Dear Lubomir,
no, my distinction of modes 1 and 2 does not refer to basic/fundamental
versus applied/technical science. I explicitly rejected the usefulness of
the layered concept of clinical / applied / basic research for design. Of
course, you can identify levels etc. in between that allow to transfer
basic scientific findings to design problems. But this is not my focus here.
My distinction is one between two fundamentally different categories. Mode
2 is the "hybrid swamp" of being involved in laboratory or field practice,
a mix of scientific and practical and social activities with communication,
communities, biographies, rivalry, emotions, etc. where the raw material of
scientific knowledge is created.
Everything you are saying refers to mode 1, the carefully purified version
of scientific production. Except when you say: "but as usual, there was no
response". There you give a small hint that you are sometimes acting in the
swamp too.
Normal science, in order to stay normal, has to deny the strong influence
of this swamp called laboratory practice.
Well, apart from your attempt to neutralize my idea by adapting it to your
model, what do you think of that? It refers (among others) to the work of
Ian Hacking, Karin Knorr-Cetina, Bruno Latour, Helga Nowotny, Dominique
Pestre.
Jonas
|