Advertisement

An evolutionary analysis of the innovation policy domain: Is there a paradigm shift?

  • Serhat BurmaogluEmail author
  • Ozcan Saritas
Article

Abstract

Researchers focus on understanding the nature of ecosystems and societies as well as explaining how paradigms change. These efforts are presented and disseminated through scholarly work in scientific literature. The pool of knowledge generated through databases allows one to track how our understanding changes and how paradigms shift through time. The present study is concerned with the domain of innovation policy, which is affected directly by societal and technological change and is a good archetype for demonstrating the scientific change perspective. In recent years, scientometrics has been frequently used to measure and analyze progress in science, technology and innovation. This study makes use of a combination of scientometric analysis and evolutionary framework analysis to demonstrate the evolution of innovation policy domain. Kuhn’s seminal approach is applied for classifying and interpreting the phases across the evolution of the domain within a 30-year timeframe. The analysis demonstrates that the innovation policy domain is at the “crisis stage” as a result of ongoing with transformations in the society, technology, economy and policy. These transformations affect both supply and demand sides of innovation and call for an evolution in the innovation policy domain. Although this by no means represents that the innovation policy domain is in a “deadlock”, the present study asserts that there is a new quest in innovation policy by adapting, re-framing or re-constructing the scope of the domain. The anticipated paradigm shift is expected to lead to a more de-centralized and distributed understanding of the world for innovation policy making.

Keywords

Innovation Policy Technology Scientific change Paradigm Evolutionary analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Dr. Ozcan Saritas’ contribution in this publication was supported within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University HSE and was funded within the framework of the subsidy granted to the HSE by the Government of the Russian Federation for the implementation of the Global Competitiveness Program. Dr. Serhat Burmaoglu’s contribution in this publication was supported by TUBITAK 229 Program and IKC-BAP 2018-ODL-IIBF-0015.

References

  1. Ankeny, R. A., & Leonelli, S. (2016). Repertoires: A post-kuhnian perspective on scientific change and collaborative research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 60, 18–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2016.08.003.Google Scholar
  2. Arrow, K. (1962). ‘Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In R. R. Nelson (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors. Washington: NBER.Google Scholar
  3. Bhushan, B. (2015). Perspective: Science and technology policy—What is at stake and why should scientists participate? Science and Public Policy, 42(6), 887–900.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scv005.Google Scholar
  4. Bleda, M., & del Rio, P. (2013). The market failure and the systemic failure rationales in technological innovation systems. Research Policy, 42(5), 1039–1052.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.02.008.Google Scholar
  5. Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2010). Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2389–2404.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21419.Google Scholar
  6. Boyer, R. (1990). The regulation school: A critical introduction. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Burns, T. R., Roszkowska, E., Machado Des Johansson, N., & Corte, U. (2018). Paradigm shift in game theory: Sociological re-conceptualization of human agency, social structure, and agents’ cognitive-normative frameworks and action determination modalities. Social Sciences, 7(3), 1–40.Google Scholar
  8. Bush, V. (1945). Science, the endless frontier: A report to the president. Washington, DC: G.P.O.Google Scholar
  9. Cantner, U., & Pyka, A. (2001). Classifying technology policy from an evolutionary perspective. Research Policy, 30(5), 759–775.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00104-9.Google Scholar
  10. Chandler, A. D. (2003). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American industrial enterprise. Washington, DC: Beard Books.Google Scholar
  11. Chen, C. M. (2004). Searching for intellectual turning points: Progressive knowledge domain visualization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, 5303–5310.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0307513100.Google Scholar
  12. Chen, C. M. (2006). Citespace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359–377.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317.Google Scholar
  13. Chen, C., & Song, M. (2017). Representing scientific knowledge the role of uncertainty. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Chen, C. M., Song, I. Y., Yuan, X. J., & Zhang, J. (2008). The thematic and citation landscape of data and knowledge engineering (1985–2007). Data & Knowledge Engineering, 67(2), 234–259.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2008.05.004.Google Scholar
  15. Cobo, M. J., Lopez-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1382–1402.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525.Google Scholar
  16. Davenport, S., & Bibby, D. (1999). Rethinking a national innovation system: The small country as ‘sme’. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 11(3), 431–462.  https://doi.org/10.1080/095373299107447.Google Scholar
  17. De Langhe, R. (2017). Towards the discovery of scientific revolutions in scientometric data. Scientometrics, 110(1), 505–519.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2108-x.Google Scholar
  18. Edler, J., & Fagerberg, J. (2017). Innovation policy: What, why, and how. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33(1), 2–23.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grx001.Google Scholar
  19. Edquist, C. (1999). Innovation policy: A systemic approach. Linköping: TEMA, Univ.Google Scholar
  20. Edquist, C. (2001). Innovation policy in the systems of innovation approach: Some basic principles. In Knowledge, complexity and innovation systems (pp. 46–57). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Edquist, C., & Johnson, B. (1997). Institutions and organizations in systems of innovation. In C. Edquist, & M. McKelvey (Eds.), Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations (pp. 165–188). Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Ergas, H. (1987). The importance of technology policy. In P. Dasgupta, & P. Stoneman (Eds.), Economic policy and technological performance (pp. 51–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Fagerberg, J. (2017). Innovation policy: Rationales, lessons and challenges. Journal of Economic Surveys, 31(2), 497–512.  https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12164.Google Scholar
  24. Fagerberg, J., & Verspagen, B. (2009). Innovation studies-the emerging structure of a new scientific field. Research Policy, 38(2), 218–233.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.12.006.Google Scholar
  25. Flanagan, K., & Uyarra, E. (2016). Four dangers in innovation policy studies—And how to avoid them. Industry and Innovation, 23(2), 177–188.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2016.1146126.Google Scholar
  26. Foray, D. (2004). Economics of knowledge. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Freeman, C. (1987). Technology, policy, and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Fuchs, S. (1993). A sociological-theory of scientific change. Social Forces, 71(4), 933–953.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2580125.Google Scholar
  29. Garfield, E., Malin, M. V., & Small, H. (1978). Citation data as science indicators. In J. L. Y. Elkana, R. K. Merton, A. Thackray, & H. Zuckerman (Eds.), Toward a metric of science: The advent of science indicators. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  30. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  31. Gmur, M. (2003). Co-citation analysis and the search for invisible colleges: A methodological evaluation. Scientometrics, 57(1), 27–57.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023619503005.Google Scholar
  32. Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171110.Google Scholar
  33. Gutting, G. (1980). Paradigms and revolutions appraisals and applications of Thomas Kuhn’s philosophy of science. Indiana, USA: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social-learning, and the state—The case of economic policy-making in britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275–296.  https://doi.org/10.2307/422246.Google Scholar
  35. Hamari, J., Sjoklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2016). The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(9), 2047–2059.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23552.Google Scholar
  36. Hassink, R., & Lagendijk, A. (2001). The dilemmas of interregional institutional learning. Environment and Planning C-Government and Policy, 19(1), 65–84.  https://doi.org/10.1068/c9943.Google Scholar
  37. He, Q. (1999). Knowledge discovery through co-word analysis. Library Trends, 48(1), 133–159.Google Scholar
  38. Hegger, D., Lamers, M., Van Zeijl-Rozema, A., & Dieperink, C. (2012). Conceptualising joint knowledge production in regional climate change adaptation projects: Success conditions and levers for action. Environmental Science & Policy, 18, 52–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.01.002.Google Scholar
  39. Hicks, D. (1987). Limitations of cocitation analysis as a tool for science policy. Social Studies of Science, 17(2), 295–316.Google Scholar
  40. Howells, J. (2005). Innovation and regional economic development: A matter of perspective? Research Policy, 34(8), 1220–1234.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.014.Google Scholar
  41. Hughes, T. P. (1986). The evolution of large technological systems. Berlin: WZB.Google Scholar
  42. Jasanoff, S., Markle, G. E., Peterson, J. C., & Pinch, T. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of science and technology studies. Sage publications.Google Scholar
  43. Jones, W. P., & Furnas, G. W. (1987). Pictures of relevance—A geometric analysis of similarity measures. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 38(6), 420–442.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(Sici)1097-4571(198711)38:6%3c420:Aid-Asi3%3e3.0.Co;2-S.Google Scholar
  44. Kaplan, D. E. (1999). On the literature of the economics of technological change. Science and technology policy in South Africa. South African Journal of Economics, 67(4), 473–490.Google Scholar
  45. Kern, F. (2012). Using the multi-level perspective on socio-technical transitions to assess innovation policy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(2), 298–310.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.07.004.Google Scholar
  46. Klavans, R., & Boyack, K. W. (2017). Which type of citation analysis generates the most accurate taxonomy of scientific and technical knowledge? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(4), 984–998.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23734.Google Scholar
  47. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  48. Lejano, R. P., & Dodge, J. (2017). The narrative properties of ideology: The adversarial turn and climate skepticism in the USA. Policy Sciences, 50(2), 195–215.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9274-9.Google Scholar
  49. Lundvall, B.-A. K. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London, New York: Pinter Publishers. Distributed exclusively in the USA and Canada by St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  50. Lundvall, B. Å. (2001). Innovation policy in the globalizing learning economy. In B. Å. Lundvall & D. Archibugi (Eds.), The globalizing learning economy (pp. 273–291). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Malerba, F. (1997). Public policy and industrial dynamics: An evolutionary perspective. In C. Edquist (Ed.), Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations. London: Cassel.Google Scholar
  52. Martin, B. R. (2012). The evolution of science policy and innovation studies. Research Policy, 41(7), 1219–1239.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.012.Google Scholar
  53. Martin, B. (2016). Twenty challenges for innovation studies. Science and Public Policy, 43(3), 432–450.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scv077.Google Scholar
  54. Martin, S., & Scott, J. T. (2000). The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovation. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 437–447.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00084-0.Google Scholar
  55. Metcalfe, J. S. (1994). Evolutionary economics and technology policy. Economic Journal, 104(425), 931–944.Google Scholar
  56. Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of web of science and scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5.Google Scholar
  57. Nelson, R. R. (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Noyons, E. (2001). Bibliometric mapping of science in a science policy context. Scientometrics, 50(1), 83–98.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005694202977.Google Scholar
  59. Noyons, E. C. M., & Van Raan, A. F. J. (1998). Advanced mapping of science and technology. Scientometrics, 41(1–2), 61–67.  https://doi.org/10.1007/Bf02457967.Google Scholar
  60. Paker, M. M. (2017). On the applicability of theories of scientific change to economics. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/560ab115e4b0f2cf50225c2d/t/59df6dd8bebafb49379cfd4b/1507814873548/Paker_TheoriesOfScientificChange%2Cpdf.pdf.
  61. Polsby, N. W. (1998). Social science and scientific change: A note on thomas s. Kuhn’s contribution. Annual Review of Political Science, 1, 199–210.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.1.1.199.Google Scholar
  62. Porter, M. E. (1998). The competitive advantage of nations: With a new introduction. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  63. Price, D. J. D. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149(3683), 510–515.Google Scholar
  64. Rees, C. M. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions at fifty. The New Atlantis, 37, 71–86.Google Scholar
  65. Roe, S. M. (2017). The journey from discovery to scientific change: Scientific communities, shared models, and specialised vocabulary. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 31(1), 47–67.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2017.1370932.Google Scholar
  66. Rorvig, M. (1999). Images of similarity: A visual exploration of optimal similarity metrics and scaling properties of trec topic-document sets. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(8), 639–651.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(Sici)1097-4571(1999)50:8%3c639:Aid-Asi2%3e3.0.Co;2-C.Google Scholar
  67. Salton, G. (1963). Associative document retrieval techniques using bibliographic information. Journal of the ACM, 10(4), 440–457.  https://doi.org/10.1145/321186.321188.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  68. Salton, G., & McGill, M. J. (1983). Introduction to modern information retrieval. New York: McGraw-Hill.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  69. Sanz Menendez, L., Cabello Valdes, C., & Anton Hurtado, F. M. (2000). Foresight as a tool for science and technology policy. Arbor-Ciencia Pensamiento Y Cultura, 167(657), 79–109.  https://doi.org/10.3989/arbor.2000.i657.1151.Google Scholar
  70. Schut, M., van Paassen, A., Leeuwis, C., & Klerkx, L. (2014). Towards dynamic research configurations: A framework for reflection on the contribution of research to policy and innovation processes. Science and Public Policy, 41(2), 207–218.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/sct048.Google Scholar
  71. Shneider, A. M. (2009). Four stages of a scientific discipline; four types of scientist. Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 34(5), 217–223.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibs.2009.02.002.Google Scholar
  72. Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265–269.Google Scholar
  73. Small, H. (1999). Visualizing science by citation mapping. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(9), 799–813.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(Sici)1097-4571(1999)50:9%3c799:Aid-Asi9%3e3.3.Co;2-7.Google Scholar
  74. Small, H., & Greenlee, E. (1980). Citation context analysis of a co-citation cluster: Recombinant-DNA. Scientometrics, 2(4), 277–301.  https://doi.org/10.1007/Bf02016349.Google Scholar
  75. Small, H., & Griffith, B. C. (1974). Structure of scientific literatures I: Identifying and graphing specialties. Science Studies, 4(1), 17–40.  https://doi.org/10.1177/030631277400400102.Google Scholar
  76. Smith, L. C. (1981). Citation analysis. Library Trends, 30(1), 83–106.Google Scholar
  77. Smith, K. (2000). Innovation as a systemic phenomenon: Rethinking the role of policy. Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies, 1(1), 73.Google Scholar
  78. Sternberg, R. (1996a). Government R&D expenditure and space: Empirical evidence from five industrialized countries. Research Policy, 25(5), 741–758.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(95)00860-8.Google Scholar
  79. Sternberg, R. (1996b). Technology policies and the growth of regions: Evidence from four countries. Small Business Economics, 8(2), 75–86.  https://doi.org/10.1007/Bf00394419.Google Scholar
  80. Thaler, R. H. (2016). Behavioral economics: Past, present, and future. American Economic Review, 106(7), 1577–1600.  https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.106.7.1577.Google Scholar
  81. Todtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2005). One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy, 34(8), 1203–1219.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.018.Google Scholar
  82. Turnhout, E., Stuiver, M., Klostermann, J., Harms, B., & Leeuwis, C. (2013). New roles of science in society: Different repertoires of knowledge brokering. Science and Public Policy, 40(3), 354–365.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs114.Google Scholar
  83. Uyarra, E., & Flanagan, K. (2010). From regional systems of innovation to regions as innovation policy spaces. Environment and Planning C-Government and Policy, 28(4), 681–695.  https://doi.org/10.1068/c0961.Google Scholar
  84. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2007). Bibliometric mapping of the computational intelligence field. International Journal of Uncertainty Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 15(5), 625–645.  https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218488507004911.Google Scholar
  85. van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2009). How to normalize cooccurrence data? An analysis of some well-known similarity measures. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1635–1651.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21075.Google Scholar
  86. Vanner, R., & Martha, B. (2013). The use of paradigms in dynamix. Retrieved from https://dynamix-project.eu/sites/default/files/D1.1_list_Paradigms_public.pdf.
  87. Veld, R. J. I. (2010). Towards knowledge democracy. Knowledge Democracy: Consequences for Science, Politics, and Media.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11381-9_1.Google Scholar
  88. Weber, K. M., & Rohracher, H. (2012). Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive ‘failures’ framework. Research Policy, 41(6), 1037–1047.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.015.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Economics and Administrative SciencesIzmir Katip Celebi UniversityIzmirTurkey
  2. 2.School of Public Policy, STIPGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Laboratory for Science and Technology StudiesNational Research University, Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussia
  4. 4.Manchester Institute of Innovation ResearchUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations