Abstract
The Russian psychologist L.S. Vygotsky studied the development of thought and language in children and suggested that learning should be viewed as a process occurring when the child interacts with the world around itself.
Keywords
- Innovation Process
- Educational Study
- National Innovation System
- Innovation Study
- Cultural Historical Activity Theory
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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Asheim, B., & Parrilli, D. (Eds.). (2012). Interactive learning for innovation: A key driver within clusters and innovation systems. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Barab, S.A, Barnett, M., Yamagata-Lynch, L., Squire, K., & Keating, T. (2002). Using activity theory to understand the systemic tensions characterizing a technology-rich introductory astronomy course. Mind, Culture and Activity, 9(2), 76–107.
Chaiklin, S. (2001). The institutionalisation of cultural-historical psychology as a multinational practice. In S. Chaiklin (Ed.), The theory and practice of cultural-historical psychology. Århus: Århus University Press.
Davydov, V. V., & Radzikhovskii, L. A. (1985). Intellectual origins of Vygotsky’s semiotic analysis. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11, 147–162.
Edquist, C., & Johnson, B. (1997). Institutions and organisations in systems of innovation. In C. Edquist (Ed.), Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations. London and Washington: Pinter/Cassell Academic.
Edquist, C., & Hommen, L. (Eds.). (2008). Small country innovation systems: Globalisation, change and policy in Asia and Europe. Cheltenham: Elgar.
Edwards, A. (2007). Relational agency in professional practice: A CHAT Analysis actio: An international Journal of Human Activity Theory, 1, 1–17.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Orienta-Konsultit.
Engeström, Y. (1999a). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. (1999b). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Engeström, Y. Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R. L. (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 377–404). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Engestrøm, Y.(2007) Enriching the theory of expansive learning: Lessons from journeys toward coconfiguration. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(1–2), 23–39.
Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. C., & Nelson, R. R. (Eds.). (2005). The Oxford hanbook of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fagerberg, J., & Verspagen, B. (2009). Innovation studies-The emerging structure of a new scientific field. Research Policy, 38(2), 218–233.
Freeman, C. (1995) The ’National System of Innovation’ in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19, 5–24.
Fujimura, J. H. (1987). Constructing “do-able” problems in cancer research: Articulating alignment. Social Studies of Science, 17, 257–93.
Gherardi, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge: The texture of workplace learning. Maldon MA: Blackwell.
Godin, B. (2006). The linear model of innovation: The historical construction of an analytical Framework. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 31(6), 639–667.
Greig, G., Entwhistle, V. A., & Beech, N. (2012). Addressing complex healthcare problems in diverse settings: Insights from activity theory. Social Science & Medicine, 74(3). 305–312.
Hasu, M. (2000). Constructing clinical use: An activity-theoretical perspective on implementing New Technology. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 12(3), 369–382. (Special issue on The Intersection of Innovation Studies and Critical Management Studies).
Hughes, T. (1983). Networks of power. Baltimore, MD & London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hyysalo, S. (2009). Learning for learning economy and social learning. Research Policy, 38, 726–735.
Hyysalo, S. (2006). The role of learning-by-using in the design of health Care Technologies: A case study. The Information Society: An International Journal, 22(2), 89–99.
Jensen, M. B., Johnson, B. Lorenz, E., & Lundvall, B-Å. (2007). Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy, 36, 680–693.
Kozulin, A. (1986). The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. American Psychologist, 41(3), 264–274.
Kline, S. J., & N. Rosenberg (1986). An overview of innovation. In R. Landau & N. R. (Eds.), The positive sum strategy: Harnessing technology for economic growth (pp. 275–305) Washington, DC, National Academy Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lehenkari, J. (2000). Studying innovation trajectories and networks: The case of Benecol Margarine. Science Studies, 13(1), 50–67.
Lehenkari, J., & Miettinen, R. (2002). Standardisation in the construction of a large technological system – the case of the Nordic mobile telephone system. Telecommunications Policy, 26(3–4), 109–27.
Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall.
Lundvall, B.-Å., (Ed.). (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter Publishers.
Martin, B. R. (2012). The evolution of science policy and innovation studies. Research Policy, 41, 1219–1239.
Mattila, E. (2005). Interdisciplinarity “in the making”: Modelling infectious diseases. Perspectives on Science, 13(4), 531–53.
Miettinen R. (1998). Object construction and networks in research work: The case of research on cellulose degrading enzymes. Social Studies of Science, 28(3), 423–63.
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA.
Olsen, D. S. (2009) Emerging interdisciplinary practice: Making nanoreactors. Learning Organization, 16(5), 398–408.
Olsen, D. S. (2010). “Old” technology in new hands: Instruments as mediators of interdisciplinary learning in microfluidics. Spontaneous generations. A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science, 4(1), 231–254.
Pavitt, K., (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13(6), 343–373.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rosenberg, N. (1982). Inside the black box: Technology and economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Saari, E., & R. Miettinen (2001). Dynamics of change in research work: Constructing a new research area in a research group. Science Technology & Human Values, 26(3), 300–321.
Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest and the business cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Solow R. M. (1957). Technical change and the aggregate production function. Review of Economics and Statistics, 39, 312–320.
Tuunainen, J., & Miettinen, R. (2012). Building trust in research-based product development collaboration. International Journal of Innovation Management, 16(4).
von Hippel, E. (1976). The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process. Research Policy, 5, 212–239.
Von Hippel, E. (1994). “Sticky Information” and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation Management Science, 40(4), 429–439.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S., & M. Cole (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch J. V., del Rio, P., & Alvarez, A. (1995). Sociocultural studies: History, action and mediation in Wertsch J. V., del Rio, P., & Alvarez, A. (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of the mind (pp. 1–34). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
William, R., Stewart, J., & Slack, R. (2005). Social learning in technological innovation Cheltenham: Elgar.
Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2010). Activity systems analysis methods: Understanding complex learning Environments. Springer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Sense Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Olsen, D.S. (2013). How Educational Studies May Contribute to our Understanding of Innovation. In: New Voices in Norwegian Educational Research. New Research – New Voices. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-464-2_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-464-2_5
Publisher Name: SensePublishers, Rotterdam
Online ISBN: 978-94-6209-464-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)