IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sru/ssewps/2016-17.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Serendipity: Towards a taxonomy and a theory

Author

Listed:
  • Ohid Yaqub

    (Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, UK)

Abstract

Serendipity, the notion of researchers making unexpected and beneficial discoveries, has played an important role in debates about the feasibility and desirability of targeting public R&D investments. The purpose of this paper is to show that serendipity can come in different forms and come about in a variety of ways. The archives of Robert K Merton, who introduced the term to the social sciences, were used as a starting point for gathering literature and examples. We identify four types of serendipity (Walpolian, Mertonian, Browsing, Curiosity) together with four mechanisms of serendipity (Theory-led, Observer-led, Error-borne, and Network-emergent). We also discuss implications of the different types and mechanisms for theory and policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Ohid Yaqub, 2016. "Serendipity: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-17, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    • Handle: RePEc:sru:ssewps:2016-17
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=2016-17-swps-yaqub-et-al.pdf&site=25
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Nightingale & Alister Scott, 2007. "Peer review and the relevance gap: Ten suggestions for policy-makers," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(8), pages 543-553, October.
    2. Sampat, Bhaven N., 2012. "Mission-oriented biomedical research at the NIH," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1729-1741.
    3. Karoline Rogge, 2016. "Reviewing the evidence on the innovation impact of the EU Emission Trading System," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-09, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    4. Johan Schot & Laur Kanger, 2016. "Deep Transitions: Emergence, Acceleration, Stabilization and Directionality," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-15, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    5. Rosenberg, Nathan, 1992. "Scientific instrumentation and university research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 381-390, August.
    6. Walsh, John P. & Lee, You-Na, 2015. "The bureaucratization of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1584-1600.
    7. Laur Kanger & Johan Schot, 2016. "User-made immobilities: a transitions perspective," Mobilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(4), pages 598-613, August.
    8. Cunha, Miguel Pina e & Clegg, Stewart R. & Mendonça, Sandro, 2010. "On serendipity and organizing," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 319-330, October.
    9. Laur Kanger & Johan Schot, 2016. "User-made Immobilities: A Transitions Perspective," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-13, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    10. Mazzucato, Mariana & Semieniuk, Gregor, 2018. "Financing renewable energy: Who is financing what and why it matters," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 8-22.
    11. Paul Nightingale, 2014. "What is technology? Six definitions and two pathologies," SPRU Working Paper Series 2014-19, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    12. 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.
    13. Gambardella,Alfonso & Malerba,Franco (ed.), 1999. "The Organization of Economic Innovation in Europe," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521643030, October.
    14. Lee, You-Na & Walsh, John P. & Wang, Jian, 2015. "Creativity in scientific teams: Unpacking novelty and impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 684-697.
    15. Heinze, Thomas & Shapira, Philip & Rogers, Juan D. & Senker, Jacqueline M., 2009. "Organizational and institutional influences on creativity in scientific research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 610-623, May.
    16. Andy Stirling, 2016. "Precaution in the Governance of Technology," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-14, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    17. Mari Martiskainen, 2016. "The role of community leadership in the development of grassroots innovations," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-10, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    18. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67(3), pages 297-297.
    19. Rosenberg,Nathan, 1994. "Exploring the Black Box," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521459556, September.
    20. David C. Mowery, 2009. "What Does Economic Theory Tell us About Mission-oriented R&D?," Chapters, in: Dominique Foray (ed.), The New Economics of Technology Policy, chapter 12, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    21. repec:dau:papers:123456789/13443 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Mark de Rond & Raymond‐Alain Thietart, 2007. "Choice, chance, and inevitability in strategy," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 535-551, May.
    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. Mariana Mazzucato & Douglas K Robinson, 2016. "Lost in space? NASA and the changing publicprivate eco-system in space," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-20, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.

    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. Yaqub, Ohid, 2018. "Serendipity: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 169-179.
    2. Mariana Mazzucato & Douglas K Robinson, 2016. "Lost in space? NASA and the changing publicprivate eco-system in space," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-20, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    3. Jan Fagerberg & Staffan Laestadius & Ben R. Martin, 2016. "The Triple Challenge for Europe: The Economy, Climate Change, and Governance," Challenge, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(3), pages 178-204, May.
    4. Johan Schot & Laur Kanger, 2016. "Deep Transitions: Emergence, Acceleration, Stabilization and Directionality," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-15, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    5. Beck, Mathias & Junge, Martin & Kaiser, Ulrich, 2017. "Public Funding and Corporate Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11196, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. José Miguel Benavente & Gustavo Crespi & Alessandro Maffioli, 2007. "The Impact of National Research Funds: An Evaluation of the Chilean FONDECYT," OVE Working Papers 0307, Inter-American Development Bank, Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE).
    7. Nicola Lacetera, 2003. "Incentives and spillovers in R&D activities: an agency-theoretic analysis of industry-university relations," Microeconomics 0312004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Malo, Stéphane, 2009. "The contribution of (not so) public research to commercial innovations in the field of combinatorial chemistry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 957-970, July.
    9. Birgitte Andersen & Federica Rossi, 2011. "Intellectual property governance and knowledge creation in UK universities," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(8), pages 701-725, September.
    10. Choi, Jin-Uk & Lee, Chang-Yang, 2022. "The differential effects of basic research on firm R&D productivity: The conditioning role of technological diversification," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    11. Laplane, Andrea & Mazzucato, Mariana, 2020. "Socializing the risks and rewards of public investments: Economic, policy, and legal issues," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(S).
    12. Paula Kivimaa & Wouter Boon & Sampsa Hyysalo & Laurens Klerkx, 2017. "Towards a Typology of Intermediaries in Transitions: a Systematic Review," SPRU Working Paper Series 2017-17, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    13. Clò, Stefano & Frigerio, Marco & Vandone, Daniela, 2022. "Financial support to innovation: The role of European development financial institutions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    14. Ashish Arora & Sharon Belenzon & Andrea Patacconi & Jungkyu Suh, 2020. "The Changing Structure of American Innovation: Some Cautionary Remarks for Economic Growth," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 20(1), pages 39-93.
    15. Michaël Bikard & Keyvan Vakili & Florenta Teodoridis, 2019. "When Collaboration Bridges Institutions: The Impact of University–Industry Collaboration on Academic Productivity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 426-445, March.
    16. Pavitt, Keith, 1998. "The social shaping of the national science base," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 793-805, December.
    17. Mario COCCIA, 2018. "Evolution of the economics of science in the Twenty Century," Journal of Economics Library, KSP Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 65-84, March.
    18. N. Lacetera & L. Zirulia, 2008. "Knowledge Spillovers, Competition, and R&D Incentive Contracts," Working Papers 624, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    19. Kenny Ching & Joshua Gans & Scott Stern, 2019. "Control versus execution: endogenous appropriability and entrepreneurial strategy," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 28(2), pages 389-408.
    20. Daniel Chudnovsky & Andrés López & Martín Rossi & Diego Ubfal, 2006. "Evaluating a Program of Public Funding of Scientific Activity. A Case Study of FONCYT in Argentina," OVE Working Papers 1206, Inter-American Development Bank, Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    serendipity; uncertainty; research policy; science policy; technology policy; innovation management;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:sru:ssewps:2016-17. 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: University of Sussex Business School Communications Team (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/spessuk.html .

    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.