What is the interrelating link between institutions and knowledge, primarily scientific knowledge? Conventional international relations literature focuses typically on the impact of knowledge on institutions. Virginia Walsh's interest, however, is to “turn the causal arrow” by focusing on the “institutional dimension” of knowledge creation: How do global political and economic, but also epistemic, institutions shape knowledge generation? (pp. 4–5, 38, 128, 130). Here, the scientific disciplines qualify as epistemic institutions (p. 34). From that point of departure, underscoring an institutional perspective, the emphasis concentrates on the “institutional mechanisms” through which knowledge is being formed. Groups leverage institutional mechanisms to “generate knowledge and fix beliefs” for the purposes of 1) establishing common understandings, 2) repairing uncertainties, and 3) directing inquiry by “fixing its direction” (pp. 3, 9, 38).

Walsh explicitly borrows the term belief fixation from the philosopher Charles S. Peirce (The Fixation of Belief, 1877). She also draws the connection of defining knowledge as an “accepted belief” of individuals or groups (pp. 19–20, 41–42). In that understanding, knowledge is a “social knowledge” and observable, and consequently we can speak of “social beliefs” about “social facts” (pp. 8–9, 40–41, 47–49). Groups and individuals frequently are challenged to “make important decisions under conditions of uncertainty.” Beliefs should reduce such uncertainties, thus supporting groups and individuals in their decision-making and problem-solving interest and emphasis (pp. 21, 44, 129, 137).

With regard to conceptual comprehensiveness, Walsh places the term institution between organization and system. Referring to the cited Oran R. Young (Science Plan, 1999), an organization represents by tendency the material entities, empirical configurations, and social practices of actors, while institution also addresses the “rules of the game” that underlie and structure the empirical patterns (p. 6). The author stresses that institutions “consist of clusters of social roles, to which rights and rules (or responsibilities) are attached” (p. 130). At the same time, she carries the broadest interpretation of an institution closely to the concept of a system, by claiming that the global political, economic, and epistemic institutions represent “complex systems” (pp. 38, 43). In a furthest understanding, there might be no difference between a social institution and a social system. Walsh explicitly acknowledges that in addition to an institutional dimension, there also exist organizational dimensions of knowledge generation (p. 137). Where the state, market, and scientist or the political/economic/epistemic institutions overlap, so-called hybrid institutions operate (pp. 35–38, 132).

Walsh sets up for discussion the following three mechanisms for fixing social beliefs: 1) The positional fix: A person, often a decision maker, uses his or her position, that is, social role with the attached rights and rules, for selecting beliefs or framing research (pp. 11, 38–39, 130). This may be seen as a statement supporting the claim that leadership qualities crucially impact organizations. 2) The statutory fix: Based on “ideas embedded in formal or informal rules” of institutions, beliefs (even if only temporarily) are being established (pp. 11–12, 39–40). Embedded ideas have the power to guide the selection and acceptance of beliefs and of research, and, in that respect, institutions can act as “amplifiers” of ideas, according to a cited quotation of Peter Haas and David McCabe (Learning to Manage Global Environmental Risks, 2001). Put in other words, acting persons can refer to the embedded ideas when decisions have to be made that influence knowledge generation (p. 130). Taken to an extreme, one could postulate that nothing like an idea-free or idea-neutral institution exists. 3) The committee fix: Regular formal or informal group meetings, within the framework of accepted “regularized practices,” can shape beliefs (pp. 12, 40, 130–31). This resembles a typical practice for organizations, is being regularly applied by employed scientific or other expert staff, and refers to the conviction that through procedure, a consensus about content (knowledge content) may be established.

For the empirical testing of her conceptual propositions about “institutionalism” (p. 6), Walsh focuses on two structured comparative case studies: the Scripps Institute of Oceanography [www.sio.ucsd.edu], 1900–70, and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), 1950s–90s [www.iattc.org]. Importantly, she contrasts the explanatory powers of institutionalism with “neorealism” and the “interest group approach” (pp. 10, 22–23, 131). “Poststructuralism” is shortly reviewed, but not integrated in the juxtaposition of different concepts, since poststructuralism can be regarded as incommensurable with institutionalism (pp. 17, 131). According to the author, institutionalism predicts better institutional decision making and behavior: first, when compared against neorealism in the case of the Scripps Institution, and second, when compared against the interest group approach in the case of IATTC (pp. 131–32).

It is interesting to evaluate the propositions of Walsh's institutional dimension of knowledge generation in the context of other current theories and concepts of knowledge:

1. Social knowledge changes society: The author argues that beliefs (i.e., social knowledge) are necessary for interest perception and for deciding on action (pp. 129, 137). Similarly, Stuart A. Umpleby defines social theories as theories that, “when acted upon, change social systems” (“Cybernetics of Conceptual Systems,” Cybernetics and Systems 28 [1997]: 635–51).
2. Accepted beliefs and paradigms: It appears that Walsh's approach of introducing accepted beliefs as (social) knowledge falls closely to how Thomas S. Kuhn defines a “paradigm” (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962). Walsh elaborates on the mechanisms through which institutions fix beliefs, thus specifically acknowledging organizational ramifications. Kuhn emphasizes (also, but not only) the epistemic dimension, claiming that different paradigms can employ differing conceptual explanatory power. Walsh does not refer to Kuhn.
3. Political/economic/epistemic institutions and Triple Helix: Walsh preferably discusses institutional knowledge generation in the global context of political, economic, and epistemic institutions, and also brings so-called hybrid institutions into perspective. This design reveals similarities with the Triple Helix concept of Henry Etzkowitz and Loet Leydesdorff, who focus on the interaction of state, industry, and academia, paraphrased as “helices.” They also underscore the importance of “tri-lateral networks and hybrid organizations” for innovation, which specifically place in the overlap area of the “university-industry-government relations” (e.g., see Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, “The Dynamics of Innovation,” Research Policy 29 [2000]: 109–23). Walsh cites Etzkowitz.
4. Knowledge generation and Mode 1/Mode 2: A new understanding of knowledge, which crucially influenced academic and decision-making communities in Europe, bases the properties of “Mode 2” of knowledge production (somewhat in contrast to “Mode 1,” the conventional scientific knowledge production at universities) on “knowledge produced in the context of application”; “transdisciplinarity”; “heterogeneity and organizational diversity”; “social accountability and reflexivity”; and “quality control” (Michael Gibbons et al., The New Production of Knowledge, 1994). Mode 2 crucially supplements Mode 1, without replacing Mode 1. Walsh does not cite the Mode 1/Mode 2 authors, but, as in the case of Kuhn's paradigm approach, there might be opportunities for a mutual conceptual benefiting between Walsh's emphasis on institutions and the Mode 1/Mode 2 claims (and Kuhn's paradigms).

All these reviewed knowledge theories contemplate the epistemic considerations of knowledge generation. From an institutional perspective, “failures of collective epistemic action” can have “institutional sources,” as stated in Walsh's conclusion (p. 135). Attempts to close knowledge gaps, therefore, may demand redesigning the institutional framework of a society or of the global international system.