Abstract
Researchers focus on understanding the nature of ecosystems and societies as well as explaining how paradigms change. These efforts are presented and disseminated through scholarly work in scientific literature. The pool of knowledge generated through databases allows one to track how our understanding changes and how paradigms shift through time. The present study is concerned with the domain of innovation policy, which is affected directly by societal and technological change and is a good archetype for demonstrating the scientific change perspective. In recent years, scientometrics has been frequently used to measure and analyze progress in science, technology and innovation. This study makes use of a combination of scientometric analysis and evolutionary framework analysis to demonstrate the evolution of innovation policy domain. Kuhn’s seminal approach is applied for classifying and interpreting the phases across the evolution of the domain within a 30-year timeframe. The analysis demonstrates that the innovation policy domain is at the “crisis stage” as a result of ongoing with transformations in the society, technology, economy and policy. These transformations affect both supply and demand sides of innovation and call for an evolution in the innovation policy domain. Although this by no means represents that the innovation policy domain is in a “deadlock”, the present study asserts that there is a new quest in innovation policy by adapting, re-framing or re-constructing the scope of the domain. The anticipated paradigm shift is expected to lead to a more de-centralized and distributed understanding of the world for innovation policy making.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Proposed by the authors to indicate government entrepreneurship.
References
Ankeny, R. A., & Leonelli, S. (2016). Repertoires: A post-kuhnian perspective on scientific change and collaborative research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 60, 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2016.08.003.
Arrow, K. (1962). ‘Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In R. R. Nelson (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors. Washington: NBER.
Bhushan, B. (2015). Perspective: Science and technology policy—What is at stake and why should scientists participate? Science and Public Policy, 42(6), 887–900. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scv005.
Bleda, M., & del Rio, P. (2013). The market failure and the systemic failure rationales in technological innovation systems. Research Policy, 42(5), 1039–1052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.02.008.
Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2010). Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2389–2404. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21419.
Boyer, R. (1990). The regulation school: A critical introduction. New York: Columbia University Press.
Burns, T. R., Roszkowska, E., Machado Des Johansson, N., & Corte, U. (2018). Paradigm shift in game theory: Sociological re-conceptualization of human agency, social structure, and agents’ cognitive-normative frameworks and action determination modalities. Social Sciences, 7(3), 1–40.
Bush, V. (1945). Science, the endless frontier: A report to the president. Washington, DC: G.P.O.
Cantner, U., & Pyka, A. (2001). Classifying technology policy from an evolutionary perspective. Research Policy, 30(5), 759–775. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00104-9.
Chandler, A. D. (2003). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American industrial enterprise. Washington, DC: Beard Books.
Chen, C. M. (2004). Searching for intellectual turning points: Progressive knowledge domain visualization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, 5303–5310. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0307513100.
Chen, C. M. (2006). Citespace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317.
Chen, C., & Song, M. (2017). Representing scientific knowledge the role of uncertainty. Cham: Springer.
Chen, C. M., Song, I. Y., Yuan, X. J., & Zhang, J. (2008). The thematic and citation landscape of data and knowledge engineering (1985–2007). Data & Knowledge Engineering, 67(2), 234–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2008.05.004.
Cobo, M. J., Lopez-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1382–1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525.
Davenport, S., & Bibby, D. (1999). Rethinking a national innovation system: The small country as ‘sme’. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 11(3), 431–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/095373299107447.
De Langhe, R. (2017). Towards the discovery of scientific revolutions in scientometric data. Scientometrics, 110(1), 505–519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2108-x.
Edler, J., & Fagerberg, J. (2017). Innovation policy: What, why, and how. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33(1), 2–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grx001.
Edquist, C. (1999). Innovation policy: A systemic approach. Linköping: TEMA, Univ.
Edquist, C. (2001). Innovation policy in the systems of innovation approach: Some basic principles. In Knowledge, complexity and innovation systems (pp. 46–57). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Edquist, C., & Johnson, B. (1997). Institutions and organizations in systems of innovation. In C. Edquist, & M. McKelvey (Eds.), Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations (pp. 165–188). Routledge.
Ergas, H. (1987). The importance of technology policy. In P. Dasgupta, & P. Stoneman (Eds.), Economic policy and technological performance (pp. 51–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fagerberg, J. (2017). Innovation policy: Rationales, lessons and challenges. Journal of Economic Surveys, 31(2), 497–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12164.
Fagerberg, J., & Verspagen, B. (2009). Innovation studies-the emerging structure of a new scientific field. Research Policy, 38(2), 218–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.12.006.
Flanagan, K., & Uyarra, E. (2016). Four dangers in innovation policy studies—And how to avoid them. Industry and Innovation, 23(2), 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2016.1146126.
Foray, D. (2004). Economics of knowledge. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Freeman, C. (1987). Technology, policy, and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Pinter Publishers.
Fuchs, S. (1993). A sociological-theory of scientific change. Social Forces, 71(4), 933–953. https://doi.org/10.2307/2580125.
Garfield, E., Malin, M. V., & Small, H. (1978). Citation data as science indicators. In J. L. Y. Elkana, R. K. Merton, A. Thackray, & H. Zuckerman (Eds.), Toward a metric of science: The advent of science indicators. New York: Wiley.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gmur, M. (2003). Co-citation analysis and the search for invisible colleges: A methodological evaluation. Scientometrics, 57(1), 27–57. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023619503005.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171110.
Gutting, G. (1980). Paradigms and revolutions appraisals and applications of Thomas Kuhn’s philosophy of science. Indiana, USA: University of Notre Dame Press.
Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social-learning, and the state—The case of economic policy-making in britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275–296. https://doi.org/10.2307/422246.
Hamari, J., Sjoklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2016). The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(9), 2047–2059. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23552.
Hassink, R., & Lagendijk, A. (2001). The dilemmas of interregional institutional learning. Environment and Planning C-Government and Policy, 19(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1068/c9943.
He, Q. (1999). Knowledge discovery through co-word analysis. Library Trends, 48(1), 133–159.
Hegger, D., Lamers, M., Van Zeijl-Rozema, A., & Dieperink, C. (2012). Conceptualising joint knowledge production in regional climate change adaptation projects: Success conditions and levers for action. Environmental Science & Policy, 18, 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.01.002.
Hicks, D. (1987). Limitations of cocitation analysis as a tool for science policy. Social Studies of Science, 17(2), 295–316.
Howells, J. (2005). Innovation and regional economic development: A matter of perspective? Research Policy, 34(8), 1220–1234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.014.
Hughes, T. P. (1986). The evolution of large technological systems. Berlin: WZB.
Jasanoff, S., Markle, G. E., Peterson, J. C., & Pinch, T. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of science and technology studies. Sage publications.
Jones, W. P., & Furnas, G. W. (1987). Pictures of relevance—A geometric analysis of similarity measures. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 38(6), 420–442. https://doi.org/10.1002/(Sici)1097-4571(198711)38:6%3c420:Aid-Asi3%3e3.0.Co;2-S.
Kaplan, D. E. (1999). On the literature of the economics of technological change. Science and technology policy in South Africa. South African Journal of Economics, 67(4), 473–490.
Kern, F. (2012). Using the multi-level perspective on socio-technical transitions to assess innovation policy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(2), 298–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.07.004.
Klavans, R., & Boyack, K. W. (2017). Which type of citation analysis generates the most accurate taxonomy of scientific and technical knowledge? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(4), 984–998. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23734.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lejano, R. P., & Dodge, J. (2017). The narrative properties of ideology: The adversarial turn and climate skepticism in the USA. Policy Sciences, 50(2), 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-016-9274-9.
Lundvall, B.-A. K. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London, New York: Pinter Publishers. Distributed exclusively in the USA and Canada by St. Martin’s Press.
Lundvall, B. Å. (2001). Innovation policy in the globalizing learning economy. In B. Å. Lundvall & D. Archibugi (Eds.), The globalizing learning economy (pp. 273–291). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Malerba, F. (1997). Public policy and industrial dynamics: An evolutionary perspective. In C. Edquist (Ed.), Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations. London: Cassel.
Martin, B. R. (2012). The evolution of science policy and innovation studies. Research Policy, 41(7), 1219–1239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.012.
Martin, B. (2016). Twenty challenges for innovation studies. Science and Public Policy, 43(3), 432–450. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scv077.
Martin, S., & Scott, J. T. (2000). The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovation. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 437–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00084-0.
Metcalfe, J. S. (1994). Evolutionary economics and technology policy. Economic Journal, 104(425), 931–944.
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of web of science and scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5.
Nelson, R. R. (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
Noyons, E. (2001). Bibliometric mapping of science in a science policy context. Scientometrics, 50(1), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005694202977.
Noyons, E. C. M., & Van Raan, A. F. J. (1998). Advanced mapping of science and technology. Scientometrics, 41(1–2), 61–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/Bf02457967.
Paker, M. M. (2017). On the applicability of theories of scientific change to economics. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/560ab115e4b0f2cf50225c2d/t/59df6dd8bebafb49379cfd4b/1507814873548/Paker_TheoriesOfScientificChange%2Cpdf.pdf.
Polsby, N. W. (1998). Social science and scientific change: A note on thomas s. Kuhn’s contribution. Annual Review of Political Science, 1, 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.1.1.199.
Porter, M. E. (1998). The competitive advantage of nations: With a new introduction. New York: Free Press.
Price, D. J. D. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149(3683), 510–515.
Rees, C. M. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions at fifty. The New Atlantis, 37, 71–86.
Roe, S. M. (2017). The journey from discovery to scientific change: Scientific communities, shared models, and specialised vocabulary. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 31(1), 47–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2017.1370932.
Rorvig, M. (1999). Images of similarity: A visual exploration of optimal similarity metrics and scaling properties of trec topic-document sets. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(8), 639–651. https://doi.org/10.1002/(Sici)1097-4571(1999)50:8%3c639:Aid-Asi2%3e3.0.Co;2-C.
Salton, G. (1963). Associative document retrieval techniques using bibliographic information. Journal of the ACM, 10(4), 440–457. https://doi.org/10.1145/321186.321188.
Salton, G., & McGill, M. J. (1983). Introduction to modern information retrieval. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sanz Menendez, L., Cabello Valdes, C., & Anton Hurtado, F. M. (2000). Foresight as a tool for science and technology policy. Arbor-Ciencia Pensamiento Y Cultura, 167(657), 79–109. https://doi.org/10.3989/arbor.2000.i657.1151.
Schut, M., van Paassen, A., Leeuwis, C., & Klerkx, L. (2014). Towards dynamic research configurations: A framework for reflection on the contribution of research to policy and innovation processes. Science and Public Policy, 41(2), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/sct048.
Shneider, A. M. (2009). Four stages of a scientific discipline; four types of scientist. Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 34(5), 217–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibs.2009.02.002.
Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265–269.
Small, H. (1999). Visualizing science by citation mapping. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(9), 799–813. https://doi.org/10.1002/(Sici)1097-4571(1999)50:9%3c799:Aid-Asi9%3e3.3.Co;2-7.
Small, H., & Greenlee, E. (1980). Citation context analysis of a co-citation cluster: Recombinant-DNA. Scientometrics, 2(4), 277–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/Bf02016349.
Small, H., & Griffith, B. C. (1974). Structure of scientific literatures I: Identifying and graphing specialties. Science Studies, 4(1), 17–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631277400400102.
Smith, L. C. (1981). Citation analysis. Library Trends, 30(1), 83–106.
Smith, K. (2000). Innovation as a systemic phenomenon: Rethinking the role of policy. Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies, 1(1), 73.
Sternberg, R. (1996a). Government R&D expenditure and space: Empirical evidence from five industrialized countries. Research Policy, 25(5), 741–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(95)00860-8.
Sternberg, R. (1996b). Technology policies and the growth of regions: Evidence from four countries. Small Business Economics, 8(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/Bf00394419.
Thaler, R. H. (2016). Behavioral economics: Past, present, and future. American Economic Review, 106(7), 1577–1600. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.106.7.1577.
Todtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2005). One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy, 34(8), 1203–1219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.018.
Turnhout, E., Stuiver, M., Klostermann, J., Harms, B., & Leeuwis, C. (2013). New roles of science in society: Different repertoires of knowledge brokering. Science and Public Policy, 40(3), 354–365. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs114.
Uyarra, E., & Flanagan, K. (2010). From regional systems of innovation to regions as innovation policy spaces. Environment and Planning C-Government and Policy, 28(4), 681–695. https://doi.org/10.1068/c0961.
Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2007). Bibliometric mapping of the computational intelligence field. International Journal of Uncertainty Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 15(5), 625–645. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218488507004911.
van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2009). How to normalize cooccurrence data? An analysis of some well-known similarity measures. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1635–1651. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21075.
Vanner, R., & Martha, B. (2013). The use of paradigms in dynamix. Retrieved from https://dynamix-project.eu/sites/default/files/D1.1_list_Paradigms_public.pdf.
Veld, R. J. I. (2010). Towards knowledge democracy. Knowledge Democracy: Consequences for Science, Politics, and Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11381-9_1.
Weber, K. M., & Rohracher, H. (2012). Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive ‘failures’ framework. Research Policy, 41(6), 1037–1047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.015.
Acknowledgements
Dr. Ozcan Saritas’ contribution in this publication was supported within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University HSE and was funded within the framework of the subsidy granted to the HSE by the Government of the Russian Federation for the implementation of the Global Competitiveness Program. Dr. Serhat Burmaoglu’s contribution in this publication was supported by TUBITAK 229 Program and IKC-BAP 2018-ODL-IIBF-0015.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Burmaoglu, S., Saritas, O. An evolutionary analysis of the innovation policy domain: Is there a paradigm shift?. Scientometrics 118, 823–847 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03014-1
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03014-1