THE REVOLUTIONARY POTENTIAL OF MODE 4 KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION

Author: Pitshou Moleka, PhD

ABSTRACT

In an age of unprecedented global complexity, interconnectedness, and urgency, the inadequacy of traditional, reductionist models of knowledge production has become glaringly apparent. This pioneering, landmark article offers a sweeping, paradigm-shifting exploration of the revolutionary emergence of “Mode 4” knowledge production – a fundamental reconceptualization of the epistemological, organizational, and methodological foundations of the research enterprise. Drawing on cutting-edge theoretical frameworks and a vast corpus of rigorous empirical evidence, this work argues that Mode 4 represents a transformative leap towards a more collaborative, transdisciplinary, and adaptive approach to knowledge creation one that holds the potential to catalyze a profound and lasting transformation in the way we conceive of, organize, and mobilize research to address the complex, interconnected challenges facing our world. At the heart of this paradigm shift lies the groundbreaking “decuple helix” framework, which expands the scope of stakeholder engagement and knowledge co-creation to incorporate a comprehensive range of actors, from academia and industry to marginalized communities, the natural environment, and international organizations. This article delves deeply into the multifaceted roles and invaluable contributions of this diverse array of stakeholders, demonstrating how their active integration can unlock the transformative power of collaborative, values-oriented research and innovation. Furthermore, the paper provides a comprehensive example of how Mode 4 knowledge production concepts could be implemented using cutting edge innovationology research.

By drawing on a rich tapestry of theoretical foundations, including complexity theory, quantum physics, humanities, social sciences, spirituality, and the arts, innovationology exemplifies the transdisciplinary ethos at the core of this paradigm shift. The article delves deeply into the collaborative co-creation, iterative and adaptive methodologies, and holistic, values-driven vision that define this groundbreaking transdisciplinary science. However, this work also candidly explores the significant institutional, methodological, equity-related, and scalability challenges that continue to hinder the widespread adoption and implementation of the Mode 4 and decuple helix frameworks. In doing so, it charts a course forward, outlining a comprehensive set of practical implications and recommendations to address these barriers and unlock the transformative potential of these emerging paradigms. Ultimately, this article offers a sweeping, cohesive, and visionary analysis of the revolutionary emergence of Mode 4 knowledge production and the decuple helix framework – positioning itself as a landmark contribution that has the potential to catalyze a profound transformation in the way we conceive of, organize, and mobilize research for a sustainable and equitable future. With its groundbreaking insights, bold vision, and rigorous interdisciplinary foundation, this work stands as a clarion call for a new era of collaborative, transdisciplinary knowledge production that can truly address the complex, interconnected crises facing our world

Keywords: Mode 4 Knowledge Production, Knowledge Management, Transdisciplinary Paradigm, Decuple Helix, Innovationology, Sustainability Science, Complexity Theory, Collaborative Co-creation, Knowledge Integration, Systemic Transformation, Mode 3 Knowledge Production, Mode 2 Knowledge Production, Mode 1 Knowledge Production, Quadruple Helix.

REFERENCES

  • Alajlani, N., Crabb, M., & Murray, I. (2023). A systematic review in understanding stakeholders’ role in developing adaptive learning systems. Journal of Computers in Education, 1-20.
  • Bammer, G. (2013). Disciplining interdisciplinarity: Integration and implementation sciences for researching complex real-world problems. ANU Press.
  • Boell, S. K., & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2014). A hermeneutic approach for conducting literature reviews and literature searches. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 34(1), 12.
  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
  • Caniglia, G., Luederitz, C., von Wirth, T., Fazey, I., Martín-López, B., Hondrila, K., & Lang, D. J. (2021). A pluralistic and integrated approach to action-oriented knowledge for sustainability. Nature Sustainability, 4(2), 93-100.
  • Choquez-Millan, M. F., Lechtape, C. L., Löhr, K., Schröter, B., & Graef, F. (2024). Uncovering power asymmetries in North-South research collaborations–An example from sustainability research in Tanzania. Futures, 156, 103316.
  • Compagnucci, L., Spigarelli, F., Coelho, J., & Duarte, C. (2021). Living Labs and user engagement for innovation and sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 289, 125721.
  • Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.
  • Cruz, I., Münderlein, D., Nanz, P., Schäpke, N., Schneidewind, U., Singer-Brodowski, M., & Wittmayer, J. M. (2022). Transformative research in sustainability science: Evaluating the contribution of multi-stakeholder processes. Sustainability Science, 17(1), 9-25.
  • Dalton, A., Wolff, K., & Bekker, B. (2021). Multidisciplinary research as a complex system International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 16094069211038400.
  • Fuster Morell, M., & Senabre Hidalgo, E. (2022). Mapping the field of open science and innovation: A bibliometric analysis. Research Evaluation, 31(1), 51-64.
  • Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage.
  • Hernández‐Medina, E. (2010). Social inclusion through participation: the case of the participatory budget in São Paulo. International Journal of urban and regional research, 34(3), 512-532.
  • Kier, C., Aaltonen, K., Whyte, J., & Huemann, M. (2023). How projects co-create value with stakeholders: The role of ideology and inquiry in spanning the temporary-permanent boundary. International Journal of Project Management, 41(5), 102482.
  • Le Moigne, J., & Petersen, M. J. (2016). Donor engagement with religion and faith-based organisations in development cooperation. Copenhagen: Danish Network on Religion and Development.
  • Luederitz, C., Schäpke, N., Wiek, A., Lang, D. J., Bergmann, M., Bos, J. J., & Westley, F.(2016). Learning through evaluation–A tentative evaluative scheme for sustainability transition experiments. Journal of Cleaner Production, 169, 61-76.
  • Moleka, P. (2024a). Innovationology: A Comprehensive, Transdisciplinary Framework for Driving Transformative Innovation in the 21st Century. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202409.0700.v1
  • Moleka, P. (2024b). Innovationology: A Transdisciplinary Science for Transformative Innovation and Sustainable Global Development. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202409.1064.v1
  • Moleka, P. (2024c). Frugal Innovation for Inclusive and Sustainable Development in Africa. Advanced Research in Economics and Business Strategy Journal.5 (1):107-117.
  • Moleka, P. (2024d). Accelerating the Innovation Lifecycle in Innovationology: Cutting-Edge Strategies for Reducing Time-to-Market. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202409.1658.v1
  • Moleka, P. (2024e). Holistic Education. Enhancing the Mind, Body and Soul. The Innovationology Series / TOME V. GRIN: Verlag
  • Moleka, P. (2024f). Innovationology and the Geoeconomics of the BRICS. Towards a Sustainable and Equitable Global Order. The Innovationology Series / TOME VII. GRIN: Verlag.
  • Moleka, P. (2024g). Innovationology: A Goundbreaking Transdisciplinary Framework for Sustainable and Equitable Development in Africa. International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Review. 7(5):178-193.
  • Moleka, P. (2024h). Innovation Metrics for the 21st Century: An Innovationology-based Comprehensive, Multidimensional Framework. International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Review. 7(5):199-210.
  • Moleka, P. (2024i). Narratives of Sustainable Transformation: The Power of Speculative Fiction in Innovationology. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202410.0204.v1
  • Moleka, P. (2024j). Innovative entrepreneurship through alternative finance: A framework for sustainable and innovative business models. In M. Fanea-Ivanovici & H. Baber (Eds.), Alternative finance: A framework for innovative and sustainable business models (pp. 13-28). Taylor & Francis.
  • Moleka, P. (2024k). Ubuntu and Sustainable Cities in Africa. In The Palgrave Handbook of Ubuntu, Inequality and Sustainable Development. Chapter DOI 10.1007/978-3-031-69573-5_22
  • Moleka, P. (2024l). The Transformative Power of Innovationology. Preprints. 2024102225. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202410.2225.v1
  • Norström, A. V., Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M. F., West, S., Wyborn, C., Balvanera, P., … & Österblom, H. (2020). Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature Sustainability, 3(3), 182-190.
  • Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity.
  • Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage publications.
  • Pohl, C. (2011). What is progress in transdisciplinary research? Futures, 43(6), 618-626.
  • Popa, F., Guillermin, M., & Dedeurwaerdere, T. (2015). A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: From complex systems theory to reflexive science. Futures, 65, 45-56.
  • Potts, R., Vella, K., Dale, A., & Sipe, N. (2018). Navigating the space between sustainability goals and priorities in a regional plan. Sustainability, 10(3), 622.
  • Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Sage.
  • Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4(2), 155-169.
  • Sharma, M., & Shannon-Baker, P. (2023). Non-Indigenous Instructors Teaching about Indigenous Content: Reflections and Recommendations from Indigenous Ways of Knowing and Pedagogy. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 17(2), 5.
  • Sun, P., & Zuo, X. (2024). Philosophical Foundations of Management Research: A Comprehensive Review. Journal of Scientific Reports, 6(1), 1-22.
  • Van Drooge, L., & Spaapen, J. (2022). Evaluation and monitoring of transdisciplinary collaborations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 47(3), 747-761.
  • Venkatraman, S., & Venkatraman, R. (2018). Communities of practice approach for knowledge management systems. Systems, 6(4), 36.
  • Walsh, S., Bickel, B., & Leggo, C. (2014). Arts-based and contemplative practices in research and teaching. Taylor & Francis.
  • Wiarda, M., Janssen, M. J., Coenen, T. B., & Doorn, N. (2024). Responsible mission governance: An integrative framework and research agenda. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 50, 100820.
  • Wittmayer, J. M., & Schäpke, N. (2014). Action, research and participation: roles of researchers in sustainability transitions. Sustainability Science, 9(4), 483-496.
  • Zamiri, M., & Esmaeili, A. (2024). Methods and technologies for supporting knowledge sharing within learning communities: A systematic literature review. Administrative Sciences, 14(1), 17.