Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Selection processes and appropriability in art, science and technology


Recently, there has been a mutually beneficial interchange of models and ideas between the sociology of science and the economics of technological innovation. Concepts such as the “paradigm” and the “network” seem to lend themselves to useful application in both fields. To these is added the concept of the “selection system”. The major aim of this paper is to show that the development of the arts can be described using the same conceptual framework. This allows the development of hypotheses concerning the relationship between art, science and technology, and also about the effect of appropriability conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Biagoli, M. (1993)Galileo Courtier: The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

  2. Boschloo, A.W.A., Hendrikse, E.J., Smit, L.C. and van der Sman, G-J. (1989)Academies of Art; Between Renaissance and Romanticism. SDU uitgeverij, s'Gravenhage.

  3. Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J.C. (1970)La reproduction: Elements pour une Theorie du Systeme d'Enseignement. Minuit, Paris.

  4. Burt, R.S. (1987) “Social Contagion and Innovation: Cohesion versus Structural Equivalence”,American Journal of Sociology, 92(May): 1287–1335.

  5. Clark, T.J. (1991) “Jackson Pollock's Abstraction”, in S. Guibault (ed.),Reconstructing Modernism, MIT Press, Cambridge (Mass), pp. 172–238.

  6. Crane, D. (1987)The Transformation of the Avant-Garde. University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London.

  7. Crow, T. (1983) “Modernism and Culture in the Visual Arts” in B.H.D. Buchlohet al. (eds.),Modernism and Modernity. The Press of Nova Scotia College of Art and Design, pp. 215–64.

  8. Debackere, K., Clarysse, B., Wijnberg, N.M. and Rappa, M.A. (1994) “Science and Industry: A Story of Networks and Paradigms”,Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 6(1): 21–37.

  9. Dosi, G. (1982) “Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories”,Research Policy, 11: 147–162.

  10. Dosi, G. (1988) “Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic effects of Innovation”,Journal of Economic Literature, 26(September): 1120–1171.

  11. Fisher, P. (1991)Making and Effaccing Art: Modern American Art in a Culture of Museums. Oxford University Press, New York & Oxford.

  12. Freeman, M. (1993)Finding the Muse: a sociopsychological enquiry into the conditions of artistic creativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  13. Frey, B.S. and Pommerehne, W.W. (1989)Muses and Markets. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

  14. Geertz, C. (1983)Local Knowledge. Basic Books, New York.

  15. Hull, D.L. (1988)Science as a Process, University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London.

  16. Kuhn, T.S. (1970)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London.

  17. Levin, R., Klevorick, A., Nelson, R. and Winter, R. (1987) “Appropriating the Returns to Industrial R & D”,Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3: 783–831.

  18. Martindale, C. (1990)The Clockwork Muse. Basic Books, New York.

  19. Martorella, R. (1990)Corporate Art. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick.

  20. Mossetto, G. (1993)Aesthetics and Economics. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht/Boston/London.

  21. Nelson, R.R., and Winter, S.G. (1982)An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Mass.).

  22. Saviotti, P.P. and Metcalve, J.S. (1984) “A Theoretical Approach to the Construction of Technological Output Indicators”,Research Policy, 13: 141–151.

  23. Shapin, S. (1989) “The House of Experiment in Seventeenth Century England”,Isis, 79: 373–404.

  24. Wijnberg, N.M. (1994) “National Systems of Innovation: Selection Environments and Selection Processes”,Technology in Society, 16(3): 313–320.

  25. Wijnberg, N.M. (1995) “Technological Paradigms and Strategic Groups: Putting Competition back into the Definitions”,Journal of Economic Issues, March, pp. 254–258.

Download references

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wijnberg, N.M. Selection processes and appropriability in art, science and technology. J Cult Econ 19, 221–235 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01074051

Download citation

Key Words

  • Art
  • science
  • technology