It expresses produced knowledge to be context related, problem focussed and interdisciplinary. It tries to deviate from knowledge creation as we'd know it from practicing science in general. By doing so it puts science as it is in Mode 1, making it seems dated and from a "past" time. Some find Mode 2 lacking on empirical validity, conceptual strength and politically value. I also think it's a bit nonsense, because the way mode 2 is describes seems to be what I thought mode 1 was. No difference. However, it looks more like a critique to how science is practiced nowadays, in silos. Perhaps it rightfully tries to point out that there should be more collaboration.