IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v37y2008i2p330-352.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Galileo's stream: A framework for understanding knowledge production

Author

Listed:
  • Tsao, J.Y.
  • Boyack, K.W.
  • Coltrin, M.E.
  • Turnley, J.G.
  • Gauster, W.B.

Abstract

We introduce a framework for understanding knowledge production in which: knowledge is produced in stages (along a research to development continuum) and in three discrete categories (science and understanding, tools and technology, and societal use and behavior); and knowledge in the various stages and categories is produced both non-interactively and interactively. The framework attempts to balance: our experiences as working scientists and technologists, our best current understanding of the social processes of knowledge production, and the possibility of mathematical analyses. It offers a potential approach both to improving our basic understanding, and to developing tools for enterprise management, of the knowledge-production process.

Suggested Citation

  • Tsao, J.Y. & Boyack, K.W. & Coltrin, M.E. & Turnley, J.G. & Gauster, W.B., 2008. "Galileo's stream: A framework for understanding knowledge production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 330-352, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:37:y:2008:i:2:p:330-352
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048-7333(07)00211-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chaomei Chen & Timothy Cribbin & Robert Macredie & Sonali Morar, 2002. "Visualizing and tracking the growth of competing paradigms: Two case studies," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 53(8), pages 678-689.
    2. Joseph Farrell & Garth Saloner, 1985. "Standardization, Compatibility, and Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(1), pages 70-83, Spring.
    3. Leydesdorff, Loet, 2000. "The triple helix: an evolutionary model of innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 243-255, February.
    4. Freeman, Chris, 1995. "The 'National System of Innovation' in Historical Perspective," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 19(1), pages 5-24, February.
    5. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    6. Partha, Dasgupta & David, Paul A., 1994. "Toward a new economics of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 487-521, September.
    7. Amesse, Fernand & Cohendet, P., 2001. "Technology transfer revisited from the perspective of the knowledge-based economy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(9), pages 1459-1478, December.
    8. Barabási, Albert-László & Albert, Réka & Jeong, Hawoong, 1999. "Mean-field theory for scale-free random networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 272(1), pages 173-187.
    9. Leeat Yariv, 2002. "I'll See It When I Believe It - A Simple Model of Cognitive Consistency," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1352, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    10. Paul M. Romer, 1994. "The Origins of Endogenous Growth," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 3-22, Winter.
    11. Brooks, Harvey, 1994. "The relationship between science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 477-486, September.
    12. Godin, Benoit, 2003. "The emergence of S&T indicators: why did governments supplement statistics with indicators?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 679-691, April.
    13. Mowery, David & Rosenberg, Nathan, 1993. "The influence of market demand upon innovation: A critical review of some recent empirical studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 107-108, April.
    14. Chris Freeman & Luc Soete, 1997. "The Economics of Industrial Innovation, 3rd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 3, volume 1, number 0262061953, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pär Mårtensson & Uno Fors & Emelie Fröberg & Udo Zander & Gunnar H Nilsson, 2019. "Quality of Research Practice – An interdisciplinary face validity evaluation of a quality model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-19, February.
    2. Mårtensson, Pär & Fors, Uno & Wallin, Sven-Bertil & Zander, Udo & Nilsson, Gunnar H, 2016. "Evaluating research: A multidisciplinary approach to assessing research practice and quality," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 593-603.
    3. Narayanamurti, Venkatesh & Tsao, Jeffrey Y., 2024. "How technoscientific knowledge advances: A Bell-Labs-inspired architecture," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(4).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 51-127, Elsevier.
    2. Rinaldo Evangelista, 2018. "Technology and Economic Development: The Schumpeterian Legacy," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 50(1), pages 136-153, March.
    3. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 129-213, Elsevier.
    4. Ciarli, Tommaso & Ràfols, Ismael, 2019. "The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 949-967.
    5. Giovanni Dosi & Richard Nelson, 2013. "The Evolution of Technologies: An Assessment of the State-of-the-Art," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 3-46, June.
    6. Samia Nour, 2014. "The Importance (Impacts) of Knowledge at the Macro–Micro Levels in the Arab Gulf Countries," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 5(3), pages 521-537, September.
    7. Dosi, Giovanni & Llerena, Patrick & Labini, Mauro Sylos, 2006. "The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called `European Paradox'," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1450-1464, December.
    8. Janger, Jürgen & Schubert, Torben & Andries, Petra & Rammer, Christian & Hoskens, Machteld, 2017. "The EU 2020 innovation indicator: A step forward in measuring innovation outputs and outcomes?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 30-42.
    9. Rakas, Marija & Hain, Daniel S., 2019. "The state of innovation system research: What happens beneath the surface?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    10. Juan Carlos Salazar-Elena & M. Paloma Sánchez & F. Javier Otamendi, 2016. "A Non-Parametric Delphi Approach to Foster Innovation Policy Debate in Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-26, May.
    11. Kenza Qaoumi & Pascal Masson & Benoit Weil & Aytunç Ün, 2018. "Testing evolutionary theory of household consumption behavior in the case of novelty - a product characteristics approach," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 437-460, April.
    12. Kaplan, Sarah & Tripsas, Mary, 2008. "Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 790-805, June.
    13. Pavitt, Keith, 1998. "The social shaping of the national science base," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 793-805, December.
    14. Mariana Mazzucato, 2015. "From Market Fixing to Market-Creating: A New Framework for Economic Policy," SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-25, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    15. Roberto Fontana & Marco Guerzoni, 2008. "Incentives and uncertainty: an empirical analysis of the impact of demand on innovation," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 32(6), pages 927-946, November.
    16. Wei Jin & ZhongXiang Zhang, 2014. "Explaining the Slow Pace of Energy Technological Innovation: Why Market Conditions Matter," CCEP Working Papers 1401, Centre for Climate & Energy Policy, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    17. Rossi, Federica, 2002. "An introductory overview of innovation studies," MPRA Paper 9106, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Jun 2008.
    18. Helena Maria Martins Lastres, 2017. "Development, innovation, sustainability and policies: Chris Freeman's legacy," Globelics Working Paper Series 2017-02, Globelics - Global Network for Economics of Learning, Innovation, and Competence Building Systems, Aalborg University, Department of Business and Management.
    19. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R., 2001. "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 509-532, March.
    20. Ivanova, Inga A. & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2014. "Rotational symmetry and the transformation of innovation systems in a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 143-156.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:37:y:2008:i:2:p:330-352. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.