Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Science and Innovation in the 21st Century:New Paradigms and Challenges for Policy Design


Affiliations
1 CSIRNational Institute of Science Technology and Development Studies, and Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research, NISTADS Campus, K.S. Krishnan Marg, Pusa Campus, New Delhi 110 012, India
 

Responsible innovation, entrepreneurial university, translation gap, valley of death, sustainability, risk, regulation and governance broadly encompass the oeuvre of innovation studies, and are becoming ubiquitous concepts in the debate on science, technology and innovation (STI). Close reading of the literature shows distinct strands of research within this domain; lack of convergence in terms of conceptual framework leading to articulation of different models for conduct and governance of science and technology (S&T). The persistent selective framing of innovation is leading to considerable bias in the way we theorize and define innovation, resulting in articulation of weak policy frameworks. This note draws attention to two dominant strands of scholarship within innovation studies, one influenced by economic thinking and the other STS (science– technology–society studies) to make the above claim. Keeping this as the basis of argument, the note posits that this divergence is creating impediments in developing successful models for translation of S&T for socio-economic benefits. Thus it calls for exploring and exploiting models that can build convergence between the different strands of innovation research. In this context, it draws attention to the promising possibilities of the ‘post-normal science’ thesis to show this as one of the useful analytical frameworks in the contemporary context.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Tidd, J., Discussion paper, Tanaka Business School, Imperial College, London, UK, 2006; http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.460.8227&rep=rep1&type=pdf

  • Huggins, R. and Izushi, H., Competing for Knowledge: Creating, Connecting and Growing, Routledge, New York, USA, 2007.

  • Bush, V., Science, the Endless Frontier, United States Office of Scientific Research and Development, Washington, DC, USA, 1945, 2nd edn.

  • Kline, S. J. and Rosenberg, N., In The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing technology for Economic Growth (eds Rosenberg, N. and Landau, A.), The National Academic Press, Washington, DC, USA, 1986.

  • Nelson, R. R. and Winter, S. J., An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 1982.

  • Edquest, C., In Lead paper presented at the DRUID Conference, Aalborg, Denmark, 12–15 June 2001.

  • Lundvall, B.-Å. (ed.), National Innovation Systems: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, Pinter Publishers, London, UK, 1992.

  • Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdroff, L., Res. Policy, 2000, 29(2), 109–121.

  • Pinch, T. J. and Bijker, W. E., In The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (eds Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P. and Trevor, J. P.), The MIT Press, London, UK, 1987.

  • May, C. and Sell, S. K., Intellectual Property Rights: A Critical History, Viva Books, New Delhi, 2008, pp. 187–188.

  • Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J. R., Futures, 1993, 25, 735–755.

  • BecK, U., Econ. Soc., 2006, 35(3), 329– 345.

  • Giddens, A., The Consequences of Modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK, 1990.

  • Wynne, B., In Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology (eds Lash, S., Szerszynski, B. and Wynne, B.), SAGE, London, UK, 1996, pp. 44–83.

  • Guston, D. H. and Sarewitz, D., Technol. Soc., 2002, 24(1–2), 93–109.

  • Schot, J. and Rip, A., Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 1997, 54(2-3), 251–268.

  • Ravetz, J. R., Ecol. Complex., 2006, 3(4), 275–284.

  • Petersen, A. C., Cath, A., Hage, M., Kunseler, E. and van der Sluijs, J. P., Sci. Technol. Hum. Values, 2011, 36(3), 362–388.


Abstract Views: 392

PDF Views: 124




  • Science and Innovation in the 21st Century:New Paradigms and Challenges for Policy Design

Abstract Views: 392  |  PDF Views: 124

Authors

Sujit Bhattacharya
CSIRNational Institute of Science Technology and Development Studies, and Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research, NISTADS Campus, K.S. Krishnan Marg, Pusa Campus, New Delhi 110 012, India

Abstract


Responsible innovation, entrepreneurial university, translation gap, valley of death, sustainability, risk, regulation and governance broadly encompass the oeuvre of innovation studies, and are becoming ubiquitous concepts in the debate on science, technology and innovation (STI). Close reading of the literature shows distinct strands of research within this domain; lack of convergence in terms of conceptual framework leading to articulation of different models for conduct and governance of science and technology (S&T). The persistent selective framing of innovation is leading to considerable bias in the way we theorize and define innovation, resulting in articulation of weak policy frameworks. This note draws attention to two dominant strands of scholarship within innovation studies, one influenced by economic thinking and the other STS (science– technology–society studies) to make the above claim. Keeping this as the basis of argument, the note posits that this divergence is creating impediments in developing successful models for translation of S&T for socio-economic benefits. Thus it calls for exploring and exploiting models that can build convergence between the different strands of innovation research. In this context, it draws attention to the promising possibilities of the ‘post-normal science’ thesis to show this as one of the useful analytical frameworks in the contemporary context.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv118%2Fi3%2F348-349