یادداشتی در دفاع از مدل خطی نوآوری

نویسندگان

1 استادیار پژوهشکده مطالعات بنیادین علم و فناوری، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

2 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد سیاست گذاری علم و فناوری، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

چکیده

این یادداشت به بررسی نقاط قوت و ضعف مدل به اصطلاح خطی نوآوری می‌پردازد و در واقع پاسخی است به رویکرد معمول بیش از حد ساده انگارانه، مکانیکی یا به وضوح ساده، که در آن به نحوی غیرمنصفانه مدل خطی مورد انتقاد قرار می‌گیرد. استدلال ما این است که برخی از انتقادها اساسا وارد و درست بوده، اما در مقابل بسیاری دیگر از انتقادها مبنای درستی نداشته و بر پایه فرضیاتی بی اساس و غیرقابل توجیه بنیان نهاده شده‌اند. به منظور تفکیک این دو دسته از انتقادات، یادداشت حاضر ابتدا توصیفی جامع از مدل خطی ارائه نموده و آن را از تصویر کاریکاتورگونه‌ رایج منتسب به آن متمایز می‌سازد. دوماً، در مورد انتقادات اصلی مطرح به مدل خطی نوآوری بحث نموده و نشان داده می‌شود که بسیاری از انتقادات به هیچ وجه مخرب نیستند، اما می‌توانند به سهولت با نسخه‌ای تصحیح شده از مدل خطی مورد قبول واقع شوند. سوماً، مفاهیم سیاستی حاصل (یا گفته شده) از مدل خطی مورد بحث قرار گرفته و استدلال می‌شود که مدل خطی به خودی خود از نظر سیاستی، خنثی است. برای توجیه دلالت‌های سیاستی جایگزین، مفروضات دیگری می‌بایست به آن اضافه شوند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

In defence of the linear model: An essay

نویسندگان [English]

  • Kiarash Fartash 1
  • Teodik Hayrapetian 2
1 Assistant Professor, Institute for Science and Technology Studies, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
2 Master Student, S&T Policy, Shahid Beheshti University
چکیده [English]

This essay discusses the strength and weaknesses of the so-called linear model (LM) of innovation. It is a reaction to the habit of criticising it as over simplistic, mechanistic, or simply blatantly wrong. We argue that, while some criticisms are of course well grounded, many others are instead based on loose interpretations and unwarranted assumptions. In order to separate the wheat from the chaff, this essay first presents a comprehensive description of the linear model and differentiates it from the caricature many refer to. Second, we discuss the main criticisms put forward and argue that many of them are not at all destructive, but can be easily accepted within a refined version of the LM. Third, we discuss the policy implications often derived (or said to derive) from the LM to argue that the LM itself is distinctively policy-neutral. Other assumptions have to be added to justify alternative policy implications.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Linear model
  • Innovation
  • Research
  • Chain-linked model

مراجع

[1]    Freeman C. The greening of technology and models of innovation. Technological forecasting and social change. 1996 Sep 1; 53 (1): 27-39.
[2]    Smelser NJ, Swedberg R. The Handbook of Economic Sociology.
[3]    Godin B. The linear model of innovation: The historical construction of an analytical framework. Science, Technology, & Human Values. 2006 Nov; 31 (6): 639-67.
[4]    Edgerton D. 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. History, policy, implications, eds. Karl Grandin, Nina Wormbs, and Sven Widmalm. 2004: 31-57.
[5]    Hounshell, D. In: Grandin, K., Worms, N., Widmalm, S. (Eds.), Industrial Research, Commentary. Science History Publications, Sagamore Beach, 2004; 59–65.
[6]    Godin B. In the shadow of Schumpeter: W. Rupert Maclaurin and the study of technological innovation. Minerva. 2008 Sep 1; 46 (3): 343-60.
[7]    Godin B. Innovation: the history of a category, project on the intellectual history of innovation. Montreal: INRS.
 
1. Free basic research
[8]    Godin B. The linear model of innovation: Maurice Holland and the research cycle. Social Science Information. 2011 Sep; 50 (3-4): 569-81.
[9]    Mees CE. The organization of industrial scientific research. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Incorporated; 1920.
[10]   Industrial Research Institute (New York. Research in industry: Its organization and management. D. Van Nostrand Company; 1948.
[11]   Price WJ, Bass LW. Scientific research and the innovative process. Science. 1969 May 16;164 (3881):
802-6.
[12]   Langnsh J. Wealth from Knowledge: A Study of Innovation in Industry.
[13]   Stokes D. Completing the Bush model: Pasteur’s Quadrant. In: Science the Endless Frontier: Learning from the Past, Designing for the Future. High- lights from the Conference Series, 1995; 23–35, www.cspo.org/ourlibrary/documents/bushconfhighlights.pdf.
[14]   Stokes DE. Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation.
[15]   Cohen WM, Nelson RR, Walsh JP. Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management science. 2002 Jan; 48 (1): 1-23.
[16]   Bush, V., 1945. Science: The Endless Frontier. A Report to the President. United States Government Printing Office, July, Washington DC. Found at: www.nsf.gov/about/history/vbush 1945.htm (last accessed: May 16, 2008 – 9.50 am).
[17]   Maclaurin WR, Harman RJ. Invention & innovation in the radio industry. Macmillan; 1949.
[18]   Maclaurin WR. The process of technological innovation: The launching of a new scientific industry. The American Economic Review. 1950 Mar 1; 40 (1): 90-112.
[19]   Maclaurin WR. Federal support for scientific research. Harvard Business Review. 1947 Mar 1; 25 (3):
385-96.
[20]   Maclaurin WR. The sequence from invention to innovation and its relation to economic growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1953 Feb 1; 67 (1): 97-111.
[21]   Maclaurin WR. Technological progress in some American industries. The American Economic Review. 1954 May 1; 44 (2): 178-89.
[22]   Stevens R. A report on industrial research as a National Resource: Introduction. National Research Council, Research: A National Resource (II): Industrial Research, Washington: National Resources Planning Board. 1941: 5-16.
[23]   Rosenberg N. Perspectives on technology. CUP Archive; 1976 Jul 30.
[24]   Rosenberg N, Nathan R. Inside the black box: technology and economics. cambridge university press; 1982.
[25]   Rosenberg N, Nelson RR. American universities and technical advance in industry. Research policy. 1994 May 1; 23 (3): 323-48.
[26]   Nelson RR, Rosenberg N. Science, technological advance and economic growth. The dynamic firm, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 1998: 45-59.
[27]   Kline SJ. Innovation is not a linear process. Research management. 1985 Jul 1; 28 (4): 36-45.
[28]   Kline SJ. An Overview of Innovation. Landau R., Rosenberg N., Eds. The Positive Sum Strategy. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. 1986.
[29]   Mansfield E. Academic research and industrial innovation. Research policy. 1991 Feb 1; 20 (1): 1-2.
[30]   Klevorick AK, Levin R, Nelson R, Winter S. On the sources and significance of inter-industry differences in technological opportunities. Research Policy, 24 (2).
[31]   Pavitt K, Sussex Univ., Brighton (United Kingdom). Science Policy Research Unit; ESRC Centre on Science, Technology, Energy and Environment Policy (STEEP), Brighton (United Kingdom); Academic research, technical change and government policy.
[32]   Sequeira K, Martin B. The links between university physics and industry, science policy. Report to the Institute of Physics Research Unit, University of Sussex. 1996.
[33]   Gilfillan SC. The Sociology of Invention: An Essay in the Social Causes of Technic Invention and Some of its Social Results (Chicago: Follet).
[34]   Hippel E. VON (1988), The Sources of Innovation. New York. 1988.
[35]   Lüthje C, Herstatt C, Von Hippel E. User-innovators and “local” information: The case of mountain biking. Research policy. 2005 Aug 1; 34 (6): 951-65.
[36]   Nelson R. The link between science and invention: The case of the transistor. InThe rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors 1962 Jan 1 (549-584). Princeton University Press.
[37]   Dosi G. Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of economic literature. 1988 Sep 1: 1120-71.
[38]   Bonaccorsi A, Thoma G. Institutional complementarity and inventive performance in nano science and technology. Research policy. 2007 Jul 1; 36 (6): 813-31.
[39]   Nelson RR. The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of political economy. 1959 Jun 1;67 (3): 297-306.
[40]   Mowery DC, Rosenberg N. Paths of Innovation: Technological Change in 20th-Century America.
[41]   Dosi G. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research policy. 1982 Jun 1; 11 (3): 147-62.
[42]   Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. Introduction to special issue on science policy dimensions of the Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations.
[43]   Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. The future location of research and technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 1999 Aug 1; 24 (2-3): 111-23.
[44]   Gibbons M, editor. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage; 1994 Sep 9.
[45]   Orsenigo L, Pammolli F, Riccaboni M. Technological change and network dynamics: lessons from the pharmaceutical industry. Research policy. 2001 Mar 1; 30 (3): 485-508.
[46]   Pavitt K. Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory. Technology, Management and Systems of Innovation. 1984: 15-45.
[47]   Galambos L. Innovation and industry evolution: a comment. In knowledge accumulation and industry evolution. The case of pharmabiotech. Edited by Mazzucato, M. and Dosi, G.
[48]   Grabowski H, Vernon J. The determinants of pharmaceutical research and development expenditures. Journal of Evolutionary Economics. 2000 Jan 1; 10 (1-2): 201-15.
[49]   Balconi M, Laboranti A. University–industry interactions in applied research: The case of microelectronics. Research Policy. 2006 Dec 1; 35 (10): 1616-30.
[50]   Kealey T, Nelson RR. The economic laws of scientific research. London: Macmillan; 1996 Jan.
[51]   Nelson RR. The market economy, and the scientific commons. Research policy. 2004 Apr 1; 33 (3):
455-71.
[52]   Dosi G, Llerena P, Labini MS. The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called ‘European Paradox’. Research policy. 2006 Dec 1; 35 (10): 1450-64.
[53]   Mazzoleni R, Nelson RR. The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: a contribution to the current debate. Research policy. 1998 Jul 1; 27 (3): 273-84.
[54]   David PA, Hall BH. Property and the Pursuit of Knowledge: IPR Issues Affecting Scientific Research. Research Policy. 2006 Jan 1; 35 (6).
[55]   David P, Foray D. W. Steinmueller, The research network and the new economics of science: from metaphors to organisational behaviour.
[56]   Caracostas P. The policy-shaper’s anxiety at the innovation kick: how far do innovation theories really help in the world of policy? Perspectives on innovation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 2007: 464-89.

فایل ها

همرسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار