IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v118y2019i3d10.1007_s11192-019-03014-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An evolutionary analysis of the innovation policy domain: Is there a paradigm shift?

Author

Listed:
  • Serhat Burmaoglu

    (Izmir Katip Celebi University
    Georgia Institute of Technology
    National Research University, Higher School of Economics
    University of Manchester)

  • Ozcan Saritas

    (National Research University, Higher School of Economics
    University of Manchester)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Serhat Burmaoglu & Ozcan Saritas, 2019. "An evolutionary analysis of the innovation policy domain: Is there a paradigm shift?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 823-847, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:118:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03014-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03014-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-019-03014-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-019-03014-1?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. Fagerberg, Jan & Verspagen, Bart, 2009. "Innovation studies--The emerging structure of a new scientific field," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 218-233, March.
    2. Weber, K. Matthias & Rohracher, Harald, 2012. "Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1037-1047.
    3. Jakob Edler & Jan Fagerberg, 2017. "Innovation policy: what, why, and how," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(1), pages 2-23.
    4. Cantner, Uwe & Pyka, Andreas, 2001. "Classifying technology policy from an evolutionary perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 759-775, May.
    5. Chaomei Chen, 2006. "CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(3), pages 359-377, February.
    6. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Henry Small, 1973. "Co‐citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 24(4), pages 265-269, July.
    8. Rogier Langhe, 2017. "Towards the discovery of scientific revolutions in scientometric data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 505-519, January.
    9. Ed Noyons, 2001. "Bibliometric mapping of science in a policy context," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 50(1), pages 83-98, January.
    10. Tom R. Burns & Ewa Roszkowska & Nora Machado Des Johansson & Ugo Corte, 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, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-40, March.
    11. M.J. Cobo & A.G. López-Herrera & E. Herrera-Viedma & F. Herrera, 2011. "Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(7), pages 1382-1402, July.
    12. Raul P. Lejano & Jennifer Dodge, 2017. "The narrative properties of ideology: the adversarial turn and climate skepticism in the USA," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 195-215, June.
    13. Kevin W. Boyack & Richard Klavans, 2010. "Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(12), pages 2389-2404, December.
    14. Richard Klavans & Kevin W. Boyack, 2017. "Which Type of Citation Analysis Generates the Most Accurate Taxonomy of Scientific and Technical Knowledge?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(4), pages 984-998, April.
    15. William P. Jones & George W. Furnas, 1987. "Pictures of relevance: A geometric analysis of similarity measures," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 38(6), pages 420-442, November.
    16. van Eck, N.J.P. & Waltman, L., 2007. "Bibliometric Mapping of the Computational Intelligence Field," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2007-027-LIS, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    17. Martin, Ben R., 2012. "The evolution of science policy and innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1219-1239.
    18. Bleda, Mercedes & del Río, Pablo, 2013. "The market failure and the systemic failure rationales in technological innovation systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1039-1052.
    19. Henry Small, 1999. "Visualizing science by citation mapping," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 50(9), pages 799-813.
    20. van Eck, N.J.P. & Waltman, L., 2009. "How to Normalize Co-Occurrence Data? An Analysis of Some Well-Known Similarity Measures," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2009-001-LIS, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    21. Martin, Stephen & Scott, John T., 2000. "The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 437-447, April.
    22. Ben R. Martin, 2016. "Twenty challenges for innovation studies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(3), pages 432-450.
    23. Jan Fagerberg, 2017. "Innovation Policy: Rationales, Lessons And Challenges," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 497-512, April.
    24. Charles Edquist, 2001. "Innovation Policy in the Systems of Innovation Approach: Some Basic Principles," Advances in Spatial Science, in: Manfred M. Fischer & Josef Fröhlich (ed.), Knowledge, Complexity and Innovation Systems, chapter 3, pages 46-57, Springer.
    25. Philippe Mongeon & Adèle Paul-Hus, 2016. "The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 213-228, January.
    26. M.J. Cobo & A.G. López‐Herrera & E. Herrera‐Viedma & F. Herrera, 2011. "Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(7), pages 1382-1402, July.
    27. Markus Gmür, 2003. "Co-citation analysis and the search for invisible colleges: A methodological evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 57(1), pages 27-57, January.
    28. Mark Rorvig, 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, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 50(8), pages 639-651.
    29. Kern, Florian, 2012. "Using the multi-level perspective on socio-technical transitions to assess innovation policy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 298-310.
    30. Kevin W. Boyack & Richard Klavans, 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, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(12), pages 2389-2404, December.
    31. Elvira Uyarra & Kieron Flanagan, 2010. "From Regional Systems of Innovation to Regions as Innovation Policy Spaces," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 28(4), pages 681-695, August.
    32. D.E. Kaplan, 1999. "On the Literature of the Economics of Technological Change," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 67(4), pages 255-262, December.
    33. Nees Jan van Eck & Ludo Waltman, 2009. "How to normalize cooccurrence data? An analysis of some well‐known similarity measures," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(8), pages 1635-1651, August.
    34. Marc Schut & Annemarie van Paassen & Cees Leeuwis & Laurens Klerkx, 2014. "Towards dynamic research configurations: A framework for reflection on the contribution of research to policy and innovation processes," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(2), pages 207-218.
    35. Juho Hamari & Mimmi Sjöklint & Antti Ukkonen, 2016. "The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(9), pages 2047-2059, September.
    36. Howells, Jeremy, 2005. "Innovation and regional economic development: A matter of perspective?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 1220-1234, October.
    37. Metcalfe, J S, 1994. "Evolutionary Economics and Technology Policy," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 104(425), pages 931-944, July.
    38. Esther Turnhout & Marian Stuiver & Judith Klostermann & Bette Harms & Cees Leeuwis, 2013. "New roles of science in society: Different repertoires of knowledge brokering," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(3), pages 354-365, February.
    39. Bharat Bhushan, 2015. "Perspective: Science and technology policy – What is at stake and why should scientists participate?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(6), pages 887-900.
    40. Kieron Flanagan & Elvira Uyarra, 2016. "Four dangers in innovation policy studies -- and how to avoid them," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(2), pages 177-188, February.
    41. Todtling, Franz & Trippl, Michaela, 2005. "One size fits all?: Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 1203-1219, October.
    42. Richard H. Thaler, 2016. "Behavioral Economics: Past, Present, and Future," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(7), pages 1577-1600, July.
    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. Koseoglu, Mehmet Ali & Mehraliyev, Fuad & Xiao, Honggen, 2019. "Intellectual connections in tourism studies," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    2. Gomes, Leonardo Augusto de Vasconcelos & Fleury, André Leme & Oliveira, Maicon Gouvêa de & Facin, Ana Lucia Figueiredo, 2021. "Ecosystem policy roadmapping," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).

    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. Rodolfo Modrigais Strauss Nunes & Susana Carla Farias Pereira, 2022. "Intellectual structure and trends in the humanitarian operations field," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 319(1), pages 1099-1157, December.
    2. Shashi & Piera Centobelli & Roberto Cerchione & Amit Mittal, 2021. "Managing sustainability in luxury industry to pursue circular economy strategies," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 432-462, January.
    3. Ying Huang & Wolfgang Glänzel & Lin Zhang, 2021. "Tracing the development of mapping knowledge domains," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 6201-6224, July.
    4. Mingchun Cao & Ilan Alon, 2020. "Intellectual Structure of the Belt and Road Initiative Research: A Scientometric Analysis and Suggestions for a Future Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-40, August.
    5. Claudia Patricia Maldonado-Erazo & José Álvarez-García & María de la Cruz del Río-Rama & Amador Durán-Sánchez, 2021. "Scientific Mapping on the Impact of Climate Change on Cultural and Natural Heritage: A Systematic Scientometric Analysis," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-19, January.
    6. Ana Joana Fernandes & Joao J. Ferreira, 2022. "Entrepreneurial ecosystems and networks: a literature review and research agenda," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 189-247, January.
    7. Pedro López-Rubio & Norat Roig-Tierno & Alicia Mas-Tur, 2020. "Regional innovation system research trends: toward knowledge management and entrepreneurial ecosystems," International Journal of Quality Innovation, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-16, December.
    8. Verónica Robert & Gabriel Yoguel, 2022. "Exploration of trending concepts in innovation policy," Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 259-292, July.
    9. Gaviria-Marin, Magaly & Merigó, José M. & Baier-Fuentes, Hugo, 2019. "Knowledge management: A global examination based on bibliometric analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 194-220.
    10. Souzanchi Kashani, Ebrahim & Roshani, Saeed, 2019. "Evolution of innovation system literature: Intellectual bases and emerging trends," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 68-80.
    11. Yun, Jinhyuk & Ahn, Sejung & Lee, June Young, 2020. "Return to basics: Clustering of scientific literature using structural information," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    12. Mehdi Amirkhani & Igor Martek & Mark B. Luther, 2021. "Mapping Research Trends in Residential Construction Retrofitting: A Scientometric Literature Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-18, September.
    13. 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.
    14. Grashof, Nils, 2020. "Putting the watering can away Towards a targeted (problem-oriented) cluster policy framework," Papers in Innovation Studies 2020/4, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    15. María de la Cruz del Río-Rama & Claudia Patricia Maldonado-Erazo & José Álvarez-García & Amador Durán-Sánchez, 2020. "Cultural and Natural Resources in Tourism Island: Bibliometric Mapping," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-26, January.
    16. Juntao Zheng & Niancai Liu, 2015. "Mapping of important international academic awards," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 763-791, September.
    17. Bhatnagar, S. & Sharma, D., 2022. "Evolution of green finance and its enablers: A bibliometric analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    18. Suparak Suriyankietkaew & Phallapa Petison, 2019. "A Retrospective and Foresight: Bibliometric Review of International Research on Strategic Management for Sustainability, 1991–2019," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27, December.
    19. Belussi, Fiorenza & Orsi, Luigi & Savarese, Maria, 2019. "Mapping Business Model Research: A Document Bibliometric Analysis," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(3).
    20. Myriam Ertz & Sébastien Leblanc-Proulx, 2019. "Review of a proposed methodology for bibliometric and visualization analyses for organizations: application to the collaboration economy," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(2), pages 84-93, June.

    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:spr:scient:v:118:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03014-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.