IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v116y2017icp308-315.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conceptualising and practising multiple knowledge interactions in the life sciences

Author

Listed:
  • Wield, David
  • Tait, Joyce
  • Chataway, Joanna
  • Mittra, James
  • Mastroeni, Michele

Abstract

This paper presents an approach developed by the Innogen Centre for the analysis of systems of innovation. The approach, developed through the study of innovation in the life sciences, is unique in that it features a triangular view, alongside consideration of the behaviours and interactions between innovators, regulators and policymakers, and advocacy and public interest groups. Furthermore, while the approach can be characterised as co-evolutionary and system-based, it also allows for the user to shift from the macro to micro — considering the impact of institutions on actors and innovation within an institutional milieu, but also considering the individual behaviours and business plans or actions of the actors involved. This paper presents both the approach itself and how the approach was developed.

Suggested Citation

  • Wield, David & Tait, Joyce & Chataway, Joanna & Mittra, James & Mastroeni, Michele, 2017. "Conceptualising and practising multiple knowledge interactions in the life sciences," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 308-315.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:116:y:2017:i:c:p:308-315
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.09.025
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162516303547
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.09.025?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Chataway, Joanna & Tait, Joyce & Wield, David, 2004. "Understanding company R&D strategies in agro-biotechnology: trajectories and blind spots," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6-7), pages 1041-1057, September.
    2. Gambardella, Alfonso & Panico, Claudio, 2014. "On the management of open innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 903-913.
    3. Orsenigo, L. & Pammolli, F. & Riccaboni, Massimo, 2001. "Technological change and network dynamics: Lessons from the pharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 485-508, March.
    4. Scott D. N. Cook & John Seely Brown, 1999. "Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance Between Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Knowing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 381-400, August.
    5. Geels, Frank W., 2014. "Reconceptualising the co-evolution of firms-in-industries and their environments: Developing an inter-disciplinary Triple Embeddedness Framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 261-277.
    6. Philip Cooke, 2005. "Rational drug design, the knowledge value chain and bioscience megacentres," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 29(3), pages 325-341, May.
    7. Malerba, Franco, 2002. "Sectoral systems of innovation and production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 247-264, February.
    8. Joyce Tait, 2001. "More Faust than Frankenstein: the European debate about the precautionary principle and risk regulation for genetically modified crops," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(2), pages 175-189, April.
    9. Penna, Caetano C.R. & Geels, Frank W., 2012. "Multi-dimensional struggles in the greening of industry: A dialectic issue lifecycle model and case study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 79(6), pages 999-1020.
    10. Joanna Chataway & David Wield, 2002. "The life science industry sector: Evolution of agro-biotechnology in Europe," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(4), pages 253-258, August.
    11. Kerr, Clive & Farrukh, Clare & Phaal, Robert & Probert, David, 2013. "Key principles for developing industrially relevant strategic technology management toolkits," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(6), pages 1050-1070.
    12. Chataway, Joanna & Smith, James, 2006. "The International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI): Is It Getting New Science and Technology to the World's Neglected Majority?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 16-30, January.
    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. Betz, Ulrich A.K. & Betz, Frederick & Kim, Rachel & Monks, Brendan & Phillips, Fred, 2019. "Surveying the future of science, technology and business – A 35 year perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 137-147.

    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. Penna, Caetano C.R. & Geels, Frank W., 2015. "Climate change and the slow reorientation of the American car industry (1979–2012): An application and extension of the Dialectic Issue LifeCycle (DILC) model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1029-1048.
    2. Befort, N., 2020. "Going beyond definitions to understand tensions within the bioeconomy: The contribution of sociotechnical regimes to contested fields," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    3. Chung, Chao-chen, 2013. "Government, policy-making and the development of innovation system: The cases of Taiwanese pharmaceutical biotechnology policies (2000–2008)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1053-1071.
    4. Jeremy Hall & Stelvia Matos & Cooper Langford, 2008. "Social Exclusion and Transgenic Technology: The Case of Brazilian Agriculture," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 77(1), pages 45-63, January.
    5. Chataway, Joanna & Tait, Joyce & Wield, David, 2004. "Understanding company R&D strategies in agro-biotechnology: trajectories and blind spots," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6-7), pages 1041-1057, September.
    6. Phil Johnstone & Andy Stirling, 2015. "Comparing Nuclear Power Trajectories inGermany And the UK: From ‘Regimes’ to ‘Democracies’ in Sociotechnical Transitions and Discontinuities," SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-18, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    7. Li, Daitian & Malerba, Franco, 2024. "Technological change and the evolution of the links across sectoral systems: The case of mobile communications," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    8. 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.
    9. Marie-Claude BELIS-BERGOUIGNAN, 2009. "An evolutionist analysis of sectoral dynamics (In French)," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2009-18, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    10. Steen, Markus & Weaver, Tyson, 2017. "Incumbents’ diversification and cross-sectorial energy industry dynamics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(6), pages 1071-1086.
    11. Franco Malerba, 2006. "Innovation, Industrial Dynamics and Industry Evolution: Progress and the Research Agendas," Revue de l'OFCE, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 97(5), pages 21-46.
    12. Dantas, Eva & Bell, Martin, 2009. "Latecomer firms and the emergence and development of knowledge networks: The case of Petrobras in Brazil," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 829-844, June.
    13. Upham, Dr Paul & Sovacool, Prof Benjamin & Ghosh, Dr Bipashyee, 2022. "Just transitions for industrial decarbonisation: A framework for innovation, participation, and justice," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    14. Mäkitie, Tuukka & Normann, Håkon E. & Thune, Taran M. & Sraml Gonzalez, Jakoba, 2019. "The green flings: Norwegian oil and gas industry’s engagement in offshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 269-279.
    15. Bernd Ebersberger & Nils Mevenkamp, 2016. "Open Innovation in Eastern Europe and Central Asia," Journal of Business Administration Research, Journal of Business Administration Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 5(2), pages 8-19, October.
    16. 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.
    17. Ad van den Oord & Arjen van Witteloostuijn, 2018. "A multi-level model of emerging technology: An empirical study of the evolution of biotechnology from 1976 to 2003," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-27, May.
    18. Gilsing, Victor & Nooteboom, Bart, 2006. "Exploration and exploitation in innovation systems: The case of pharmaceutical biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-23, February.
    19. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Noel, Lance & Orsato, Renato J., 2017. "Stretching, embeddedness, and scripts in a sociotechnical transition: Explaining the failure of electric mobility at Better Place (2007–2013)," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 24-34.
    20. Philip Cooke, 2010. "Global Bioregions: Knowledge Domains, Capabilities and Innovation System Networks," Chapters, in: Riccardo Viale & Henry Etzkowitz (ed.), The Capitalization of Knowledge, chapter 5, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    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:tefoso:v:116:y:2017:i:c:p:308-315. 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.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    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.