سه پارادایم سیاست نوآوری: تحقیق و توسعه، نظام‌های نوآوری و تغییر تحول آفرین

نوع مقاله : ترجمه

نویسندگان

1 استادیار دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

2 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد سیاست‌گذاری علم و فناوری، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

چکیده

سیاست علم، فناوری و نوآوری را پاردایم‌های پیوسته‌ای شکل می‌دهد که در بافتار تاریخی ریشه دارند. دو پارادایم قدیمی در بحث‌های سیاست نوآوری کنونی حاضر و غالب‌اند. اولین پارادایم با نهادینه‌شدن حمایت دولتی از علم و نیز تحقیق و توسعۀ پس از جنگ جهانی دوم و با این فرض آغاز شد که می‌تواند به رشد کمک کند و به شکست بازار در تامین خصوصی دانش جدید بپردازد .پارادایم دوم در دنیایِ در حال جهانی‌شدن دهۀ 1980 و تاکید آن بر رقابتی پدیدار شد که با نظام‌های ملی نوآوری برای خلق دانش و تجاری‌سازی شکل گرفته است. سیاست علم، فناوری و نوآوری بر ایجاد پیوندها، خوشه‌ها و شبکه‌ها و نیز برانگیختن یادگیری بین عناصر موجود در نظام‌ها و تواناکردن کارآفرینی متمرکز است. سومین پارادایم که به چالش‌های اجتماعی و محیطی معاصر مثل اهداف توسعۀ پایدار و درخواست برای تغییر تحول‌آفرین مربوط است، با دو پارادایم قبل تفاوت دارد. در ادبیات گذارهای پایداری، تحول به تغییر سیستم اجتماعی- فنی اشاره می‌کند. ماهیت پارادایم سوم با هدف شناسایی ویژگی-های اصلی و پتانسیل آن برای ترغیب بازنگری در دو پارادایم قبلی بررسی شده است. یکی از ویژگی‌های اصلی این پارادایم تمرکز آن بر آزمایش و این استدلال است که جنوب جهانی برای پیروی از مدل تحول در شمال جهانی به تلاش‌های فرارسی نیاز ندارد. گفته می‌شود که هر سه پارادایم به سیاستگذاری مرتبط است اما بررسی گزینه‌های موجود برای سیاست نوآوری تحول‌آفرین باید در اولویت قرار داشته باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change

نویسندگان [English]

  • Kiarash Fartash 1
  • Maryam Jahangirnia 2
  • Ali Asghar Sadabadi 1
1 Assistant Professor, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
2 Master Student, Science and Technology Policy, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Science, technology and innovation (STI) policy is shaped by persistent framings that arise from historical context. Two established frames are identified as co-existing and dominant in contemporary innovation policy discussions. The first frame is identified as beginning with a Post-World War II institutionalisation of government support for science and R&D with the presumption that this would contribute to growth and address market failure in private provision of new knowledge. The second frame emerged in the 1980s globalising world and its emphasis on competitiveness which is shaped by the national systems of innovation for knowledge creation and commercialisation. STI policy focuses on building links, clusters and networks, and on stimulating learning between elements in the systems, and enabling entrepreneurship. A third frame linked to contemporary social and environmental challenges such as the Sustainable Development Goals and calling for transformative change is identified and distinguished from the two earlier frames. Transformation refers to socio-technical system change as conceptualised in the sustainability transitions literature. The nature of this third framing is examined with the aim of identifying its key features and its potential for provoking a re-examination of the earlier two frames. One key feature is its focus on experimentation, and the argument that the Global South does not need to play catch-up to follow the transformation model of the Global North. It is argued that all three frames are relevant for policymaking, but exploring options for transformative innovation policy should be a priority.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Transformation
  • Sustainable development goals
  • R&D
  • National systems of innovation
  • Innovation Policy
  1. منابع

    Abramovitz, M. (1956). “Resource and output trends in the United States since 1870”. In Resource and output trends in the United States since 1870 . pp. 1-23. NBER.

    Arrow, K. J. (1972). “Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention”. In Readings in industrial economics. pp. 219-236. Palgrave, London.

    Arthur, W. B. (1983). “On competing technologies and historical small events: the dynamics of choice under increasing returns”. IIASA Working Paper. IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria: WP-83-090. Available in: http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/2222/

    Bardi, U. (2011). The limits to growth revisited. Springer Science & Business Media.

    Benford, R. D., and Snow, D. A. (2000). “Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment”. Annual review of sociology, 26(1), pp. 611-639.

    Bernal, J. D. (1939). “The Social Function of Science”. G. Routledge and sons Limited. Available in: https://www.amazon.com/Social-Function-Science-J-Bernal/dp/057127272X

    Boschma, R. (2005). “Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment”. Regional studies, 39(1), pp. 61-74.

    Brian, K. (2015). OECD insights income inequality the gap between rich and poor: The gap between rich and poor. OECD Publishing.

    Bunnell, T. (2002). “Multimedia Utopia? A geographical critique of high‐tech development in Malaysia’s Multimedia Super Corridor”. Antipode, 34(2), pp. 265-295.

    Bush, V. (1945). Science: The Endless Frontier: A Report to the President on a Program for Postwar Scientific Research. United States Office of Scientific Research and Development (1945), National Science Foundation (reprint 1960), Washington DC.

    Callon, M. (1994). “Is science a public good? Fifth Mullins lecture, Virginia polytechnic institute, 23 march 1993”. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 19(4), pp. 395-424.

    Carson, R. (1962). “Silent Spring Houghton Mifflin”. Boston, MA, USA.

    Castells, M., Hall, P.A. )1994(. Technopoles of the World: Making of 21st Century Industrial Complexes. Routledge, New York NY. Available in:  https://www.routledge.com/Technopoles-of-the-World-The-Making-of-21st-Century-Industrial-Complexes/Castells/p/book/9780415100151

    Chataway, J., Hanlin, R., and Kaplinsky, R. (2014). “Inclusive innovation: an architecture for policy development”. Innovation and Development, 4(1), pp. 33-54.

    Chataway, J., Daniels, C., Kanger, L., Ramirez, M., Schot, J., and Steinmueller, E. (2017). “Developing and enacting transformative innovation policy: a comparative study”. In Proceedings of the 8th International Sustainability Transitions Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden. pp. 18-21.

    Cohen, W. M., and Levinthal, D. A. (1989). “Innovation and learning: the two faces of R & D”. The economic journal, 99(397), pp. 569-596.

    Cohen, L. R., and Noll, R. G. (1991). The technology pork barrel. Brookings Institution Press.

    Colistete, R. P. (2010). “Revisiting Import-Substituting Industrialisation in Post-War Brazil”.  Available in: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/24665/

    Collins, H. M. (1974). “The TEA set: Tacit knowledge and scientific networks”. Science studies, 4(2), pp. 165-185.

    Cooke, P. (2001). “Regional innovation systems, clusters, and the knowledge economy”. Industrial and corporate change, 10(4), pp. 945-974.

    David, P. A. (1975). Technical choice innovation and economic growth: essays on American and British experience in the nineteenth century. Cambridge University Press.

    Diaz, M., Darnhofer, I., Darrot, C., and Beuret, J. E. (2013). “Green tides in Brittany: What can we learn about niche–regime interactions?”. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 8, pp. 62-75.

    Dutrénit, G., and Sutz, J. (Eds.). (2014). National innovation systems, social inclusion and development: The Latin American experience. Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Edquist, C. (Ed.). (1997). Systems of innovation: technologies, institutions, and organizations. Psychology Press.

    Etzkowitz, H. (1998). “The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages”. Research policy, 27(8), pp. 823-833.

    Etzkowitz, H. )2008(. The Triple Helix: University-Industry-Government Innovation in Action. Routledge, New York NY.

    Etzkowitz, H., and Zhou, C. (2017). The triple helix: University– industry– government innovation and entrepreneurship. Routledge.

    Etzkowitz, H., and Leydesdorff, L. (1997). Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. London: Pinter. [Archival reprint].

    European Commission. (2010). Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth: Communication from the commission. Publications Office of the European Union.

    Fagerberg, J. (2016). “Innovation policy: Rationales, lessons and challenges”. Journal of Economic Surveys, 31(2), pp. 497-512.

    Fagerberg, J., Martin, B.R., and Andersen, E.S. (Eds.), (2013). Innovation Studies. Evolution, Future and Challenges. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Foray, D., Mowery, D. C., and Nelson, R. R. (2012). Public R&D; and social challenges: What lessons from mission R&D; programs? Research policy41(ARTICLE), 1697-1702.

    Freeman, C. (1974). “Innovation and the strategy of the firm”. C. Freeman, The Economics of Industrial Innovation, Penguin Books Ltda., Harmondsworth.

    Freeman, C. (1987). Technology, policy, and economic performance: lessons from Japan. Pinter Pub Ltd.

    Freeman, C. (1988). “Japan: a new national system of innovation?”. In: Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R.R., Silverberg, G., Soete, L. (Eds.), Technical Change and Economic Theory. Pinter Publishers, London, pp. 330–348. Available in:  https://econpapers.repec.org/bookchap/ssalembks/dosietal-1988.htm

    Frenken, K. (2017). “A complexity-theoretic perspective on innovation policy”. Complexity, Innovation and Policy, 3(1), pp. 35-47.

    Friedman, T. L. (2005). The World is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

    Galison, P., Hevly, B., and Weinberg, A. M. (1992). “Big science: The growth of large-scale research”. PhT, 45(11), pp. 89.

    Garnsey, E., and Heffernan, P. (2005). “High‐technology clustering through spin‐out and attraction: The Cambridge case”. Regional Studies, 39(8), pp. 1127-1144.

    Geels, F. W., and Penna, C. C. (2015). “Societal problems and industry reorientation: Elaborating the Dialectic Issue LifeCycle (DILC) model and a case study of car safety in the USA (1900–1995)”. Research Policy, 44(1), pp. 67-82.

    Geiger, R. L. (1993). Research and relevant knowledge: American research universities since World War II. Transaction Publishers.

    Gertler, M. S. (2001). “Best practice? Geography, learning and the institutional limits to strong convergence”. Journal of Economic Geography, 1(1), pp. 5-26.

    Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., and Trow, M. (1994). the new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage.

    Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.

    Graham, O. L. (1994). Losing time: The industrial policy debate (Vol. 8). Harvard University Press.

    Grin, J., Rotmans, J., and Schot, J. (2010). Transitions to sustainable development: new directions in the study of long term transformative change. Routledge.

    Irwin, A. (2006). “The politics of talk: coming to terms with the ‘new’scientific governance”. Social studies of science36(2), pp. 299-320.

    Jorde, T., and Teece, D. (1990). “Innovation and cooperation: implications for competition and antitrust”. J. Econ. Perspect. 4(3), pp. 75–96.

    Kanger, L., and Schot, J. (2019). “Deep transitions: Theorizing the long-term patterns of socio-technical change”. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 32, pp. 7-21.

    Kaplinsky, R. (2011). “Schumacher meets Schumpeter: Appropriate technology below the radar”. Research Policy, 40(2), pp. 193-203.

    Keeley, B. )2015(. Income Inequality: the Gap between Rich and Poor. OECD (OECD Insights), Paris.

    Kemp, R., Schot, J., and Hoogma, R. (1998). “Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management”. Technology analysis & strategic management, 10(2), pp. 175-198.

    Kenney, M. (2000). Understanding Silicon Valley: The anatomy of an entrepreneurial region. Stanford University Press.

    Kern, F., Kivimaa, P., and Martiskainen, M. (2017). “Policy packaging or policy patching? The development of complex energy efficiency policy mixes”. Energy Research & Social Science, 23, pp. 11-25.

    Kim, L. (1999). Learning and innovation in economic development. Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Kivimaa, P. (2014). “Government-affiliated intermediary organisations as actors in system-level transitions”. Research policy, 43(8), pp. 1370-1380.

    Kivimaa, P., and Kern, F. (2016). “Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions”. Research Policy, 45(1), pp. 205-217.

    Kivimaa, P., Hildén, M., Huitema, D., Jordan, A., and Newig, J. (2017). “Experiments in climate governance–a systematic review of research on energy and built environment transitions”. Journal of Cleaner Production, 169, pp. 17-29.

    Kline, S.J., Rosenberg, N., and Landau, R. (Eds.). (1986). The Positive sum strategy: harnessing technology for economic growth. National Academies Press.

    Kuhlmann, S., and Rip, A. (2014). “The Challenge of Addressing Grand Challenges. A Think Piece on How Innovation Can Be Driven Towards the “Grand Challenges” As Defined Under the European Union Framework Programme Horizon 2020, Report to ERIAB. Available in:  https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4757.184.

    Kulicke, M., and Krupp, H. (1987). “The formation, relevance and public promotion of new technology-based firms”. Technovation, 6(1), pp. 47-56.

    Kuznets, S. (1973). “Modern economic growth: findings and reflections”. The American economic review, 63(3), pp. 247-258.

    Light, J. S. (2003). From warfare to welfare: Defense intellectuals and urban problems in Cold War America. JHU Press.

    Link, A. N., and Scott, J. T. (2003). “The growth of research Triangle Park”. Small Business Economics, 20(2), pp. 167-175.

    London, T., and Hart, S. L. (2004). “Reinventing strategies for emerging markets: beyond the transnational model”. Journal of international business studies, 35(5), pp. 350-370.

    Longhi, C. (1999). “Networks, collective learning and technology development in innovative high technology regions: the case of Sophia-Antipolis”. Regional studies, 33(4), pp. 333-342.

    Lundvall, B. A. (1985). “Product innovation and user-producer interaction”. The Learning Economy and the Economics of Hope, 19, pp. 19-60.

    Lundvall, B. A (Ed.). (1992). “National systems of innovation: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning” Printer, London.

    Lundvall, B.-A. (1988). “Innovation as an interactive process: from user-producer interaction to national systems of innovation.” In: Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R.R., Silverberg, G., Soete, L. (Eds.), Technical Change and Economic Theory. Pinter Publishers, London. Available in: https://vbn.aau.dk/en/publications/innovation-as-an-interactive-process-from-user-producer-interacti-2

    Lundvall, B. A., Vang, J., Joseph, K. J., and Chaminade, C. (2009). “Innovation system research and developing countries”. Handbook of innovation systems and developing countries: Building domestic capabilities in a global setting, 1, pp. 1-32.

    Machin, S., and Vignoles, A. (2015). Education Policy in the UK. CEE DP 57. Centre for the Economics of Education. London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, UK.

    Markard, J., Raven, R., and Truffer, B. (2012). “Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects”. Research policy, 41(6), pp. 955-967.

    Martin, B. R., and Irvine, J. (1989). Research Foresight: Priority-setting in science (No. 001.38 MAR).

    Martin, B. R., and Johnston, R. (1999). “Technology foresight for wiring up the national innovation system: experiences in Britain, Australia, and New Zealand”. Technological forecasting and social change, 60(1), pp. 37-54.

    Mazzucato, M. (2013). “The entrepreneurial state, debunking private vs”. public sector myths in risk and innovation. Anthem Press, London. Available in: https://www.amazon.com/Entrepreneurial-State-Debunking-Private-Economics/dp/0857282522

    Mazzucato, M. (2015). “Innovation systems: from fixing market failures to creating markets”. Revista do Serviço Público, 66(4), pp. 627-640.

    Mazzucato, M. (2016). “From market fixing to market-creating: a new framework for innovation policy”. Industry and Innovation, 23(2), pp. 140-156.

    Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., and Behrens, W. W. (1972). “The limits to growth”. New York, 102(1972), pp. 27.

    Meadows, D., Randers, J., and Meadows, D. (2004). Limits to growth: The 30-year update. Chelsea Green Publishing.

    Miller, S. (2001). “Public understanding of science at the crossroads”. Public understanding of science, 10(1), pp. 115-120.

    Mowery, D. C., and Rosenberg, N. (1989). Technology and the pursuit of economic growth. Cambridge University Press.

    Nelson, R. R. (1959). “The simple economics of basic scientific research”. Journal of political economy, 67(3), pp. 297-306.

    Nelson, R. (2013). “Reflections on the study of innovation and on those who study it”. Innovation studies: evolution and future challenges. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 187-193.

    OECD. (2015). System Innovation: Synthesis Report. OECD, Paris.

    Ornetzeder, M., and Rohracher, H. (2006). “User-led innovations and participation processes: lessons from sustainable energy technologies”. Energy policy, 34(2), pp. 138-150.

    Oudshoorn, N. E., and Pinch, T. (Eds.). (2003). How users matter. The co-construction of users and technology, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Available in:  https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/how-users-matter

    Prebisch, R. (1950). “The economic development of Latin America and its principal problems”. Economic Bulletin for Latin America.  Available in: https://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/29973

    Radjou, N., Prabhu, J., and Ahuja, S. (2012). Jugaad innovation: Think frugal, be flexible, and generate breakthrough growth. John Wiley & Sons.

    Rip, A. (2014). “The past and future of RRI”. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 10 (17), pp. 1–15.

    Rip, A., Misa, T. J., and Schot, J. (1995). Managing technology in society. London: Pinter Publishers.

    Rogge, K. S., and Reichardt, K. (2016). “Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis”. Research Policy, 45(8), pp. 1620-1635.

    Rosenberg, N. (1990). “Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)?”. In Studies On Science And The Innovation Process: Selected Works of Nathan Rosenberg, pp. 225-234.

    Sagasti, F. R. (1980). “The two civilizations and the process of development”. Prospects, 10(2), pp. 123-139.

    Saxenian, A. (1996). Regional advantage. Harvard University Press.

    Schon, D., and Reid, M. (1994). “Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies”. Basic Book. Available in:  https://www.amazon.com/Frame-Reflection-Resolution-Intractrable-Controversies/dp/0465025129

    Schot, J. (2016). “Confronting the second deep transition through the historical imagination”. Technology and Culture, 57(2), pp. 445-456.

    Schot, J., and Geels, F. W. (2008). “Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy”. Technology analysis & strategic management, 20(5), pp. 537-554.

    Schot, J., and Kanger, L. (2018). “Deep transitions: Emergence, acceleration, stabilization and directionality”. Research Policy, 47(6), pp. 1045-1059.

    Schot, J., (2003). The contested rise of a modernist technology politics. In: Misa, T.J., Brey, P., Feenberg, A. (Eds.), Modernity and Technology. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 257–278. Available in: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/modernity-and-technology

    Schot, J., Kanger, L., and Verbong, G. (2016). “The roles of users in shaping transitions to new energy systems”. Nature energy, 1(5), pp. 1-7.

    Schumacher, E. F. (1974). “Small is beautiful”, London. Abacus223.

    Schumpeter, J. A. (1947). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York.

    Schumpeter, J. (1949). The theory of economic development Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA.

    Singer, H. W. (1950). The distribution of gains between investing and borrowing countries. In The strategy of international development, pp. 43-57. Palgrave Macmillan, London.

    Smith, A. (1960). [1776]. The Wealth of Nations. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Smith, A., and Seyfang, G. (2013). Constructing grassroots innovations for sustainability. Global Environmental Change23(5), pp. 827-829.

    Smits, R. E., Kuhlmann, S., and Shapira, P. (2010). The theory and practice of innovation policy. Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Soete, L. (1985). International diffusion of technology, industrial development and technological leapfrogging. World Development13(3), pp. 409-422.

    Soete, L. (2013). From emerging to submerging economies: new policy challenges for research and innovation. STI Policy Review4(1), pp. 1-13.

    Solow, R. M. (1957). “Technical change and the aggregate production function”. The review of Economics and Statistics, 39(3), pp. 312-320.

    Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., and Folke, C. (2015). “Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet”. Science, 347(6223).

    Steinmueller, W. E. (2010). “Economics of technology policy”. In Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, Vol. 2, pp. 1181-1218. North-Holland.

    Steward, F. (2012). “Transformative innovation policy to meet the challenge of climate change: sociotechnical networks aligned with consumption and end-use as new transition arenas for a low-carbon society or green economy”. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(4), pp. 331-343.

    Stewart, F. (1973). Technology and Underdevelopment. MacMillan, London.

    Stewart, F. (2008). “Technology and underdevelopment”. Dev. Policy Rev. A 10 (1), pp. 92–105.

    Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., and Macnaghten, P. (2013). “Developing a framework for responsible innovation”. Research policy, 42(9), pp. 1568-1580.

    Stirling, A. (2008). ““Opening up” and “closing down” power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology”. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33(2), pp. 262-294.

    Stirling, A. (2009). “Direction, distribution and diversity! Pluralising progress in innovation, sustainability and development”.  Available in: https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/2458

    Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Brookings Institution Press.

    Tatsuno, S. (1986). The technopolis strategy: Japan, high technology, and the control of the twenty-first century. Prentice Hall.

    Taylor, C. (2003). Modern Social Imaginaries. Duke University Press, Durham NC.

    Tindemans, P. (2009). “Post-war research, education and innovation policy-making in Europe”. European science and technology policy: Towards integration or fragmentation, pp. 3-24.

    Turnheim, B., and Geels, F. W. (2012). “Regime destabilisation as the flipside of energy transitions: Lessons from the history of the British coal industry (1913–1997)”. Energy Policy50, pp. 35-49.

    Turnheim, B., Kivimaa, P., and Berkhout, F. (Eds.). (2018). Innovating climate governance: moving beyond experiments. Cambridge University Press.

    United Nations, (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Accessed from. Available in:  https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld   

    1. S Congress. (1969). Hearings Before the joint committee on atomic energy. In 91st Congress, First Session.

    Van Zanden, J. L., Baten, J., Mira d’Ercole, M., Rijpma, A., Smith, C., and Timmer, M. (2014). How was life? Global well-being since 1820. OECD publishing.

    Vig, N. J., and Paschen, H. (Eds.). (2000). Parliaments and technology: The development of technology assessment in Europe. Suny Press.

    von Hippel, E. (1976). “The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process”. Research policy, 5(3), pp. 212-239.

    von Hippel, E. (1988). The Sources of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York NY.

    von Hippel, E. (2007). “The sources of innovation”. In Das summa summarum des management, pp. 111-120. Gabler.

    von Hippel, E. (1994). ““Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: implications for innovation”. Management science, 40(4), pp. 429-439.

    Weber, K. M., and Rohracher, H. (2012). “Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change: Combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive ع‘failures’ framework”. Research Policy, 41(6), pp. 1037-1047.