Innovation Trapped in the Benchmarking Mechanism

• Autorzy: Agnieszka Karpińska
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: The aim of the article is the analysis of innovation policy of OECD in the perspective of constructivist model of cognition. THE RESEARCH PROBLEM AND METHODS: The main problem of the article is to prove that the utility of the innovation system, currently deployed in dozens of countries around the world, determines excessively structuralist model of innovation policy. The applied research method is the case study of Finland and critical analysis of the literature studies of innovation. THE PROCESS OF ARGUMENTATION: The reasoning process consists of three basic stages. The first is an analysis of the genesis of the so-called European tradition of innovation studies. The second is the reconstruction of the process of implementation of the national innovation system in Finland. There was made an attempt to identify certain social impact, including political mechanisms, of the construction of knowledge about innovation in Europe. There was also made a brief critique of the OECD system of internationally comparable indicators to measure innovation, presented by the organization in the "Oslo Manual." RESEARCH RESULTS: The reconstruction of the genealogy of the Finnish innovation system has shown that it is a tool extensively involved in the complex relations of power and knowledge. The analysis proved that it is unreasonable to assign the rapid economic development of Finland to innovation policy pursued by the state. There is also no legitimation to popularize the case of Finland as a model for other countries struggling with the problem of economic recession. The idea of innovation advocated as a remedy for increased competitiveness ignores the fact of unique historical circumstances that have played as important role for the success of Finland. CONCLUSIONS, INNOVATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The utility of the national innovation system determines the structuralist model of innovation policy that marginalizes cultural conditions for innovative attitudes. The discourse about innovation should be complemented by the research from the humanistic perspective, mainly in the area of education for entrepreneurship. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Entrepreneurship; Entrepreneurial education; Innovation policy; Innovations; Education; National innovation system

PL

Przedsiębiorczość; Edukacja przedsiębiorcza; Polityka innowacyjna; Innowacje; Edukacja; Narodowy system innowacji

• Czasopismo: Horyzonty Wychowania
• Rocznik: 2016
• Tom: 15
• Numer: nr 33 Philosophy of Education Today
• Strony: 147--164

Twórcy

autor

Agnieszka Karpińska

• Państwowa Wyższa Szkoła Informatyki i Przedsiębiorczości w Łomży

Bibliografia

• Ahlback, J. (2005). The Finnish National Innovation System. European Regions Research and Innovation Network. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
• Albert, M., & Laberge, S. (2007). The Legitimation and Dissemination Processes of the Innovation System Approach. The Case of the Canadian and Quebec Science and Technology Policy. Science, Technology and Human Values, No. 2007, 221-249.
• Ali-Hyrkko, J., & Hermans, R. (2004). Nokia: A Giant in the Finnish Innovation System. In: G. Schienstock ed. Embracing the Knowledge Economy. The Dynamic Transformation of the Finnish Innovation System. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 106-127.
• Allardt, E. (1995). Technology Rhetoric as a Means of Constructing the Finnish Reality. Tieteessa Tapahtuu, No. 13, 5-9.
• Arrowsmith, J., Sisson, K., & Margison, K. (2004). What Can Benchmarking Offer to Open Method Coordination. Journal of European Public Policy, No. 11(2), 311-328.
• Cambrosio, A., Limoges, C., & Pronovost, D. (1990). Representing Biotechnology: an Ethnography of Quebec Science Policy. Social Studies of Science, No. 20, 213.
• Castells, M., & Himanen, P. (2002). The Information Society and the Welfare State. The Finnish Model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Edler, J. (2003). Change in European R&D Policy as Complex Consensus-building Process. In J. Edler, S. Kuhlmann, & M. Behrens (Eds.), Changing Governance of Research and Technology Policy: the European Research Area. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 98-132.
• Etkowitz, H., & Webster, A. (1995). Science as Intellectual Property. In S. Jasanoff, G. Mankle, G. Peterson, & S. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. London - New Delhi: Sage Publications, 483-485.
• Freeman, Ch. (1974). The Economics of Industrial Innovation. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
• Freeman, Ch. (1982). Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Pinter.
• Gilfillan, S.C. (1935). The Sociology of Invention. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Godin, B. (2002). The Rise of Innovation Surveys: Measuring a Fuzzy Concept. The History and Sociology of S&T Statistics, Working Paper No. 6. Retrived from http://www.csiic.ca/PDF/Godin_16.pdf (access: 07.02.2016).
• Godin, B. (2010). Innovation Studies: The Invention of a Specialty (Part II). The History and Sociology of S&T Statistics, Working Paper No. 8. Retrived from http://www.csiic.ca/PDF/IntellectualNo8.pdf (access: 07.02.2016).
• Haikio, M. (2006). Nokia. The Inside Story. Helsinki: Edita.
• Hansen, J.A. (2001). Technology Innovation Indicator Surveys. In J.E. Jankowski, A.N. Link, & N.S. Vonortas (Eds.), Strategic Research Partnership. Proceedings of an National Science Fund Workshop, NSF 01-336. Waszyngton: NSF.
• Hyytinen, A., Paija, L., Rouvinen, P., & Yla-Anttila, P. (2006). Finland's Emergence as a Global Information and Communication Technology Player. Lessons from the Finnish Wireless Cluster. In J. Zysman, & A. Newman (Eds.), How Revolutionary Was Digital Revolution?, Stanford: Stanford Business Books,56-77.
• Innovation Analysis Bulletin. (2001). Statistics Canada, No. 3.
• Jaaskelainen, J. (2001). Cluster - Between Science and Policy. From Industrial Policy to Social Policy. The Reseach Institute of the Finnish Economy: ETLA, No. A33.
• Latour, B. (2000). When Things Strike Back: a Possible Contribution of 'Social Studies' to the Social Sciences. British Journal of Sociology, No. 51, 107-123.
• Lemola, T. (2006). Finnish Science and Technology Policy. In G. Schienstock (Ed.), Embracing the Knowledge Economy. The Dynamic Transformation of the Finnish Innovation System. Cheltenham: Edward Elgars, 268-286.
• Lindbeck, A. (1991). Lessons From the Conference. In OECD, Technology and Productivity: The Challenge for Economic Policy. Paris: OECD.
• Maclaurin, W.R., & Joyce, R. (1949). Invention and Innovation in the Radio Industry. New York: MacMillan.
• Miettinen, R. (2012). Innovation, Human Capabilities, and Democracy. Towards an Enabling Welfare State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Miettinen, R., Eela, R., & Rask, M. (1999). The Emergence and Institutionalization of Technology Assessment in Finland. Social Studies, No. 12, 48-63.
• Nelson, R. (1993). Technical Innovation and National Systems, National Innovation Systems. A Comperative Analysis. Nowy Jork: Oxford University Press.
• Nelson, R., & Rosenberg, R. (1993). A Retrospective. In R. Nelson (Ed.), National Innovation System. A Comperative Analysis. Nowy Jork: Oxford University Press, 505-23.
• OECD. (1968). Gaps in Technology. Paris: OECD.
• OECD. (1992). Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities: Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data (Oslo Manual). Paris: OECD.
• OECD. (1997). National Innovation System. Paris: OECD.
• OECD. (1997). The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities: Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data (Oslo Manual). Paris: OECD.
• OECD, EUROSTAT. (2005). The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities: Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data (Oslo Manual). Paris: OECD.
• OECD. (1992). Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities: Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data (Oslo Manual). Paris: OECD.
• OECD. (1995). Technology and the Economy: the Key Relationships. Paris: OECD.
• OECD. (1997). National Innovation System. Paris: OECD.
• OECD. (1997). The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities: Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data (Oslo Manual). Paris: OECD.
• OECD, EUROSTAT. (2005). The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities: Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data (Oslo Manual). Paris: OECD.
• Ogburn, W.F. (1937). The Influence of Inventions on American Social Institutions in the Future. American Journal of Sociology, No. 3, 365-376.
• Ogburn, W.F., & Nimkoff, M.F. (1955). Technology and the Changing Family. Cambridge: Riverside Press.
• Palmberg, C., & Martikainen, O. (2005). Nokia as an Incubating Entrant: Case of Nokia's Entry to the GSM. Innovation: Management, Policy and Practice, No. 7, 61-78.
• Patomaki, H. (2005). The University Incorporation - the Problems of and Alternatives to the Management by Results. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.
• Porter, M.E. (1985). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: The Free Press.
• Porter, M.E. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Second edition. New York: The Free Press.
• Sabel, C., & Saxenian, A. (2008). A Fugitive Success. Finland's Economic Future. Helsinki: Sitra.
• Science and Technology Council of Finland. (1990). Guidelines of Science and Technology Policy in the 1990s. Helsinki.
• Science and Technology Council of Finland. (1996). Finland: A Knowledge-Based Society. Helsinki.
• Tamowicz, P. (2006). Przedsiębiorczość akademicka. Spółki spin-off w Polsce. Warszawa: Polska Agencja Rozwoju Przedsiębiorczości.
• Tiitta, A. (2007). Tiede-ja teknologiapolitiika. Suomessa 1970-2006. In V. Pernaa, & A.Tiitta (Eds.), Sivistyksen ja tiedon Suomi. Helsinki: Edita, 146-281.
• Vuori, S., & Vuorinen, P. (1994). The Rigidities and Potentials of a National Innovation System. In S. Vouri, & P. Vourinen (Eds.), Explaining Technical Change in a Small Country. The Finnish National Innovation System. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag, 206-215.
• Vuorinen, P., Tikka, T., & Lovio, R. (1989). Suomen teknologiakeskukset. Helsinki: Sisäasianministeriö.
• Zybertowicz, A. (1995). Przemoc i poznanie. Studium z nie-klasycznej socjologii wiedzy. Toruń: Nicolaus Copernicus University Press.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.17399/HW.2016.153310