Advertisement

Der Beitrag der Innovationsforschung zur Wissenschaftspolitik

  • Clemens Blümel
Living reference work entry
Part of the Springer NachschlageWissen book series

Zusammenfassung

Innovationsforschung hat in der Wissenschaftspolitik viel Aufmerksamkeit erfahren: Konzepte, Verfahren und Modelle dieses Forschungsfelds spielen eine wichtige Rolle, sowohl in der öffentlichen Debatte als auch in der politischen Praxis. Dieser Beitrag stellt zentrale Konzepte der institutionalistischen Innovationsforschung vor und beleuchtet einige Aspekte ihrer Rezeption und Funktionalisierung im wissenschaftspolitischen Kontext. Hierzu zählen die Art des produzierten Wissens, ihre Publikumsorientierung sowie die veränderten Interaktionsformen an der Schnittstelle zwischen Wissenschaft und Wissenschaftspolitik.

Schlüsselwörter

Innovation Innovationsforschung Wissenschaftspolitik Innovationsmodelle Wissenstransfer 

Literatur

  1. Albert, Mathieu, und Suzanne Laberge. 2007. The legitimation and dissemination processes of the innovation system approach: The case of the Canadian and Quebec Science and Technology Policy. Science, Technology & Human Values 32(2): 221–249. doi:10.1177/0162243906296854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Audretsch, David B., Erik E. Lehmann, und Susanne Warning. 2005. University location and new firm location. Research Policy 34:1113–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balazs, Katalin. 1995. Innovation potential embodied in Research Organizations in Central and Eastern Europe. Social Studies of Science 25(4): 655–683. doi:10.1177/030631295025004004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bozeman, Barry. 2000. Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy 29:627–655, Zugegriffen am 10.11.2014.Google Scholar
  5. Braun, Dietmar. 2004. How to govern research in the „Age of Innovation“. Compatibilities and incompatibilities of Policy Rationales. In New governance arrangements in science policy, Hrsg. Lengwiler Martin und Simon Dagmar, 11–39. Berlin: WZB.Google Scholar
  6. Braun-Thürmann, Holger. 2005. Innovation. Bielefeld: transcript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breschi, Stefano, und Franco Malerba. 1997. Sectoral systems of innovation: Technological regimes, Schumpeterian dynamics and spatial boundaries. In Systems of innovation. Technologies, institutions and organizations, Hrsg. Edquis Charles. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, John, und Paul Duguid. 1991. Organizational learning and communities of practice. Towards a unified view of working, learning and innovation. Organization Science 2:40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. 2014a. Ausgewählte Clustererfolge. Ergebnisse aus der Förderung innovativer Services. Hrsg. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. Berlin. Zugegriffen am 25.02.2016.Google Scholar
  10. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. 2014b. Die neue Hightech-Strategie. Innovationen für Deutschland. BMBF. Berlin. Zugegriffen am 25.02.2016.Google Scholar
  11. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. 2015. Deutschlands Spitzencluster. Berlin. Zugegriffen am 25.02.2016.Google Scholar
  12. Bush, Vannevar. 1945. Science – The endless frontier. Washington, DC: The National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, Wesley M., und Daniel A. Levinthal. 1990. A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35:128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cooke, Philip, Martin Heidenreich, und Hans-Joachim Braczyk, Hrsg. 2004. Regional innovation systems. The role governance in a globalized world. 2. Aufl. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. De Solla Price, Derek. 1963. Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dosi, Giovanni. 1982. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy 11:147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dosi, Giovanni. 1988. Sources, procedures and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature XXVI:1120–1171.Google Scholar
  18. Edgerton, David. 2004. The linear model did not exist, reflections on the history and historiography of science and research in industry in the twentieth century. In The science industry nexus, Hrsg. Karl Grandin, 31–57. Sagamore Beach: History, Policy, Implications.Google Scholar
  19. Edquist, Charles, Hrsg. 1997. Systems of innovation. Technologies, institutions and organizations. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  20. Eickelpasch, Alexander, und Michael Fritsch. 2005. Contests for cooperation. A new approach in German innovation policy. Research Policy 34:1269–1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Elzinga, Aant, und Andrew Jamison. 1995. Changing policy agendas in science and technology. In Handbook of science and technology studies, Hrsg. Sheila Jasanoff, 572–597. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Fagerberg, Jan. 1987. A technology gap approach to why growth rates differ. Research Policy 16:87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fagerberg, Jan. 2005. Innovation: A guide to the literature. In The oxford handbook of innovation, Hrsg. Fagerberg Jan, David C. Mowery und R. R. Nelson, 1–26. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Fagerberg, Jan, und Bart Verspagen. 2009. Innovation studies – The emerging structure of a new scientific field. Research Policy 38:218–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Freeman, Christopher. 1974. The economics of industrial innovation. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  26. Freeman, Christopher. 1987. Technology policy and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  27. Fritsch, Michael. 2005. Regionalization of innovation policy – Introduction to the special issue. Research Policy 34:1123–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Geuna, Aldo. 2001. The changing rationale for european university research funding. Are there negative unintended consequences? Journal of Economic Issues 35(3): 607–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Godin, Benoit. 2006. The linear model of innovation: The historical construction of an analytical framework. Science, Technology & Human Values 31:639–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Godin, Benoit. 2010. Innovation studies. The invention of a specialty (Part II). Project on the Intellectual History of Innovation. Working Paper, 8.Google Scholar
  31. Godin, Benoit. 2015. Models in innovation research. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Conceptual Approaches to Science, Technology and Innovation. Berlin. 15.06.2015.Google Scholar
  32. Godin, Benoit, und Joseph P. Lane. 2013. Pushes and pulls: Hi(S)tory of the demand pull model of innovation. Science, Technology & Human Values 38(5): 621–654. doi:10.1177/0162243912473163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gold, Bela. 1980. On the adoptions of technological innovation in industry: Superficial models and complex decision processes. Omega 8(5): 505–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Grupp, Harriolf, und Dirk Formahl. 2010. Ökonomische Innovationsforschung. In Handbuch Wissenschaftspolitik, Hrsg. Dagmar Simon, Andreas Knie und Stefan Hornbostel, 130–150. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Guston, David. 1999. Stabilizing the boundary between US politics and science: The role of the office of technology assessment as a boundary organization. Social Studies of Science 29(1): 87–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Guston, David. 2001. Between politics and science. Assuring the integrity and productivity of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Hassink, Robert. 2002. Regional innovation support systems: Recent trends in Germany and East Asia. European Planning Studies 10(2): 153–164. doi:10.1080/09654310120114463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Heidenreich, Martin. 2000. Regionale Netzwerke in der globalen Wissensgesellschaft. In Soziale Netzwerke – Konzepte und Methoden der sozial-wissenschaftlichen Netzwerkforschung, Hrsg. Johannes Weyer, 87–110. München: Oldenbourg.Google Scholar
  39. Heinze, Thomas, und Stefan Kuhlmann. 2008. Across institutional boundaries? Research collaboration in German public sector nanoscience. Research Policy 37(8): 888–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hirsch-Kreinsen, Hartmut. 2011. Finanzmarktkapitalismus und technologische Innovationen. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 40(5): 356–370.Google Scholar
  41. Jacobsson, Staffan, und Volkmar Lauber. 2006. The politics and policy of energy system transformation – Explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology. Energy Policy 34:256–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jaffe, Adam, Manue Traitenberg, und Rebecca Henderson. 1993. Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal Economic 63:577–598.Google Scholar
  43. Jasanoff, Sheila. 1990. The fifth branch. Science advisers as policy makers. Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Jasanoff, Sheila, Hrsg. 2004. States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. Designs on nature. Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Jonas, Michael. 2005. Brücken zur regionalen Clusterforschung. Soziologische Annäherungen an ein ökonomisches Erklärungskonzept. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 34(5): 270–287.Google Scholar
  47. Jung, Arlena, Rebecca-Lea Korinek, und Holger Straßheim. 2014. Embedded expertise: A conceptual framework for reconstructing knowledge orders, their transformation and local specificities. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 27(4): 398–419. doi:10.1080/13511610.2014.892425.Google Scholar
  48. Kline, Stephen, und Nathan Rosenberg. 1986. An overview of innovation. In The positive sum Strategy: Harnessing technology for economic growth, Hrsg. R. Landau und N. Rosenberg, 275–305. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  49. Lemola, Tarmo. 2002. Convergence of national science and technology policy. The case of Finland. Research Policy 31(8): 1481–1490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lepori, Benedetto, Peter van den Besselaar, Michael Dinges, Bianca Poti, Emanuela Reale, Stig Slipersæter, Théves Jean, und Barend van der Meulen. 2007. Comparing the evolution of national research policies: What patterns of change? Science and Public Policy 34(6): 372–388.Google Scholar
  51. Lundvall, Bengt-Ake. 2002. Innovation policy in the globalizing learning economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lundvall, Bengt-Ake, und Susana Borras. 2005. Science, technology and innovation policy. In The oxford handbook of innovation, Hrsg. Fagerberg Jan, David C. Mowery und R. R. Nelson, 599–631. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Macdonald, Stuart. 1987. British science parks: Reflections on the politics of high technology. R & D Management 17(1): 25–37. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.1987.tb00045.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Malmberg, Anders, und Peter Maskell. 2002. The elusive concept of localization economics: Towards a knowledge based theory of spatial clustering. Environment and Planning 34:429–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Martin, Ben, und John Irvine. 1989. Research foresight : Priority-setting in science. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  56. Matthies, Hildegard, Dagmar Simon, Marc Torka, Hrsg. 2015. Die Responsivität der Wissenschaft: Wissenschaftliches Handeln in Zeiten neuer Wissenschaftspolitik. Bielefeld: transcript.Google Scholar
  57. Meier, Frank, und Georg Krücken. 2011. Wissens- und Technologietransfer als neues Leitbild? In Wissenschaft und Hochschulbildung im Kontext von Wirtschaft und Medien, Hrsg. Barbara Hölscher und Justine Suchanek, 91–110. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Miettinen, Reijo. 2002. National innovation system: Scientific concept or political rhetoric. Helsinki: Edita.Google Scholar
  59. Mowery, David C., und Nathan Rosenberg. 1979. The influence of market demand upon innovation. A critical review of some recent empirical studies. Research Policy 8(2): 102–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nelson, Richard. 1993. National innovation systems. A comparative analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Nelson, Richard R., und Sydney G. Winter. 1974. Neoclassical vs. Evolutionary theories of economic change: Critique and prospectus. Economic Journal (December):886–905.Google Scholar
  62. OECD. 1999. Managing national innovation systems. Paris: OECD Publications.Google Scholar
  63. OECD. 2003. Governance of public research. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  64. OECD. 2005. The measurement of scientific and technological activities: Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data: Oslo manual, 3. Aufl. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  65. Owen-Smith, Jason, Walther W. Powell. 2004. Knowledge as channels and conduits: The effect of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organization Science 15(1): 5–21.Google Scholar
  66. Pavitt, Keith. 1984. Sectoral patterns of technical change. Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy 13:343–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pavitt, Keith. 2005. Innovation processes. In The Oxford handbook of innovation, Hrsg. Jan Fagerberg, David C. Mowery und Richard R. Nelson, 86–114. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Pfeffer, Jeffrey, und Gerald Salanczik. 1978. The external control of organizations. A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  69. Piore, Michael, und Charles F. Sabel. 1998. Das Ende der Massenproduktion. Studie über die Requalifizierung der Arbeit und die Rückkehr der Ökonomie in die Gesellschaft. Berlin: Wagenbach.Google Scholar
  70. Polanyi, Michael. 1985. Implizites Wissen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  71. Porter, Michael. 1990. The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Porter, Michael. 1998. Cluster and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review 11(12): 77–90.Google Scholar
  73. Porter, Michael. 2000. Location, competition and economic development: Local clusters in a global economy. Economic Development Quarterly 14:15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Powell, Walter, Kenneth W. Koput, und Laurel Smith-Doerr. 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 41(116–145).Google Scholar
  75. Rip, Arie. 2004. Strategic research, post-modern universities and research training. High Educ Policy 17(2): 153–166. doi:10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Schauz, Désirée. 2014. Wissenschaftspolitische Sprache als Gegenstand von Forschung und disziplinärer Selbstreflexion – Das Programm des Forschungsnetzwerkes CASTI. E-Journal – Forum Interdisziplinäre Begriffsgeschichte 3(2): 49–61.Google Scholar
  77. Schmoch, Ulrich. 2003. Hochschulforschung und Industrieforschung. Perspektiven der Interaktion. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
  78. Schmoch, Ulrich, Georg Licht, und Michael Reinhard. 2000. Wissens- und Technologietransfer in Deutschland. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IRB.Google Scholar
  79. Schmookler, Jacob. 1966. Invention and economic growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1912. Die Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Eine Untersuchung über den Unternehmergewinn, Kapital, Zins und den Konjunkturzyklus. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  81. Senker, Jacqueline. 1991. Evaluating the funding of strategic science: Some lessons from British experience. Research Policy 20(1): 29–43. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(91)90082-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Senker, Jacqueline. 2001. Changing organisation of public-sector research in Europe – Implications for benchmarking human resources in RTD. Sci. and Pub. Pol. 28(4): 277–284. doi:10.3152/147154301781781390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Slaughter, Sheila. 1997. Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Slaughter, Sheila, und Gary Rhoades. 1996. The emergence of a competitiveness research and development policy coalition and the commercialization of academic science and technology. Science, Technology & Human Values 21:303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Soscice, David. 1996. German technology policy: Innovation and national institutional framework. Berlin: Edition Sigma.Google Scholar
  86. Staehler, Tanja, Dirk Dohse, und Philip Cooke. 2006. Evaluation der Fördermaßnahmen BioRegio und BioProfile. BMBF. Studie im Auftrag des BMBF: Berlin.Google Scholar
  87. Star, Susan Leigh, und James R. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional ecology, translations and boundary objects. Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–1939. Social Studies of Science 19:387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Takeuchi, Hirotaka, und Ikujiro Nonaka. 1986. The new new product development game. Harvard Business Review 1(2): 2–10.Google Scholar
  89. Tushman, Michael L., und Philip Anderson. 1986. Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly 31(3): 439–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. van Dierdonck, Roland, Koenraad Debackere, und Michael A. Rappa. 1991. An assessment of science parks: Towards a better understanding of their role in the diffusion of technological knowledge. R & D Management 21(2): 109–124. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.1991.tb00741.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. van Lente, Harro, und Arie Rip. 1998. The rise of membrane technology: From rhetorics to social reality. Social Studies of Science 28(2): 221–254. doi:10.1177/030631298028002002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Weingart, Peter. 2010. Wissenschaftssoziologie. In Handbuch Wissenschaftspolitik, Hrsg. Dagmar Simon, Andreas Knie und Stefan Hornbostel, 118–129. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Woolthuis, Klein Rosalinde, Maureen Lankhuizen, und Viktor Gilsing. (2005). A system failure framework for innovation policy design. Technovation 25(6): 609–619.Google Scholar
  94. Wydra, Sven, und Timo Leimbach. 2015. Integration von Industrie- und Innovationspolitik – Beispiele aus den USA und Israel und Ansätze der neuen EU-Industriepolitik. Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung 84(1): 121–134.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für SozialwissenschaftenHumboldt Universität zu BerlinBerlinDeutschland

Personalised recommendations