Advertisement

Epistemic Communities, Knowledge Transfer, and Institutional Learning

  • Elias G. Carayannis
  • Ali Pirzadeh
  • Denisa Popescu
Chapter
Part of the Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management book series (ITKM, volume 13)

Abstract

A core tenet of our argument relates to the capacity of national to learn and adapt to ever changing global environments that is now more and more determined by global governance frameworks that defines rules, transparency. There are three main arguments that we are making. First, global epistemic communities should promote institutional learning at the local level through knowledge transfer as a vehicle to establish national and local epistemic communities. Second, institutional learning results in improvements made to policies as outcomes but also the institutional arrangements in place without directly challenging the existing way of doing things.

Keywords

Knowledge Transfer Intellectual Capital External Knowledge Global Governance Formal Knowledge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Adler E, Haas PM (1992) Conclusion: Epistemic Communities, World Order, and the Creation of a Reflective Research Program. International Organization 46 (1): 367–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvesson M (1993) Cultural Perspectives on Organisations. Cambridge UP, Cambridge, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell, D.(1960). The End of Ideology, Glencoe. Illinois: Free Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett CJ (1991) Review Article: What is Policy Convergence and What Causes it?. British Journal of Policy Studies 21: 215–233.Google Scholar
  5. Callon M (1986) The Sociology of an Actor-Network: The Case of Electric Vehicle. In Callon M, Law H, Rip A (Eds.)(19–34) Mapping the Dynamic of Science and Technology, Sociology of Science in the Real World.Macmillan, HoundsmillsGoogle Scholar
  6. Carayannis EG (2004) Measuring intangibles: Managing intangibles for tangible outcomes in research and innovation. International Journal of Nuclear Knowledge Management 1: 49–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carayannis EG (2005) Knowledge Creation, Diffusion, And Use in Innovation Networks And Knowledge Clusters. PraegerGoogle Scholar
  8. Carayannis EG, Campbell DFG (2006). “Mode 3”: Meaning and Implications from a Knowledge Systems Perspective. In Carayannis EG, Campbell DFG (Ed) (1–25) Knowledge Creation, Diffusion and Use in Innovation Networks and Knowledge Clusters. Westport, Conneticut: PraegerGoogle Scholar
  9. Carayannis EG, Campbell DFG (2009) “Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: Toward a 21st Century Fractal Innovation Ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management 46 (3/4): 201–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carayannis EG, Juneau T (2003) Idea Makers and Idea Brokers in High-Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, W.M., & Levinthal, D.A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly. 35(1), 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cole R (1989) Strategies for Learning - Small-Group Activities in American, Japanese, and Swedish Industry. BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  13. Crozier, M. (1973). The Stalled Society (Chapter 3). New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
  14. Drake, W.J., & Nicolaidis, K. (1992). Ideas, Interests, And Institutionalization - Trade In Services And The Uruguay Round. International Organization, 46(1), 37–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Drucker PF (1985). The Discipline of Innovation. Harvard Business ReviewGoogle Scholar
  16. Easterly W (2002)The Elusive Quest for Growth: Economists’ Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Easterly W (2006) The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done so Much Ill and so Little Good. Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  18. Ezrahi, Y. (1971). The Political Resources of American Science. Science Studies, 1, 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fischer F (1990). Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. Sage, Newbury Park, Calif.Google Scholar
  20. Fischer F, Miller G, Sidney M (Ed) (2006) Handbook of Public Policy Analysis. Theory, Politics and Methods. CRC Press, London and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Freidson E (1994) Professionalism Reborn, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Freidson,E. (2001). Professionalism: On the Practice of Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gallouj F (2000). Knowledge-intensive business services: processing knowledge and producing innovation. Proceedings of the International Conference “The Economics and Socio- Economics of Services: International Perspectives” (Lille-Roubaix, 22 and 23 June 2000), vol.2: 57–76.Google Scholar
  24. Glazer R. (1998) Measuring the Knower: Towards a Theory of Knowledge Equity. California Management Review 40(3): 175–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haas, P.M. (1992). Epistemic Communities And International Policy Coordination – Introduction. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hira, A. (1999). Ideas and Economic Policy in Latin America: Regional, National, and Organizational Case Studies. Westport, CT, & London: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  27. Holzner, B. (1968). Reality Construction in Society.Cambridge: Schenkman PublishingGoogle Scholar
  28. Huber GP (1991) Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures.Google Scholar
  29. Husman, T.B. (2001). Efficiency in Inter-Organisational Learning: A Taxonomy of Knowledge Transfer Costs. Copenhagen Business School IVS/CBS Working Papers.Google Scholar
  30. Katz, M.L., & Shapiro.C. (1985). Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility. American Economic Review.vol. 75(3), 424–440.Google Scholar
  31. Krasner, S.D. (1982). Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables. International Organization, 36(2),186.Google Scholar
  32. Lane,R. (1966). The Decline of poltics and Ideology in Knowledge Society. American Sociological Review, 31, October, 649–662.Google Scholar
  33. Lehmbruch, G.(1991). The Organization of Society, Administrative Strategies, and Policy Networks. In R.M. Czada, & A. Windhoff-Héritier (Eds.). Political Choice Institutions, Rules and the Limits of Rationality(25–59). Frankfurt AM: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
  34. Marsh, D., & Rhodes,R.A.W.(1992). Policy Communities and Issue Networks. Beyond Typology. In D. Marsh, & R.A.W. Rhodes,. (Eds.). Policy Networks in British Government (249–268). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  35. Mayntz R (1994) Modernization and the Logic of Interorganizational Networks. MIPF Working Pape, 4, Max Planck Institute for Social Research, Cologne.Google Scholar
  36. Milgrom P, Roberts J (1992) Economics, Organization and Management. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  37. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Penrose E (1959) The theory of the growth of the firm. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Peterson, J.(1995). Decision-making in the European Union: Towards a Framework for Analysis.Journal of European Public Policy, 2 (1), 69–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Peterson, J., & Bomberg, E (1993). Decision Making in the European Union: A Policy Networks Approach. Paper to the Annual Conference of the UK Political Studies Association, Leicester, 20–22 April,28.Google Scholar
  41. Powell, W.W. (1990). Neither Market nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organisation. Research In Organizational Behavior, 12, 295–336.Google Scholar
  42. Rakipi, A. (2004). The Weak States and the Role of International Institutions. Rome: Academic Research Branch - NATO Defense College.Google Scholar
  43. Rhodes, R.A.W.(1986). Power dependence. In M.J. Goldsmith (Ed.), New Research in Central-Local Relations(5). Aldershot: Gower.Google Scholar
  44. Robertson M, Scarbrough H, Swan J (2003) Knowledge creation in professional service firms: Institutional effects. Organizational Studies 24(6):831–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sanchez R (1993) Strategic Flexibility, Firm Organization, and Managerial WorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Schein EH(1978) Career Dynamics: Matching Individual and Organizational Needs. Addison- Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  47. Schumpeter J (1934) The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  48. Siebenhüner B, Suplie J (2005) Implementing the access and benefit-sharing provisions of theGoogle Scholar
  49. Spender JC (1996) Competitive advantage from tacit knowledge? Unpacking the concept and its strategic implications. In Bertrand Moingeon & Amy Edmondson (eds.) Organisational learning and competitive advantage. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  50. Stone, D. (2000). Learning Lessons, Policy Transfer and the International Diffusion of Policy Ideas. Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation. http://poli.haifa.ac.il/levi/res/stone-2000.pdf
  51. Thorelli, H.B. (1986). Networks: Between Markets and Hierarchies. Strategic Management Journal, 7, 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tsoukas H (1996) The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A constructionist approach,Google Scholar
  53. Walker RBJ (1993) Inside/Outside: International Relations As Political Theory. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  54. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  55. Williamson, O. E.(1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  56. Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2),185–203.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elias G. Carayannis
    • 1
  • Ali Pirzadeh
    • 2
  • Denisa Popescu
    • 3
  1. 1.School of BusinessGeorge Washington UniversityWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Independent ConsultantWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.World Bank GroupWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations