مقایسه بنیان ‏های نظری گفتمان ‏های نوآوری نظام‏ مند و تحول ‏آفرین

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانش آموخته دکتری سیاستگذاری علم و فناوری، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران.

2 استاد مدیریت فناوری اطلاعات، دانشگاه تربیت مدری، تهران، ایران

3 دانشیار مدیریت فناوری و کارآفرینی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران.

4 استادیارمدیریت فناوری اطلاعات، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

 
جهان معاصر با چالش‏های زیست‏ محیطی، فناورانه، اقتصادی، سیاسی و فرهنگی متعدد، حساس و درهم ‏تنیده مواجه است. در این‏ راستا در دو دهة اخیر پژوهشگران با توسعة رویکردهای سیاست‏گذاری نوآوری اجتماعی، زیست‏ محیطی، پایدار، مسئولیت ‏پذیر، فراگیر، مأموریت‏ محور و چالش‏ محور به گسترش گفتمان سیاست‏گذاری نوآوری تحول آفرین در پاسخ به کاستی‏ های گفتمان سیاست‏گذاری نوآوری نظام ‏مند پرداخته‏ اند. با این‏ حال تمایز نظری گفتمان‏ های مذکور نسبتاً دشوار بوده و در نتیجة واگرایی پژوهش‏ ها با توجه ‏به ابهام در دامنه و تعریف دقیق نظری، گفتمان نوآوری تحول‏آفرین، بسیار محتمل است. از سوی دیگر با وجود توسعة نظری، سیاست‏گذاری تحول ‏آفرین به ‏فراخور ناشناختگی در میان سیاست‏گذاران چندان مورد اقبال قرار نگرفته است. بر این ‏اساس هدف مقالة حاضر شناسایی وجوه تشابه، تمایز و تنافر گفتمان‏های سیاست‏گذاری نوآوری نظام ‏مند و تحول‏ آفرین است. در این‏ راستا بر اساس روش مرور دامنه‏ ای پیشینه، ابتدا کلید واژگان دو گفتمان در پایگاه اسکوپوس جست‏ وجو و 2401 مقاله از مجلات انگلیسی شناسایی شدند. سپس طی مراحل حذف بر اساس عنوان، چکیده و محتوا 42 مقاله انتخاب شدند و برای استخراج بنیان ‏های نظری دو گفتمان مورد مطالعه قرار گرفتند. بر اساس یافته ‏های پژوهش، وابستگی خط ‏سیر نوآوری به رژیم، مشارکت‏ گرایی مبتنی بر امکان‏ ناپذیری سیاست‏گذاری متمرکز و تنوع و انتخاب تکاملی به‏عنوان وجوه تشابه دو گفتمان شناسایی شدند. همچنین نگرش دربارة نقش نوآوری (جایگاه کلیدی در توسعة اقتصادی در برابر فقدان توسعة اجتماعی و زیست‏ محیطی با پیشرفت فناوری)، سطح نوآوری مورد نیاز (داخل نظام در برابر فراتر از نظام)، خردمایة مداخلة سیاستی (شکست بازار و سیستم در برابر شکست تحول) و سطح سیاست‏گذاری (تأکید ویژه بر بعد ملی در برابر رویکرد چندسطحی) به‏عنوان محورهای تمایز دو گفتمان معرفی شدند. در نهایت توسعة غیربازاری، نهادی و اجتماعی، نگرش غیرخطی به نوآوری و فقدان بهینگی ذاتی نظام نوآوری به‏ عنوان وجوه تنافر نوآوری نظام ‏مند از نوآوری تحول ‏آفرین و کنام به‏ مثابه عامل تحول، ضرورت رویکرد هنجاری نوآوری، با توجه به توسعه و تخریب و تغییر ریشه ‏ای در مراحل تدریجی به ‏عنوان وجوه تنافر نوآوری تحول ‏آفرین از نوآوری نظام‏ مند پیشنهاد شدند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Analogy of the Theoretical Foundations of Systematic and Transformational Innovation Discourses

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mehdi Fatemi 1
  • Sepehr Ghazinoory 2
  • Soroush Ghazinoori 3
  • Ali Shayan 4
1 Ph.D. of Science and Technology Policy, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
3 Associate Professor of Technology Management and Entrepreneurship, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.
4 Assistant Professor of Information Technology Management, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

The contemporary world faces numerous, momentous, and intertwined environmental, technological, economic, political, and cultural challenges. Scholars have developed social, environmental, sustainable, responsible, inclusive, mission-oriented, and challenge-oriented policy approaches in the last two decades to expand the transformational innovation policy discourse in response to the shortcomings of the systematic innovation policy discourse. However, the distinction between the theoretical foundations of the discourses is relatively hard; therefore, the divergence of research is highly likely due to the ambiguity in the scope and precise theoretical definition of the alternative discourse. On the other hand, despite the theoretical development, transformational policymaking has yet to be prevalent among policymakers, given its unknown nature.
According to the literature review, previous comparative studies aimed to introduce transformational innovation as an alternative discourse, emphasizing the differences between the discourses. Therefore these studies have not defended the systematic innovation discourse properly. Also, some studies have dealt with a specific branch of the discourses while neglecting a comprehensive approach. Finally, methodological weakness and the need for systematic review are evident in previous studies. Thus, this article systematically and conservatively compares the transformational and systematic innovation discourses to address the discourses’ similar, different, and exclusive aspects.
Accordingly, 2401 articles were identified by searching the keywords of the two discourses in Scopus and filtering according to the preliminary inclusion criteria. Next, the searched articles were reviewed based on the three-step filtering according to title, abstract, and full-text, leading to 42 final articles. Finally, while classifying the content of the articles, the similar, differentiative, and exclusive aspects of the systematic and transformational innovation discourses were identified. Therefore, the similarities between the discourses are as follows.
Regime as a symbol of resistance: The regime - as a set of actors, networks, and institutional structures that guides the current innovation model – locks to the technical-economic, social-cognitive, and institutional-political mechanisms. Therefore, the current regimes challenge the transformation to protect the current interests.
Evolutionary and guided diversity and selection: Despite the importance of diversity in expanding learning, network development, and preventing lock-in in the early stages, it leads to uncertainty, fragmentation of resources, and the lack of emergence of sustainable procedures in the period of technology and industry maturity. Therefore, it is necessary to balance variety and choice in the development of technology and innovation.
Endogenous and participation-oriented approach: Due to the emergent nature of transformative developments, endogenous guidance and minimal role-playing of the government is necessary. In this regard, attracting public participation facilitates decision-making and implementation while improving innovation.
The following table highlights the differences.




 


Systematic Innovation Discourse


Transformational Innovation Discourse






Innovation Role


Innovation is the driver of long-term economic evolution through creative destruction.


Despite the undeniable role of technology in modern societies, technological changes cannot effectively deal with social and environmental challenges.




Innovation Type


The non-linear nature of the interactions of the components of the innovation system leads to the emergence of innovation, which cannot be explained simply by aggregating them.


Fundamental transformation requires changes at the macro-level of socio-technical systems and problem framing beyond individual products, processes, or technologies.




Policy Rationale


Market orientation leads to investment in knowledge development at a lower-than-optimal level. At the same time, the systemic nature of innovation also leads to infrastructure, capability, network, institution, and transition failures, which weaken the system’s performance.


Despite the fundamental importance of market and system failures, attention to the transformation process’s broad, long-term, and fundamental nature leads to identifying more fundamental failures, including orientation, demand articulation, policy coordination, and reflexivity failures.




Policy Level


Despite the diversity in the level of application of innovation systems, the national dimension of the system is crucial due to its unique characteristics, collaboration capacity, interdependencies, and political determinants.


Co-evolution of economic, political, social, cultural, technological, environmental, and institutional changes results in transformation. In this regard, policymakers should combine macro-level knowledge about landscape dynamics with micro-level knowledge about innovation development.




 
Finally, non-market, institutional, and social development, non-linear approach to innovation, and the inherent lack of optimality were the exclusive dimensions of systematic innovation discourse. In contrast, the exclusive aspects of transformational innovation discourse were the necessity of a normative approach toward innovation, attention to both development and destruction and radical change in gradual stages.
According to the findings, evaluating the role of technology in solving grand challenges, attracting the participation of broader institutions, adopting a multi-level approach, and developing destabilizing policies are presented as policy implications. Also, examining the differences and similarities between the different branches of each discourse, evaluating the understanding of innovation policy scholars about the discourses, and systematically identifying implications of the discourses are suggested as future research directions.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Innovation Policy
  • Policy Discourse
  • Systematic Innovation
  • Transformational Innovation
  • Scoping Review

مراجع

 
Arocena, R., & Sutz, J. (2000). Looking at national systems of innovation from the South. Industry and innovation, 7(1), 55-75.
Balconi, M., Brusoni, S., & Orsenigo, L. (2010). In defence of the linear model: An essay. Research policy, 39(1), 1-13.
Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S., & Rickne, A. (2008). Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis. Research Policy, 37(3), 407-429.
Caccomo, J. L. (1998). Review article system of innovation approach. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 7(3), 245-69.
Carbajo, R., & Cabeza, L. F. (2018). Renewable energy research and technologies through responsible research and innovation looking glass: Reflexions, theoretical approaches and contemporary discourses. Applied Energy, 211, 792-808.
Chaminade, C., Intarakumnerd, P., & Sapprasert, K. (2012). Measuring systemic problems in national innovation systems. An application to Thailand. Research Policy, 41(8), 1476-88.
Chataway, J., Chux, D., Kanger, L., Ramirez, M., Schot, J., & Steinmueller, E. (2017). Developing and enacting transformative innovation policy. A Comparative Study, 1-28.
Coenen, L., & López, F. J. D. (2010). Comparing systems approaches to innovation and technological change for sustainable and competitive economies: An explorative study into conceptual commonalities, differences and complementarities. Journal of cleaner production, 18(12), 1149-60.
Colquhoun, H. L., Levac, D., O'Brien, K. K., Straus, S., Tricco, A. C., Perrier, L., Kastner, M., Moher, D. (2014). Scoping reviews: Time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 67(12), 1291-4.
Daniels, C., Schot, J., Chataway, J., Ramirez, M., Steinmueller, E., & Kanger, L. (2020). Transformative innovation policy: Insights from Colombia, Finland, Norway, South Africa and Sweden. In M. B., Cele, T. M., Luescher, & A. W., Fadiji (Eds.). Innovation policy at the intersection: Global debates and local experiences (pp.1-20). South Africa: HSRC Press.
Diercks, G., Larsen, H., & Steward, F. (2019). Transformative innovation policy: Addressing variety in an emerging policy paradigm. Research Policy, 48(4), 88094.
Doloreux, D., Parto, S. (2005). Regional innovation systems: Current discourse and unresolved issues. Technology in Society, 27(2), 133-153.
Doyon, A., Coffey, B., Moloney, S., de Haan, F., & Bosomworth, K. (2017). Exploring the contribution of transitions management to inform regional futures. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, The, 23(3), 321-43.
Edquist, C., Hommen, L. (1999). Systems of innovation: Theory and policy for the demand side. Technology in Society, 21(1), 63-79.
Fagerberg, J. (2018). Mobilizing innovation for sustainability transitions: A comment on transformative innovation policy. Research Policy, 47(9), 1568-76.
Fatemi, M., & Arasti, M. (2019). Priority-setting in science, technology and innovation. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 12(2), 119-33.
Fatemi, M., Ghazinoory, S., Ghazinoori, S., & Shayan, A. (2022). Analysis of the new transformative change paradigm in innovation policy. Iranian Journal of Public Policy, 8(2), 173-90.
Fraaije, A., & Flipse, S. M. (2020). Synthesizing an implementation framework for responsible research and innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 7(1), 113-7.
Fulgencio, H., & Fever, H. L. (2016). What is the social innovation system? A state-of-the-art review. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 10(2-3), 434-52.
Geels, F. W. (2019). Socio-technical transitions to sustainability: A review of criticisms and elaborations of the Multi-Level Perspective. Current opinion in environmental sustainability, 39, 187-201.
Ghazinoory, S., Aliahmadi, A., Namdarzangeneh, S., & Ghodsypour, S. H. (2007). Using AHP and LP for choosing the best alternatives based the gap analysis. Applied Mathematics and computation, 184(2), 316-21.
Ghazinoory, S., Daneshmand-Mehr, M., & Azadegan, A. (2013). Technology selection: application of the PROMETHEE in determining preferences—a real case of nanotechnology in Iran. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 64, 884-97.
Ghazinoory, S., Narimani, M., & Tatina, S. (2017). Neoclassical versus evolutionary economics in developing countries: Convergence of policy implications. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 27, 555-83.
Ghazinoory, S., Nasri, S., Ameri, F., Montazer, G. A., & Shayan, A. (2020). Why do we need ‘Problem-oriented Innovation System (PIS)’ for solving macro-level societal problems?. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150, 119749.
Ghosh, B., Colen Ladeia Torrens, J. (February 2019). Towards a Transformative innovation policy research agenda [Workshop]. Report and Follow up plans 2019 Jun.
Ghosh, B., Kivimaa, P., Ramirez, M., Schot, J., & Torrens, J. (2021). Transformative outcomes: Assessing and reorienting experimentation with transformative innovation policy. Science and Public Policy, 48(5), 739-56.
Grillitsch, M., Hansen, T., & Madsen, S. (2020). How novel is transformative innovation policy? In B., Godin, G., Gaglio, & D., Vinck (Eds.). Handbook on alternative theories of innovation (pp. 1-18). United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Haddad, C. R., Nakić, V., Bergek, A., & Hellsmark, H. (2022). Transformative innovation policy: A systematic review. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 43, 14-40.
Hart, D. M. (2009). Accounting for change in national systems of innovation: A friendly critique based on the US case. Research Policy, 38(4), 647-54.
Hekkert, M. P., Janssen, M. J., Wesseling, J. H., & Negro, S. O. (2020). Mission-oriented innovation systems. Environmental innovation and societal transitions, 34, 76-79.
Intarakumnerd, P., & Chaminade, C. (2011). Innovation policies in Thailand: Towards a system of innovation approach?. Asia Pacific Business Review, 17(02), 241-56.
Jenkins, K. E., Spruit, S., Milchram, C., Höffken, J., & Taebi, B. (2020). Synthesizing value sensitive design, responsible research and innovation, and energy justice: A conceptual review. Energy Research & Social Science, 69, 1017-27.
Johnstone, P., & Newell, P. (2018). Sustainability transitions and the state. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 27, 72-82.
Kanger, L., Sovacool, B. K., & Noorkõiv, M. (2020). Six policy intervention points for sustainability transitions: A conceptual framework and a systematic literature review. Research Policy, 49(7), 104072.
Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., & Rotmans, J. (2007). Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 14(1), 78-91.
Khmara, Y., Kronenberg, J. (2020). Degrowth in the context of sustainability transitions: In search of a common ground. Journal of Cleaner Production, 267, 1220-72.
Kivimaa, P., & Kern, F. (2016). Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 45(1), 205-17.
Köhler, J. (2012). A comparison of the Neo-Schumpeterian Theory of Kondratiev waves and the Multi-Level Perspective on transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 3(1), 1-5.
Köhler, J., Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., ... & Wells, P. (2019). An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental innovation and societal transitions, 31, 1-32.
Lewis, P. (2021). The innovation systems approach: An Austrian and Ostromian perspective. The Review of Austrian Economics, 34, 97-114.
Loorbach, D. (2010). Transition management for sustainable development: A prescriptive, complexity‐based governance framework. Governance, 23(1), 161-83.
Loorbach, D., Van der Brugge, R., & Taanman, M. (2008). Governance in the energy transition: Practice of transition management in the Netherlands. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, 9(2-3), 294-315.
Loorbach, D., Wittmayer, J., Avelino, F., von Wirth, T., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2020). Transformative innovation and translocal diffusion. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 35, 251-60.
Lundvall, B. Å. (2007). National innovation systems- analytical concept and development tool. Industry and Innovation, 14(1), 95-119.
Malekpour, S., Walker, W. E., de Haan, F. J., Frantzeskaki, N., & Marchau, V. A. (2020). Bridging Decision Making Under Deep Uncertainty (DMDU) and Transition Management (TM) to improve strategic planning for sustainable development. Environmental Science & Policy, 107, 158-67.
Miremadi, T. (2019) The emerging trends of STI Policy. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 12(2), 619-33. (Persian)
Miremadi, T., Shokrollahzadeh, S., RahimiRad, Z. (2021). A comparison between two approaches of innovation system and sustainability transition case study of water access challenge in Iran. Iranian Journal of Public Policy, 7(2), 55-77. (Persian)
Moussavi, A., Kermanshah, A. (2018). Innovation systems approach: A philosophical appraisal. Philosophy of Management, 17(1), 59-77.
Nasri, S., & Ghazinoory, S. (2020). Implications of the Problem-oriented Innovation System (PIS) in the evolution of innovation policy; Case study of problem historical resolution process in US earthquake and South Korea's digital divide. Journal of Management Improvement, 14(1), 61-93.
Niosi, J. (2002). National systems of innovations are “x-efficient” (and x-effective): Why some are slow learners. Research policy, 31(2), 291-302.
Niosi, J., & Bellon, B. (1994). The global interdependence of national innovation systems: Evidence, limits, and implications. Technology in Society, 16(2), 173-197.
Niosi, J., Saviotti, P., Bellon, B., Crow, M. (1993). National systems of innovation: In search of a workable concept. Technology in society, 15 (2), 207-27.
Ranjbar, A., Ghazinoori, S., Sarabadani, A., & Ghazinoori, S. (2022). An analytical introduction to the generations of innovation policy studies; intellectual origins and policy strategies. Journal Strategic Studies of Public Policy, 12(43), 28-51.
Rauschmayer, F., Bauler, T., & Schäpke, N. (2015). Towards a thick understanding of sustainability transitions-Linking transition management, capabilities and social practices. Ecological economics, 109, 211-21.
Ribeiro, B. E., Smith, R. D., & Millar, K. (2017). A mobilising concept? Unpacking academic representations of responsible research and innovation. Science and engineering ethics, 23, 81-103.
Rotmans, J., Loorbach, D. (2009). Complexity and transition management. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 13(2), 184-96.
Schot, J., & Geels, F. W. (2008). Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: Theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5), 537-54.
Schot, J., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47(9), 1554-67.
Scordato, L., Bugge, M. M., Hansen, T., Tanner, A., & Wicken, O. (2022). Walking the talk? Innovation policy approaches to unleash the transformative potentials of the Nordic bioeconomy. Science and Public Policy, 49(2), 324-346.
Sharif, N. (2006). Emergence and development of the national innovation systems concept. Research Policy, 35(5), 745-66.
Smith, A., Voß, J. P., & Grin, J. (2010). Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Research Policy, 39(4), 435-48.
Sornn-Friese, H. (2000). Frontiers of research in industrial dynamics and national systems of innovation. Industry and Innovation, 7(1), 1-13.
Steward, F. (2012). Transformative innovation policy to meet the challenge of climate change: Sociotechnical networks aligned with consumption and end- use as new transition arenas for a low-carbon society or green economy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(4), 331-43.
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), 1037-47.
Weber, K. M., & Truffer, B. (2017). Moving innovation systems research to the next level: Towards an integrative agenda. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33(1), 101-21.
Wieczorek, A. J. (2018). Sustainability transitions in developing countries: Major insights and their implications for research and policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 84, 204-16.
Woojin, Y., & Eunjung, H. (2009). How relevant and useful is the concept of national systems of innovation?. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 4(3), 1-13.
 
 

فایل ها

همرسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار