Graduates in the Knowledge and Innovation Society

Chapter
Part of the Higher Education Dynamics book series (HEDY, volume 35)

Abstract

According to the crucial importance of innovation for modern economies, the role of graduates regarding innovation appears to be a major topic when their performances in the labour market at stake. Five main questions are addressed in this chapter: (1) What does innovation mean? (2) Which organisations are likely to be more innovative? (3) What role do Higher Education graduates play regarding innovation? (4) Are they equipped to do develop innovation? (5) Which are the occupations more related to innovation, and are innovative activities rewarded? The results presented in this chapter confirm that higher education graduates are crucial actors in the innovation process. The jobs of innovative graduates show a number of specific characteristics: a high level of autonomy, more leeway to define their own goals and to perform their tasks. A paradox that emerged is the following: although innovation is more strongly developed in large organisations, small organisations offer graduates more opportunities to play a role in introducing innovations. When earnings are considered, innovative activities appear to be rewarded, in the private sector. That confirms the impression that innovation is recognised as valuable by organisations.

Keywords

Innovation Activity Economic Sector Innovative Activity Large Organisation Knowledge Worker 
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. Allen, J., & van der Velden, R. (2005). The Flexible Professional in the Knowledge Society: Conceptual Framework of the REFLEX Project, REFLEX Working paper 1, Maastricht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  2. Canberra Manual (1995). The measurement of scientific and technological activities. Manual on the measurement of human resources devoted to S&T “Canberra Manual”. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  3. Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society (2nd ed., Vol. I). Cambridge, MA; Oxford: Blackwell (1996).Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Drucker, P. (1959). Landmarks of tomorrow: A report on the new post-modern world. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  6. Duru-Bellat, M. (2006). L’inflation scolaire: Les désillusions de la méritocratie. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  7. European Innovation Scoreboard. (2006). Comparative Analysis of Innovation Performance, Pro Inno Europe, Innometrics, available on internet http://www.proinno-europe.eu/inno-metrics.html
  8. Foray, D. (2000). L’économie de la connaissance. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  9. Frascati manual. (2002). Proposed standard practice for surveys on research and experimental development. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  10. Oslo Manual. (2002). The measurement of scientific and technological activities. Proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting technological innovation data. OECD, European Commission, Eurostat, Second edition, Available on Internet: http://www.oecd.org
  11. Reich, R. (1991). The work of nations, preparing ourselves for the 21st century capitalism. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  12. Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Wolf, A. (2003). Does education matter: Myths about education and economic growth? London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Research in the Sociology and Economics of EducationDijonFrance

Personalised recommendations