Inventor networks in emerging key technologies: Information technology vs. semiconductors

This paper analyzes the development of the German knowledge base measured by co-classifications of patents by German inventors and relate this technological development to changes in the structure of the underlying inventor networks. The central hypothesis states that technologies that become more central to the knowledge base are also characterized by a higher connectedness of the inventor network. The theoretical considerations are exemplified in a comparative study of two patenting fieldsâ¤"information technology and semiconductors. It turns out that information technology shows the highest increases in patents, but only a moderate move towards the center of the knowledge base. By contrast, semiconductors develops towards a key technology, despite a moderate increase in the number of patents. The dynamic analysis of inventor networks in both fields shows an increasing connectedness and the emergence of a large component in semiconductors, but not in information technology, which is in line with the expectations.Knowledge relatedness, Innovator networks, Interdisciplinary research, Patents, Key Technology

Innovation and the evolution of industries

Technological change, Market structure, Firm strategy, Market performance, Industry studies, O3, L1, L6,

Knowledge specialization and R&D collaboration

This paper contributes to the knowledge-based explanation of R&D networks. It argues that knowledge overlap and novelty are complementary inputs of a R&D alliance, in forms that depend upon the exploration breadth and depth of the R&D activity. The paper investigates how the hypothesis of specialization of the knowledge endowments can recover a number of characteristic empirical properties of a pattern of R&D collaboration in the economy. Implications for network evolution are discussed

Towards Innovation Democracy? Participation, Responsibility and Precaution in Innovation Governance.

Innovation is about more than technological invention. It involves change of many kinds: cultural, organisational and behavioural as well as technological. So, in a world crying out for social justice and ecological care, innovation holds enormous progressive potential. Yet there are no guarantees that any particular realised innovation will necessarily be positive. Indeed, powerful forces ‘close down’ innovation in the directions favoured by the most privileged interests. So harnessing the positive transformative potential for innovation in any given area, is not about optimizing some single self-evidently progressive trajectory in a ‘race to the future’. Instead, it is about collaboratively exploring diverse and uncertain pathways – in ways that deliberately balance the spurious effects of incumbent power. In other words, what is needed is a more realistic, rational and vibrant ‘innovation democracy’