64 research outputs found
The role of TA in Systemic Innovation Policy
Starting from the perception of innovation as a multi actor, multi level strategic game, this paper addresses the role of strategic intelligence, more in particular of TA, in systemic innovation policies. First the history of TA in the US and Europe over the last 4 decades are described and its role in innovation policies discussed. Hereafter the role and (possible) impact of strategic intelligence and systemic innovation policies is analysed. Two recent cases of Constructive TA are used to illustrate how this role is operationalised. The paper is concluded with conclusions on how strategic intelligence may further reinforce systemic innovation policies. Special attention is paid to the role of strategic intelligence in empowering users and other non traditional actors in innovation processes.
Recommended from our members
Geology of a part of the Heavens Gate quadrangle, Seven Devils Mountains, western Idaho
Metamorphosed volcanogenic rocks of the Permian and Triassic Seven Devils Group are exposed in the northern part of the Heavens Gate 7.5 minute quadrangle, western Idaho. These rocks originated in a volcanic arc at a destructive plate margin. In the north, rocks that probably belong to the Lower Permian Hunsaker Creek Formation comprise abundant volcaniclastic lithologies and sparse keratophyre and quartz keratophyre flows. To the south, the Middle to Upper Triassic Wild Sheep Creek Formation comprises volcaniclastic rocks interbedded with abundant spilite and keratophyre flows. Trace element analyses of these flow rocks indicate that most are transitional, probably calc-alkaline, island arc volcanic rocks. Some flow rocks may be island arc tholeiites. The lithologic and geochemical character of these rocks is different from that of the Wrangellia terrane, with which they have been correlated. The Seven Devils Group is overlain along a low angle thrust fault by the lower to middle Norian Martin Bridge Formation. This unit is composed primarily of sheared marbles, with local occurrence of unsheared micrite. The Martin Bridge Formation is overlain along the Rapid River thrust by the Upper Triassic Lucille Formation and by the Riggins Group (age unknown). Riggins Group in this area includes metavolcanics of the Lightning Creek Schist and metasediments of the Squaw Creek Schist. They both overlie the Martin Bridge Formation along a single plane of the Rapid River thrust in the southern part of the field area. To the north, the Seven Devils Group, Martin Bridge Formation, Lucille Formation, and Lightning Creek Schist are juxtaposed along imbrications of the Rapid River thrust. Structural elements of the study area indicate that the Rapid River thrust may have affected rocks significantly farther to the west than had been previously recognized. Bedding-parallel ductile shear fabrics occur in volcaniclastic rocks throughout the field area. The intensity of ductile shearing increases toward the low angle thrust fault that separates the Seven Devils Group from the Martin Bridge Formation. This thrust is interpreted to be an integral part of the Rapid River thrust system. An east-west-trending tear fault that separates Wild Sheep Creek Formation from Hunsaker Creek Formation postdates low-angle thrusting, and probably indicates the occurrence of structurally lower thrust faults that have not yet been documented. Tonalites of probable Late Jurassic to Early Cretaceous age postdate ductile shearing and thrust faulting. This may indicate that deformation of this area occurred during the regionally significant Late Jurassic pulse of the Nevadan orogeny. This event may record the collision of the Seven Devils volcanic arc with North America
Recommended from our members
Policy implications of technologies for cognitive enhancement
The Advanced Concepts Group at Sandia National Laboratory and the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University convened a workshop in May 2006 to explore the potential policy implications of technologies that might enhance human cognitive abilities. The group's deliberations sought to identify core values and concerns raised by the prospect of cognitive enhancement. The workshop focused on the policy implications of various prospective cognitive enhancements and on the technologies/nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive science--that enable them. The prospect of rapidly emerging technological capabilities to enhance human cognition makes urgent a daunting array of questions, tensions, ambitions, and concerns. The workshop elicited dilemmas and concerns in ten overlapping areas: science and democracy; equity and justice; freedom and control; intergenerational issues; ethics and competition; individual and community rights; speed and deliberations; ethical uncertainty; humanness; and sociocultural risk. We identified four different perspectives to encompass the diverse issues related to emergence of cognitive enhancement technologies: (1) Laissez-faire--emphasizes freedom of individuals to seek and employ enhancement technologies based on their own judgment; (2) Managed technological optimism--believes that while these technologies promise great benefits, such benefits cannot emerge without an active government role; (3) Managed technological skepticism--views that the quality of life arises more out of society's institutions than its technologies; and (4) Human Essentialism--starts with the notion of a human essence (whether God-given or evolutionary in origin) that should not be modified. While the perspectives differ significantly about both human nature and the role of government, each encompasses a belief in the value of transparency and reliable information that can allow public discussion and decisions about cognitive enhancement. The practical question is how to foster productive discussions in a society whose attention is notably fragmented and priorities notably diverse. The question of what to talk about remains central, as each of the four perspectives is concerned about different things. Perhaps the key issue for initial clarification as a condition for productive democratic discussion has to do with the intended goals of cognitive enhancement, and the mechanisms for allowing productive deliberation about these goals
Winning Hearts, Losing Minds:Politicisation and the Contestation of Expertise in the Context of TTIP Negotiations
What Stimulates Researchers to Make Their Research Usable? Towards an Openness Approach
Ambiguity surrounding the effect of external engagement on academic research has raised questions about what motivates researchers to collaborate with third parties. We argue that what matters for society is research that can be absorbed by users. We define openness as a willingness by researchers to make research more usable by external partners by responding to external influences in their own research practices. We ask what kinds of characteristics define those researchers who are more open to creating usable knowledge. Our empirical study analyses a sample of 1583 researchers working at the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC). Results demonstrate that it is personal factors (academic identity and past experience) that determine which researchers have open behaviours. The paper concludes that policies to encourage external engagement should focus on experiences which legitimate and validate knowledge produced through user encounters, both at the academic formation career stage as well as through providing ongoing opportunities to engage with third parties.The data used for this study comes from the IMPACTO project funded by the Spanish Council for Scientific Research - CSIC (Ref. 200410E639). The work also benefited from a mobility grant awarded by Eu-Spri Forum to Julia Olmos Penuela & Paul Benneworth for her visiting research to the Center of Higher Education Policy Studies. Finally, Julia Olmos Penuela also benefited from a post-doctoral grant funded by the Generalitat Valenciana (APOSTD-2014-A-006).Olmos-Peñuela, J.; Benneworth, P.; Castro-MartĂnez, E. (2015). What Stimulates Researchers to Make Their Research Usable? Towards an Openness Approach. Minerva. 53(4):381-410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-015-9283-4S381410534Abreu, Maria, Vadim Grinevich, Alan Hughes, and Michael Kitson. 2009. Knowledge exchange between academics and the business, public and third sectors. Cambridge: Centre for Business Research and UK-IRC.Aghion, Philippe, Mathias Dewatripont, and Jeremy C. Stein. 2008. Academic freedom, private-sector focus, and the process of innovation. RAND Journal of Economics 39: 617â635.Ajzen, Icek. 2001. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology 52(1): 27â58.AlrĂže, Hugo Fjelsted, and Erik Steen Kristensen. 2002. Towards a systemic research methodology in agriculture: Rethinking the role of values in science. Agriculture and Human Values 19(1): 3â23.Audretsch, David B., Werner Bönte, and Stefan Krabel. 2010. Why do scientists in public research institutions cooperate with private firms. In DRUID Working Paper, 10â27.Baldini, Nicola, Rosa Grimaldi, and Maurizio Sobrero. 2007. To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics 70(2): 333â354.Bandura, Albert. 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Barnett, R. 2009. Knowing and becoming in the higher education curriculum. Studies in Higher Education 34(4): 429â440.Becher, Tony. 1994. The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education 19(2): 151â161.Becher, Tony, and Paul Trowler. 2001. Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. McGraw-Hill International.Bekkers, Rudi, and Isabel Maria Bodas Freitas. 2008. Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy 37(10): 1837â1853.Belderbos, RenĂ©, Martin Carree, Bert Diederen, Boris Lokshin, and Reinhilde Veugelers. 2004. Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization 22(8): 1237â1263.Benner, Mats, and Ulf Sandström. 2000. Institutionalizing the triple helix: Research funding and norms in the academic system. Research Policy 29(2): 291â301.Bercovitz, Janet, and Maryann Feldman. 2008. Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science 19(1): 69â89.Berman, Elizabeth Popp. 2011. Creating the market university: How academic science became an economic engine. Princeton University Press.Bleiklie, Ivar, and Roar HĂžstaker. 2004. Modernizing research training-education and science policy between profession, discipline and academic institution. Higher Education Policy 17(2): 221â236.Bozeman, Barry, Daniel Fay, and Catherine P. Slade. 2013. Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The-state-of-the-art. The Journal of Technology Transfer 38(1): 1â67.Collini, Stefan. 2009. Impact on humanities: Researchers must take a stand now or be judged and rewarded as salesmen. The Times Literary Supplement 5563: 18â19.DâEste, Pablo, and Markus Perkmann. 2011. Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer 36(3): 316â339.DâEste, Pablo, Oscar Llopis, and Alfredo Yegros. 2013. Conducting pro-social research: Cognitive diversity, research excellence and awareness about the social impact of research: INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series.Deem, Rosemary, and Lisa Lucas. 2007. Research and teaching cultures in two contrasting UK policy contexts: Academic life in education departments in five English and Scottish universities. Higher Education 54(1): 115â133.DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147â160.Downing, David B. 2005. The knowledge contract: Politics and paradigms in the academic workplace. Lincoln: Nebraska University of Nebraska Press.Donovan, Claire. 2007. The qualitative future of research evaluation. Science and Public Policy 34(8): 585â597.Durning, Bridget. 2004. Planning academics and planning practitioners: Two tribes or a community of practice? Planning Practice and Research 19(4): 435â446.Edquist, Charles. 1997. System of innovation approaches: Their emergence and characteristics. In Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations, ed. C. Edquist, 1â35. London: Pinter.Etzkowitz, Henry, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and âMode 2â to a Triple Helix of universityâindustryâgovernment relations. Research Policy 29(2): 109â123.Fromhold-Eisebith, Martina, Claudia Werker, and Marcel Vojnic. 2014. Tracing the social dimension in innovation networks. In The social dynamics of innovation networks, eds. Roel Rutten, Paul Benneworth, Frans Boekema, and Dessy Irawati. London: Routledge (in press).Geuna, Aldo, and Alessandro Muscio. 2009. The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva 47(1): 93â114.Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.GlĂ€ser, Jochen. 2012. How does Governance change research content? On the possibility of a sociological middle-range theory linking science policy studies to the sociology of scientific knowledge. Technical University Berlin. Technology Studies Working Papers. http://www.ts.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/fg226/TUTS/TUTS-WP-1-2012.pdf . Accessed 16 Feb 2015.Goethner, Maximilian, Martin Obschonka, Rainer K. Silbereisen, and Uwe Cantner. 2012. Scientistsâ transition to academic entrepreneurship: Economic and psychological determinants. Journal of Economic Psychology 33(3): 628â641.Gulbrandsen, Magnus, and Jens-Christian Smeby. 2005. Industry funding and university professorsâ research performance. Research Policy 34(6): 932â950.Haeussler, Carolin, and Jeannette Colyvas. 2011. Breaking the ivory tower: Academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences in UK and Germany. Research Policy 40(1): 41â54.Hessels, Laurens K., Harro van Lente, John Grin, and Ruud E.H.M. Smits. 2011. Changing struggles for relevance in eight fields of natural science. Industry and Higher Education 25(5): 347â357.Hessels, Laurens K., and Harro Van Lente. 2008. Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy 37(4): 740â760.Hoye, Kate, and Fred Pries. 2009. âRepeat commercializersâ, the âhabitual entrepreneursâ of universityâindustry technology transfer. Technovation 29(10): 682â689.Jacobson, Nora, Dale Butterill, and Paula Goering. 2004. Organizational factors that influence university-based researchersâ engagement in knowledge transfer activities. Science Communication 25(3): 246â259.Jain, Sanjay, Gerard George, and Mark Maltarich. 2009. Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy 38(6): 922â935.Jasanoff, Sheila, and Sang-Hyun Kim. 2013. Sociotechnical imaginaries and national energy policies. Science as Culture 22(2): 189â196.Jensen, Pablo. 2011. A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France. Public Understanding of Science 20(1): 26â36.Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1981. The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Kronenberg, Kristin, and Marjolein CaniĂ«ls. 2014. Professional proximity in research collaborations. In The social dynamics of innovation networks, eds. Roel Rutten, Paul Benneworth, Frans Boekema, and Dessy Irawati. London: Routledge (in press).Krueger, Rob, and David Gibbs. 2010. Competitive global city regions and sustainable developmentâ: An interpretive institutionalist account in the South East of England. Environment and planning A 42: 821â837.Lam, Alice. 2011. What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: âGoldâ, âribbonâ or âpuzzleâ? Research Policy 40(10): 1354â1368.Landry, RĂ©jean, Malek SaĂŻhi, Nabil Amara, and Mathieu Ouimet. 2010. Evidence on how academics manage their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities. Research Policy 39(10): 1387â1403.Lee, Alison, and David Boud. 2003. Writing groups, change and academic identity: Research development as local practice. Studies in Higher Education 28(2): 187â200.Lee, Yong S. 1996. âTechnology transferâ and the research university: A search for the boundaries of universityâindustry collaboration. Research Policy 25(6): 843â863.Lee, Yong S. 2000. The sustainability of universityâindustry research collaboration: An empirical assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer 25(2): 111â133.Leisyte, Liudvika, JĂŒrgen Enders, and Harry De Boer. 2008. The freedom to set research agendasâillusion and reality of the research units in the Dutch Universities. Higher Education Policy 21(3): 377â391.Louis, Karen Seashore, David Blumenthal, Michael E. Gluck, and Michael A. Stoto. 1989. Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly 34(1): 110â131.Lowe, Philip, Jeremy Phillipson, and Katy Wilkinson. 2013. Why social scientists should engage with natural scientists. Contemporary Social Science 8(3): 207â222.MartĂn-Sempere, MarĂa JosĂ©, BelĂ©n GarzĂłn-GarcĂa, and JesĂșs Rey-Rocha. 2008. Scientistsâ motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: Surveying participants at the Madrid Science Fair. Public Understanding of Science 17(3): 349â367.Martin, Ben. 2003. The changing social contract for science and the evolution of the university. In Science and innovation: Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance, eds. A. Geuna, A.J. Salter, and W.E. Steinmueller, 7â29. Cheltenhan: Edward Elgar.Merton, Robert K. 1973. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Miller, Thaddeus R., and Mark W. Neff. 2013. De-facto science policy in the making: how scientists shape science policy and why it matters (or, why STS and STP scholars should socialize). Minerva 51(3): 295â315.MuthĂ©n, Bengt O. 1998â2004. Mplus Technical Appendices. MuthĂ©n & MuthĂ©n. Los Angeles, CA.: MuthĂ©n & MuthĂ©n.Nedeva, Maria. 2013. Between the global and the national: Organising European science. Research Policy 42(1): 220â230.Neff, Mark William. 2014. Research prioritization and the potential pitfall of path dependencies in coral reef science. Minerva 52(2): 213â235.Nelson, Richard R. 2001. Observations on the post-Bayh-Dole rise of patenting at American universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer 26(1): 13â19.Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.Olmos-Peñuela, Julia, Paul Benneworth, and Elena Castro-MartĂnez. 2014a. Are âSTEM from Mars and SSH from Venusâ? Challenging disciplinary stereotypes of researchâs social value. Science and Public Policy 41: 384â400.Olmos-Peñuela, Julia, Elena Castro-MartĂnez, and Manuel FernĂĄndez-Esquinas. 2014b. Diferencias entre ĂĄreas cientĂficas en las prĂĄcticas de divulgaciĂłn de la investigaciĂłn: un estudio empĂrico en el CSIC. Revista Española de DocumentaciĂłn CientĂfica. doi: 10.3989/redc.2014.2.1096 .Ouimet, Mathieu, Nabil Amara, RĂ©jean Landry, and John Lavis. 2007. Direct interactions medical school faculty members have with professionals and managers working in public and private sector organizations: A cross-sectional study. Scientometrics 72(2): 307â323.Perkmann, Markus, Valentina Tartari, Maureen McKelvey, Erkko Autio, Anders Brostrom, Pablo DâEste, Riccardo Fini, et al. 2013. Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy 42(2): 423â442.Philpott, Kevin, Lawrence Dooley, Caroline OâReilly, and Gary Lupton. 2011. The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation 31(4): 161â170.Rutten, Roel, and Frans Boekema. 2012. From learning region to learning in a socio-spatial context. Regional Studies 46(8): 981â992.Sarewitz, Daniel, and Roger A. Pielke. 2007. The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science & Policy 10(1): 5â16.Sauermann, Henry, and Paula Stephan. 2013. Conflicting logics? A multidimensional view of industrial and academic science. Organization Science 24(3): 889â909.Schein, Edgar H. 1985. Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Shane, Scott. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science 11(4): 448â469.Spaapen, Jack, and Leonie van Drooge. 2011. Introducing âproductive interactionsâ in social impact assessment. Research Evaluation 20(3): 211â218.Stokes, Donald E. 1997. Pasteurâs quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Tartari, Valentina, and Stefano Breschi. 2012. Set them free: scientistsâ evaluations of the benefits and costs of universityâindustry research collaboration. Industrial and Corporate Change 21(5): 1117â1147.Tinker, Tony, and Rob Gray. 2003. Beyond a critique of pure reason: From policy to politics to praxis in environmental and social research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 16(5): 727â761.van Rijnsoever, Frank J., Laurens K. Hessels, and Rens L.J. Vandeberg. 2008. A resource-based view on the interactions of university researchers. Research Policy 37(8): 1255â1266.Venkataraman, Sankaran. 1997. The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An editorâs perspective. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth 3: 119â138.Verspagen, Bart. 2006. University research, intellectual property rights and European innovation systems. Journal of Economic Surveys 20(4): 607â632.Villanueva-Felez, Africa, Jordi Molas-Gallart, and Alejandro EscribĂĄ-Esteve. 2013. Measuring personal networks and their relationship with scientific production. Minerva 51(4): 465â483.Watermeyer, Richard. 2015. Lost in the âthird spaceâ: the impact of public engagement in higher education on academic identity, research practice and career progression. European Journal of Higher Education (online first, doi: 10.1080/21568235.2015.1044546 ).Weingart, Peter. 2009. Editorial for Issue 47/3. Minerva 47(3): 237â239.Ziman, John. 1996. âPostacademic scienceâ: Constructing knowledge with networks and norms. Science Studies 1: 67â80.Zomer, Arend H., Ben W.A. Jongbloed, and JĂŒrgen Enders. 2010. Do spin-offs make the academicsâ heads spin? The impacts of spin-off companies on their parent research organisation. Minerva 48(3): 331â353
How Science Makes Environmental Controversies Worse. Environmental Science and Policy 7(5): 385â403
Abstract I use the example of the 2000 US Presidential election to show that political controversies with technical underpinnings are not resolved by technical means. Then, drawing from examples such as climate change, genetically modified foods, and nuclear waste disposal, I explore the idea that scientific inquiry is inherently and unavoidably subject to becoming politicized in environmental controversies. I discuss three reasons for this. First, science supplies contesting parties with their own bodies of relevant, legitimated facts about nature, chosen in part because they help make sense of, and are made sensible by, particular interests and normative frameworks. Second, competing disciplinary approaches to understanding the scientific bases of an environmental controversy may be causally tied to competing value-based political or ethical positions. The necessity of looking at nature through a variety of disciplinary lenses brings with it a variety of normative lenses, as well. Third, it follows from the foregoing that scientific uncertainty, which so often occupies a central place in environmental controversies, can be understood not as a lack of scientific understanding but as the lack of coherence among competing scientific understandings, amplified by the various political, cultural, and institutional contexts within which science is carried out. In light of these observations, I briefly explore the problem of why some types of political controversies become "scientized" and others do not, and conclude that the value bases of disputes underlying environmental controversies must be fully articulated and adjudicated through political means before science can play an effective role in resolving environmental problems
- âŠ