In the 21^st century knowledge becomes a main good with a high competitive benefit for the society. Thus, higher education institutions are playing an important role in this knowledge-based society which shows a clear shift from a pure discipline-orientation of science towards increased interdisciplinarity and a growing orientation towards marketisation. These challenges are changing universities in terms of knowledge production form mode 1 to mode 2. Mode 1 classifies research as disciplinary and university based while mode 2 generates research in the context of application and follows an interdisciplinary approach. Furthermore, mode 2 is applied across locations and cannot be fixed at one place (fluid) and consequently needs new forms of quality control (Gibbons et al. 1994). Despite this shift towards a new mode of knowledge production the disciplinary orientation still persists and both modes can develop next to each other – but to a mutual benefit (Carayannis/Campbell 2007, p.80). To overcome the gap between both modes of knowledge production a further mode has been developed: mode 3 serves  as an application system between university, society and economy in the area of conflict (Carayannis/Campbell 2006). Thus, a transdisciplinary approach of science and research arises next to an interdisciplinary mode of knowledge production.

These new forms of knowledge production are influencing all areas of a university and open new possibilities and changes. As a consequence universities are developing new innovative strategies, which are reflected in a rise of entrepreneurial activities within universities. They are aiming to improve the regional and national economic performance as well as to increase the financial benefits for universities and their scientists (Etzkowitz et al. 2000, p.313; see also Clark 1998). Within this area of conflict concerning fundamental changes and challenges in the field of higher education a pre-quality era started (Ewell 2007, p.123). Hence, all these transformations are tightly connected with a “growing interest in quality, demands for accountability, and the establishment of national quality agencies” (Newton 2007, p.14). In the literature there are lots of different definitions for the term quality related to education. A heuristic frame, for instance, is provided by Harvey und Green (1993, pp.9ff) who differ between quality as excellence, transformation, purpose, value for money (accountability) or perfection. To adapt higher education institutions to the ongoing transformation processes a functioning quality assurance system has to be established. Lots of these systems have been implemented quite recently and are in a turbulent phase because these systems have to adapt to multiple changes and to react on the needs of today’s knowledge society.

How can European higher education institutions meet these new challenges? Can high-quality research and teaching be assured in this complex scientific community? This study will show the international pressures for internal and external quality control mechanisms Austria has to face. An interdisciplinary organisational unit at the University of Graz/Austria, the Department of Environmental and Regional Science and Education (in short: URBi) will exemplify these new challenges of a changing university. Finally the implications of this example for the European/international setting will be given.

Carayannis, E.G./Campbell, D.F.J. (2006): “Mode 3“: Meaning and Implications from a Knowledge Systems Perspective. In: Carayannis, E.G./Campbell, D.F.J. (Eds.): Knowledge Creation, Diffusion, and Use in innovation Networks and Knowledge Clusters: A Comparative Systems Approach across the United States, Europe and Asia. Westport, CT: Praeger. pp. 1-25. Carayannis, E.G./Campbell, D.F.J. (2007): Towards a Twenty-First-Century Fractal Innovation Ecosystem. In: Carayannis, E.G./Ziemnowicz, C. (Eds.): Rediscovering Schumpeter: creative destruction evolving into “Mode 3“. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 71-111. Clark, B.R. (1998): Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organisational pathways of Transformation. Oxford: Pergamon. Etzkowitz, H. et al. (2000): The Future of the University and the University of the Future: Evolution of Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial Paradigm. In: Research Policy, Vol. 19, No. 2. pp. 313-330. Ewell, P. (2007): The “Quality Game”: External Review and Institutional Reaction over Three Decades in the United States. In: Westerheijden, D.F. et al. (Eds.): Quality Assurance in Higher Education. Trends in Regulation, Translation and Transformation. Dortrecht: Springer. pp. 119-153. (Higher Education Dynamics, Vol. 20) Gibbons, M. et al. (1994): The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage Publications. Harvey, L./Green, D. (1993): Defining Quality. In: Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol.18, No.1. pp. 9-34. Newton, J. (2007): What is quality? In: Bollaert, L. et al. (Eds.). Embedding Quality Culture in Higher Education. A Selection of Papers from the 1st European Forum for Quality Assurance, 23.-25 November 2006 an der Technischen Universität München. Spp. 14-20. (EUA Case Studies 2007)