转化式学习
框架(结构)
持续性
背景(考古学)
社会学
制度化
政治学
法学
生态学
教育学
结构工程
生物
工程类
古生物学
作者
Johan Schot,W. Edward Steinmueller
出处
期刊:Research Policy
[Elsevier BV]
日期:2018-08-31
卷期号:47 (9): 1554-1567
被引量:1224
标识
DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011
摘要
Science, technology and innovation (STI) policy is shaped by persistent framings that arise from historical context. Two established frames are identified as co-existing and dominant in contemporary innovation policy discussions. The first frame is identified as beginning with a Post-World War II institutionalisation of government support for science and R&D with the presumption that this would contribute to growth and address market failure in private provision of new knowledge. The second frame emerged in the 1980s globalising world and its emphasis on competitiveness which is shaped by the national systems of innovation for knowledge creation and commercialisation. STI policy focuses on building links, clusters and networks, and on stimulating learning between elements in the systems, and enabling entrepreneurship. A third frame linked to contemporary social and environmental challenges such as the Sustainable Development Goals and calling for transformative change is identified and distinguished from the two earlier frames. Transformation refers to socio-technical system change as conceptualised in the sustainability transitions literature. The nature of this third framing is examined with the aim of identifying its key features and its potential for provoking a re-examination of the earlier two frames. One key feature is its focus on experimentation, and the argument that the Global South does not need to play catch-up to follow the transformation model of the Global North. It is argued that all three frames are relevant for policymaking, but exploring options for transformative innovation policy should be a priority.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI