Inside the public scientific system: Changing modes of knowledge production

The Theory and Practice of Innovation Policy: An International Research Handbook

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 25-50

  Martin, Ben R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84877133354     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4337/9781849804424.00008     Document Type: Chapter

References (75)

1. Arrow, K. (1962), ‘Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention, in R. Nelson (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activities, Princeton: Princeton Universtity Press, pp. 609-625.
2. Becher, T. (1989), Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines, Buckingham, UK and Philadelphia, USA: Open University Press.
3. Bijker, W., Hughes, T. and Pinch, T. (eds) (1987), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA and London, UK: MIT Press.
4. Bonaccorsi, A. (2008), ‘Search regimes and the industrial dynamics of science’, Minerva, 46 (3), 285-315.
5. Bozeman, B. (2000), ‘Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory’, Research Policy, 29 (4-5), 627-655.
6. Branscomb, L. and Keller, J. (eds) (1999), Investing in Innovation: Creating a Research and Innovation Policy That Works, Cambridge, MA, USA and London, UK: MIT Press.
7. Bush, V. (1945, reprinted in 1990), Science: The Endless Frontier, Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
8. Calvert, J. and Martin, B. (2001), ‘Changing Conceptions of basic research?’, Background Report prepared for the OECD Workshop on Policy Relevance and Measurement of Basic Research, 29-30 October 2001, Oslo.
9. Cowan, R., et al. (2000), ‘Innovation policy in a knowledge-based economy’, DG Enterprise, European Commission, Luxembourg.
10. David, P. (2004), ‘Understanding the emergence of “open science” institutions: functionalist economics in historical context’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 13 (4). 571-589.
11. Drucker, P. (1994), Post Capitalist Society, Boston, USA and London, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
12. Durant, J., Evans, G. and Thomas, G. (1992), ‘Public understanding of science in Britain: the role of medicine in the popular representation of science’, Public Understanding of Science, 1 (2), 161-182.
13. Edler, J. and Kuhlmann, S. (2008), ‘Integration of European research systems: a multi-dimensional phenomenon’, in D. Jansen (ed.), Towards a European Research Area, Baden-Baden: Nomos Publishers.
14. Elzinga, A. (1997), ‘The science-society contract in historical transformation: with special reference to “epistemic drift’”, Social Science Information, 36 (3), 411-445.
15. Etzkowitz, H. (2000), The Second Academic Revolution: MIT and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science, London: Gordon and Breach.
16. Etzkowitz, H. (1997), ‘The entrepreneurial university and the emergence of democratic corporatism’, in L. Leydesdorff and H. Etzkowitz (eds), A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations, London: Cassell Academic.
17. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C. and Terra, B. (2000), ‘The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm’, Research Policy, 29 (2), 313-330.
18. Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (2000), ‘The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations’, Research Policy, 29 (2), 109-123.
19. Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (1998), ‘The endless transition: a “Triple Helix” of university-industry-government relations’, Minerva, 36 (3), 203-208.
20. Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (eds) (1997), Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations, London: Cassel Academic.
21. Freeman, C. (1987), Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan, London, UK and New York, USA: Pinter.
22. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotony, H., et al. (1994), The New Production of Knowledge, London: Sage Publishing.
23. Godin, B. (2005), ‘The linear model of innovation: the historical construction of an analytical framework’, project on the History and Sociology of S&T Statistics Paper No. 30, Canadian Science and Innovation Indicators Consortium, Montreal.
24. Godin, B. (2000), ‘Measuring science: is there “basic research” without statistics?’, project on the History and Sociology of S&T Statistics Paper No. 3, Observatoire des Sciences et des Techniques, Montreal.
25. Godin, B. (1998), ‘Writing performative history: the new New Atlantis?’, Social Studies of Science, 28 (3), 465-483.
26. Grupp, H. (1992), Dynamics of Science-Based Innovation, Berlin, Germany, Heidelberg, Germany and New York, USA: Springer-Verlag.
27. Guston, D. and Keniston, K. (1994), ‘Updating the social contract for science’, Technology Review, 97 (8), 60-68.
28. Harris, W., Martin, B., et al. (2005), ‘Frontier research: the European challenge’, report of the High-Level Expert Group, European Commission, Brussels.
29. Heinze, T. and Kuhlmann, S. (2007), ‘Analysis of heterogeneous collaboration in the German research system with a focus on nanotechnology’, in D. Jansen (ed.), New Forms of Governance in Research Organizations. From Disciplinary Theories towards Interfaces and Integration, Berlin, Germany, Heidelberg, Germany and New York, USA: Springer-Verlag.
30. Hessen, B. (1931), ‘The social and economic roots of Newton’s principia, in N. Bukharin, et al. (eds), Science at the Crossroads: Papers from the Second International Congress of the History of Science and Technology, London: Frank Cass - Co. Ltd. (1971, reprint), pp. 147-203.
31. Hicks, D. and Katz, J. (1996), ‘Where is science going?’, Science, Technology & Human Values, 21 (4), 379-406.
32. Hilgartner, S. (1990), ‘The dominant view of popularization: conceptual problems, political uses’, Social Studies of Science, 20 (3), 519-539.
33. Irvine, J. and Martin, B. (1984), Foresight in Science: Picking the Winners, London, UK and New York, USA: Pinter.
34. Jacob, M. and Hellstrom, T. (eds) (2000), The Future of Knowledge Production in the Academy, Buckingham, UK and Philadelphia, USA: Open University Press.
35. Katz, S., Hicks, D., Sharp, M. and Martin, B. (1995), ‘The changing shape of British science’, STEEP Special Report SSR 3, SPRU, University of Sussex, Brighton.
36. Katz, S. and Martin, B. (1997), ‘What is research collaboration?’, Research Policy, 26 (1), 1-18.
37. Kline, S. and Rosenberg, N. (1986), ‘An overview of innovation’, in R. Landau and N. Rosenberg (eds), The Positive Sum Game, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
38. Kuhn, T. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Vol. 2, Number 2, International Encyclopaedia of Unified Science, Chicago, USA and London, UK: University of Chicago Press (1970).
39. Kuhlmann, S. (2001), ‘Governance of innovation policy in Europe - three scenarios’, in Special Issue of H. Klein, S. Kuhlmann and P Shapira (eds), ‘Innovation policy in Europe and the US: new policies in new institutions’, Research Policy, 30 (6), 953-976.
40. Layard, R. (2005), Happiness: Lessons from a New Science, London, UK and New York, USA: Penguin.
41. Leydesdorff, L. and Wagner, C. (2006), ‘Is the United States losing ground in science? A global perspective on the world science system in 2005’, manuscript, available electronically from 1st authors website.
42. Leydesdorff, L. and Etzkowitz, H. (eds) (1998), A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations: The Future Location of Research?, New York: Science Policy Institute, State University of New York.
43. Leydesdorff, L. and Etzkowitz, H. (1996), ‘Emergence of a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations’, Science and Public Policy, 23 (5), 279-286.
44. Lundvall, B-A. (1992), National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, London, UK and New York, USA: Pinter.
45. Martin, B. (2003), ‘The changing social contract for science and the evolution of the university’, in A. Geuna, A. Salter and W. Steinmueller (eds), Science and Innovation: Rethinking the Rationales for Funding and Governance, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp. 7-29.
46. Martin, B. (1995), ‘Foresight in science and technology’, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 7 (2), 139-168.
47. Martin, B. and Etzkowitz, H. (2001), ‘The origin and evolution of the university species’, Journal for Science and Technology Studies (Tidskriji for Vetenskaps- och Teknikstudier, VEST), 13 (3-4), 9-34.
48. Martin, B. and Johnston, R. (1999), ‘Technology foresight for wiring up the national innovation system: experiences in Britain, Australia and New Zealand’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 60 (1), 37-54.
49. Martin, B. and Irvine, J. (1989), Research Foresight: Priority-Setting in Science, London, UK and New York, USA: Pinter.
50. Merton, R (1973), The Sociology of Science, Chicago, USA and London, UK: University of Chicago Press.
51. Narin, F., Hamilton, K. and Olivastro, D. (1997), ‘The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science’, Research Policy, 26 (3), 317-330.
52. Nelson, R. (2004), ‘The market economy, and the scientific commons’, Research Policy, 33 (3), 455-71.
53. Nelson, R. (ed.) (1993), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford, UK and New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
54. Nelson, R. (1959), ‘The simple economics of basic scientific research’, Journal of Political Economy, 67, 297-306.
55. Nelson, R. and Winter, S. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Cambridge, MA, USA: Belknap Press.
56. Nowotony, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2001), Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty, Cambridge, UK: Polity.
57. OECD (1963), ‘The measurement of scientific and technical activities: proposed standard practice for surveys of research and experimental development (Frascati Manual)’, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.
58. Pestre, D. (2003), ‘Regimes of knowledge production in society: towards a more political and social reading’, Minerva, 41 (3), 245-261.
59. Pestre, D. (1997), ‘La production des savoirs entre academiés et marché’, Revue d’Economie Industrielle, 79 (1), 163-174.
60. Pinch, T. and Bijker, W. (1984), ‘The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other’, Social Studies of Science, 14 (3), 399-441.
61. Rip, A. (2000), ‘Fashions, lock-ins and the heterogeneity of knowledge production’, in M. Jacob and T. Hellstrom (eds), The Future of Knowledge Production in the Academy, Buckingham, UK and Philadelphia, USA: Open University Press, pp. 56-69.
62. Rosenberg, N. and Nelson, R. (1994), ‘American universities and technical advance in industry’, Research Policy, 23 (3), 323-348.
63. Schofield, R. (1957), ‘The industrial orientation of science in the lunar society of Birmingham’, Isis, 48 (4), 408-415.
64. Schumpeter, J. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.
65. Shinn, T. (2000), ‘The “Triple Helix” and “new production of knowledge” as sociocognitive fields’, paper presented at the Third Triple Helix Conference, 26-29 April 2000, Rio de Janeiro.
66. Smits, R. and Kuhlmann, S. (2004), ‘The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy’, International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 1 (1-2), 4-32.
67. Smith, K. (2000), ‘Innovation as a systemic phenomenon: rethinking the role of policy’, Enterprise & Innovation Management Studies, 1 (1), 73-102.
68. Stehr, N. (1994), Knowledge Societies, London: Sage Publishing.
69. Stephan, P. (2001), ‘Educational implications of university-industry technology transfer’, Journal of Technology Transfer 26 (3), 199-205.
70. Stern, N. (2006), The Economics of Climate Change, London: H.M. Treasury.
71. Stokes, D. (1997), Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
72. Weingart, R (1997), ‘From “Finalization” to “Mode 2”: old wine in new bottles?’, Social Science Information, 36 (4), 591-613.
73. Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. (2004), See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream, London: Demos.
74. Wynne, B. (2001), ‘Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risks and ethics on GMOs’, Science as Culture, 10 (4), 445-481.
75. Ziman, J. (2000), Real Science: What It Is, and What It Means, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.