidents’ (Vessuri, 2003: 270). In France, new ways of interacting between science, technology and society have been developed, in which lay people work along with scientists to produce and diffuse knowledge. The term ‘research in the wild’ has been coined to refer to this new phenomenon (Callon and Rabeharisoa, 2003). An example is the organization of families of patients with muscular dystrophy to collect information about the generation and development of this terrible illness. They discuss it with specialists, engaging in a new type of interaction in which lay citizens contribute to the knowledge of an illness so that they impart to specialists the capacity at least to have a better understanding of its complexities. In this case, interested groups show how research must be conducted, even demanding that specialists explore

NEW COLLABORATIVE FORMS OF DOING RESEARCH 103

particular lines of research that they have uncovered. These examples of “research at the service of mankind” is in consonance with an alternative definition of development, not necessarily associated with “growth”. Development is not a matter of what one has, but of what one does with what one has. Development “is the desire and ability to use what is available to continuously improve the quality of life. This ability cannot be given to others even by those who have it. It must be developed in and for oneself” (Ackoff, 1974: 221-2). This definition is suitable for social contexts enduring rejection and scarcities to engage in research projects relevant to some segments of society, with a clearly defined felt need. Projects like those described in these pages give a sense of progress in the right direction, that is, towards genuine development. In conclusion, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, a renovated and perhaps idealistic concern of putting science at the service of man’s immediate needs is gradually emerging, materializing in concrete research projects. We are before new forms of doing science, different from Mode 1 and Mode 2. The major feature of this new mode is a genuine concern for solving problems endured by specific segments of society. We call it “Mode 3” to differentiate it from the modes defined by Gibbons et al. Indeed, the research agendas and the regional scientific communities, are congruent with the ‘spirit of Budapest’, and seek to develop a science that is at the service of those who sustain it, serving the interests of many, and leading to a better quality of collective life. Both are vivid examples of innovative forms of cooperation taking place in the early years of a new century, a matter of great concern for the International Sociology Association Research Committee Conference held in Ottawa in the summer of 2004.

NOTES

1. I wish to acknowledge the contribution of Juan Carlos Escalante and Carlos Rodríguez in compiling and revising the bibliography. 2. The official Science and Technology Plan 2005-2030 points to the need for a revolutionary change that leads to a ‘new scientific culture’. It implies going from a scientific culture of ‘fragmented, individualized, parceled, disciplinary, and linear’ knowledge to a ‘participative, dialogic, collectively organized, transdisciplin-ary, and integral’ knowledge (Ávalos, personal communication, 2006). 3. “La Laguna” or “Comarca Lagunera” is a region in the north of Mexico embodying part of the Coahuila and Durango states. 4. “Socialization” is used here in its current sense in Spanish. This entails the sharing of knowledge on has and the enriching of such knowledge through the participation in exchanges among community members.

REFERENCES

Ackoff, Russell L. (1974) Redesigning the Future. John Wiley & Sons: New York.

Albrow and King (1990) Globalization, Knowledge and Society : Readings from International Sociology. London: Sage.

Anderson, Sarah and John Cavanagh (1997) ‘World Trade Organization’, Foreign Policy in Focus, Vol. 2, No. 14, www.fpif.org, consulted Aug 8, 2006.

Ávalos, I. (2006) El saldo del Programa de Agendas. In Albornoz, M., and Alfaraz, C., eds. (2006) Redes de conocimiento: construcción, dinámica y gestión. Buenos Aires: RICYT / UNESCO. To be published.

Ávalos, I., and Rengifo, R. (2003) ‘From sector to networks: the Venezuelan CONICIT research agendas’, Technology In Society 25(2): 183–192.

Bronowski, J. (1976) A sense of the future: Essays in natural philosophy. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Callon, M., and Rabeharisoa, V. (2003) ‘Research “in the wild” and the shaping of new social identities’, Technology In Society 25(2): 193–204.

CEJUS (2004) Comunidad Científica. Educación Superior (Scientific Community. Higher Education). Surutato, Badiraguato, Sinaloa, México:

THE ISA HANDBOOK IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY 104

Centro de Estudios Justo Sierra (CEJUS).

Chomsky, N., and Dietrich, H. (1996) La sociedad global, educación, mercado, y democracia (Global society, education, market and democracy). México: Joaquín Mortiz.

CIDE (2003) Plan de Desarrollo del Centro de Innovación y Desarrollo Educativo, S. C. (Development Plan of the Innovation and Educational Development Center, S. C.). Unpublished document, pp. 1 - 11.

Crook, S., Pakulski, J., and Waters, M. (1992) Postmodernization: Change in Advanced Society. London: Sage.

David, P. (1992) Knowledge, Property and the System Dynamics of Technological Change. Paper delivered in the World Bank Annual Conference on Development Economics, Washington, April-May, 1992.

Elzinga, Aant (2004). ‘Metaphors, Models and Reification in Science and Technology Policy Discourse’, Science as Culture, Vol. 13, No. 1. pp. 105-121.

Escalante, J. C. and Jiménez, J. (1998) ‘Merit-Based Incentive Systems and the Problem of Productivity in Science and Technology in Two Latin American Countries’. Science Studies, 11(2): 63–75.

Escalante, J. C. and Jiménez, J. (2003) ‘Los Estímulos a la Productividad Académica y la Producción Real en Ciencia y Tecnología en dos Países Latinoamericanos. Los Casos de México y Venezuela’ (Incentives to the Academic Production and Real Production in Science and Technology in two Latin American Countries. The Mexico and Venezuela Cases), in M. A. Briceño (compilador), Universidad, Sector Productivo y Sustentabilidad. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela y Consejo de Desarrollo Científico y Humanístico, Serie Humanidades y Educación, pp. 331 – 345.

Fuller, S. (2000) The Governance of Science. Milton Keynes, U.K.: Open University Press.

Fuller, S. (2003) ‘In Search of Vehicles for Knowledge Governance: On the Need for Institutions that Creatively Destroy Social Capital’. In N. Stehr (ed.), The Governance of Knowledge. New Brunswick NJ: Transaction Books, pp. 41-76.

Genatios, C. and La Fuente, M. (2004) Ciencia y Tecnología en Venezuela. Caracas: OPSU.

General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (2006) http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/TG/PI/TRADE/gatt.html, consulted on August 28, 2006.

Gerber, Jim and Jorge Carrillo (2006). ‘Are Baja California’s Maquiladora Plants Competitive?’, Research and Seminars, http://migration.ucdavis.edu/rs, consulted on July 7, 2006.

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 Publications Ltd.

González, E., Bisiacchi, B., Viana di Prisco, G., and Di Prisco, M.C. (1992) ‘El programa de promoción del investigador en Venezuela’, Interciencia, 17(6): 358-365.

González, E., Arévalo, C., and Velasco, M. (1996) ‘Programa de promoción del investigador (PPI) en Venezuela : ¿Reconocimiento o estímulo?’, Interciencia, 21(2): 348-357.

Jiménez, J. (1992) ‘Surutato: An Experience in Rural Participative Planning’, in J. M. Choukroun and R. M. Snow (eds.) Planning for Human Systems. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 407-416.

Jiménez, J., and Escalante, J. C. (1995) ‘S&T Development in Mexico in Light of Current Global Transformations’, in C. Honig, ed. Science and Technology Policy: an International Perspective. London: The British Library, pp. 89-92.

Jiménez, J., and Escalante, J. C. (1999) ‘Community Development Through Participative Planning’, in Proceedings of the Russell L. Ackoff and the Advent of Systems Thinking. A Conference to Celebrate the Work of Russell L. Ackoff on his 80th Birthday and Developments in Systems Theory and Practice. Villanova: Villanova University Press, pp. 167-178.

Jiménez, J., and Ramón, F. (1989) ‘Evaluación de Estrategias de Cambio en el Proyecto de Educación Comunitaria (Change Strategies Evaluation in the Community Education Project)’, Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos (Latin American Journal of Educational Studies) XIX(3): 93–123.

López-Pérez, J. (2004). Comunicación personal vía correo electrónico (Personal communication via e-mail).

NEW COLLABORATIVE FORMS OF DOING RESEARCH 105

Mayor, F. (1999) ‘Message: A new contract between science and society’ UNESCO website. URL: <www.unesco.org/bpi/science/content/press/anglo/print.htm >.

Nowotny, H., Scott, P., and Gibbons, M. (2001) Re-Thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Nowotny, H., Scott, P., and Gibbons, M. (2003) ‘Mode 2 Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge’. Minerva, 41: 179 – 194.

Nowotny, H., Scott, P., and Gibbons, M. (2005) ‘Re-Thinking Science: Mode 2 in Social Context’ Nowotny web site. URL: www.nowotny.ethz.ch/pdf/Nowotny_Gibbons_Scott_Mode2.pdf.

Vessuri, H. (1984) ‘La formación de la comunidad científica en Venezuela’, Introd., en Hebe Vessuri (ed.), Ciencia Académica en la Venezuela Moderna. Caracas: Acta Científica Venezolana.

Vessuri, H. (1992) ‘Ciencia, tecnología y modernización en Venezuela’, en La

Ciencia en Venezuela : pasado, presente y futuro. Caracas: Cuadernos Lagoven.

Vessuri, H. (2003) ‘Science, politics, and democratic participation in policy-making: a Latin American view’. Technology in Society, 25(2): 263-273.

World Conference on Science (1999a) ‘Declaration on science and the uses of scientific knowledge’ UNESCO website. URL: <www.unesco.org/science/wcs/eng/declaration-e.htm >.

World Conference on Science (1999b) ‘Science Agenda - Framework for Action, paragraph 38’ UNESCO website. URL: <www.unesco.org/science/wcs/eng/framework.htm>.

World Trade Organization (2006) website. URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization, consulted on August 28, 2006.