Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

First steps towards a consistent classification of innovation

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Frascati and Oslo manuals assemble scientific activities, technological activities and their definitions in generic manner, without attempting to propose a rigorous and cogent organization of the categories. Such uncertainties could possibly be overcome by an attempt to formulate a coherent, holistic classification, retracing the indications of previous scholars concerning the broader characteristics of scientific discovery and technological innovation. From such an attempt, we gather the lesson that scholars of technological innovation and scientific progress must at all times be ready to reopen debate on the assertions that they have thus far formulated.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

References

  • Antonelli, C. (2011). The economic complexity of technological change: Knowledge interaction and path dependence. In Idem (Ed.), Handbook of the economic complexity of technological change. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. J. (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 (pp. 609–625). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press for the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, B. (2009). The nature of technology. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Marchi, M. (2016). A taxonomy of S&T indicators. Scientometrics, 105, 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, Procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 26(3), 1120–1171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. (1988). Against method. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt, K. (1991). What makes basic research economically useful? Research Policy, 20(2), 109–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Unwin Hyman.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IRCrES-CNR, Rome, Italy

    Mario De Marchi

Authors
  1. Mario De Marchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mario De Marchi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

De Marchi, M. First steps towards a consistent classification of innovation. Scientometrics 108, 983–985 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1994-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1994-2

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation