The aim of this chapter is to focus on the progressive aspects of the relationship between science and innovation. One of the main aims in this chapter is to position the fields of science and innovation in relationship with the actors of both scenes. Are there individuals, organizations and institutions specialized in the respective fields, with a division of labor leading to professional monopolies? Must we introduce other elements in the creative ecosystems (communities, intermediaries, policy settings, etc.)? One striking evolution in the long run is the professionalization of research, along with the increasing size of equipment in certain sectors. The logical conclusion could be that science is now extremely specialized and characterized by an extensive division of labor. The paradox is that, in parallel, we observe a growing number and variety of partners contributing to applied knowledge creation in the model of open innovation, and large interdisciplinary teams that are necessary to achieve breakthroughs in basic science. Scientist are trained and selected like high-level athletes, exchanged on academic markets, and evaluated according to criteria of “excellence” in the respective discipline, but they can no more be considered as having the monopoly of the discovery. We observe a democratization of the ideas as Edmund Phelps says.
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your Elgar Online account
-
Show ItemsFront Matter
-
PART I: INNOVATION AS A CONCEPT
-
Show ItemsPART II: INNOVATION AND INSTITUTIONS
-
Show ItemsPART III: INNOVATION AND CREATIVITY
-
Show ItemsPART IV: INNOVATION, NETWORKING AND COMMUNITIES
-
Show ItemsPART V: INNOVATION IN PERMANENT SPATIAL SETTINGS
-
Show ItemsPART VI: INNOVATION IN TEMPORARY AND VIRTUAL SETTINGS
-
Show ItemsPART VII: INNOVATION, ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND MARKET MAKING
-
Show ItemsPART VIII: GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT OF INNOVATION
