创新生态系统的知识治理研究综述

强化创新生态系统的相关研究对创新驱动产业高质量发展具有重要意义。基于知识基础理论,本研究针对创新生态系统知识治理的代表性成果,运用文献综述法对知识治理概念内涵、治理结构、治理机制与治理绩效等核心内容进行总结梳理与分析述评。结果发现：创新生态系统知识治理的概念内涵具有拓展趋势。与此相适应,未来研究需在更为多样化的应用场景下,加大治理结构、治理机制以及匹配模式的研究力度,丰富知识治理绩效的评价方法、影响因素、内在机理等研究内容,并结合创新生态系统的阶段性演进特征,推进知识治理的动态研究。     

基于系统性文献回顾法的新型研发机构研究与展望

本文以国内经济管理领域 2003年至2019 年的179篇文献为样本,使用系统性文献回顾法(SLR),探索和总结了新型研发机构的研究现状及其知识结构,分析现有研究的缺失并尝试寻找未来的研究趋势。研究发现: 第一,新型研发机构的知识结构由9个部分构成一个2W1H的主题研究框架。第二,从国家、产业和企业层面分别总结了阻碍新型研发机构发展的因素及其提升对策建议。第三,从研究知识模块、研究切入角度和研究趋势拓展3个方面解剖现有知识断层,并对未来的研究提出具体可行的对策建议     

Innovation policy for system-wide transformation: The case of strategic innovation programmes (SIPs) in Sweden

The orientation towards grand societal challenges can be seen as a new wave or paradigm for innovation policy. Such policy aims at system-wide transformation and is often referred to as system innovation policy. While insights from transition studies have provided novel and useful rationales for innovation policy targeting system-wide transformation, it remains unclear how to design, implement and evaluate such policies. The contribution of this paper is to translate and concretize the challenges of system innovation policy towards scope for policy action and analysis. Building on insights from transition studies we group the challenges into four domains: directionality, experimentation, demand articulation, and policy coordination and learning. We relate challenges within the four domains to three generic features of innovation systems: interests and capabilities of actors, networks, and institutions. The derived framework is applied in a case study on the strategic innovation programmes, a recent policy initiative by Vinnova, Sweden’s Innovation Agency, targeting system innovation.     

国有企业研究院创新管理与实践——以中国石化石油勘探开发研究院为例

诠释国有企业研究院内在的创新属性及其兼具的社会责任,阐述企业创新管理的理论依据,分析影响国企创新的体制机制方面面临的问题,认为国企研究院可以通过创新机制和制度履行创新主体责任.同时以笔者所在单位为例,介绍一个国企研究院在科技创新和管理创新方面的实践做法与体会.     

Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change: Combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive ‘failures’ framework

The recent policy debates about orientating research, technology and innovation policy towards societal challenges, rather than economic growth objectives only, call for new lines of argumentation to systematically legitimize policy interventions. While the multi-level perspective on long-term transitions has attracted quite some interest over the past years as a framework for dealing with long-term processes of transformative change, but the innovation systems approach is still the dominant perspective for devising innovation policy. Innovation systems approaches stress the importance of improving innovation capabilities of firms and the institutional settings to support them, but they are less suited for dealing with the strategic challenges of transforming systems of innovation, production and consumption, and thus with long-term challenges such as climate change or resource depletion. It is therefore suggested to consider insights from transition studies more prominently in a policy framework that is based on the innovation systems approach and the associated notion of ‘failures’. We propose a comprehensive framework that allows legitimizing and devising policies for transformative change that draws on a combination of market failures, structural system failures and transformational system failures.     

Navigating the impact-innovation double hurdle: The case of a climate change research fund

This paper analyses how the funding for research grants was allocated from a specific research fund which aimed to support innovative research projects with the potential to have research impact by reducing carbon emissions. The fund received a total of 106 proposals, of which 27 were successful at obtaining financial support. Our aims were to test which factors influenced the funding decision and to discover whether or not and to what extent the fund met its intended objectives through the allocation of monies. The allocation process and its outcomes were analysed using correlation, logistical and linear regression to test our research hypotheses. Using this research funding process as a single study, we found that trying to clear the impact-innovation double hurdle in a single funding initiative ultimately compromises both goals. This paper therefore contributes to our understanding of innovation management within the context of carbon emission reduction and explains which factors influenced success in securing research monies through the funding process.     

国外“创新驿站评价”研究进展述评

创新驿站在推动科技、经济和社会发展中发挥了巨大作用。创新驿站评价也成为国外科技政策、技术创新以及区域经济研究的热点。笔者分别从创新驿站站点和网络两个方面对国外创新驿站评价研究进行评述,最后指出评价研究的启示和未来趋势。     

Christopher Freeman: social science entrepreneur

This paper focuses on Christopher Freeman's contributions to the field of innovation studies. First, we consider his role as the creator of various organisational and intellectual frameworks crucial for the field's development, including the main research activities he initiated. Next, we examine the publications by Freeman that these activities led to. A database of surveys of the innovation literature, assembled from articles in handbooks covering this area, is used to identify the most influential of his writings for this field. In addition, citations to these works in scholarly journals are analysed in order to examine the nature and extent of his influence on other scholars. The final section sums up the evidence regarding Freeman's influence on the field's development. A list of Freeman's scholarly works is included as Appendix B.     

Governance for system optimization and system change: The case of urban waste

This paper analyses urban waste systems to explore how local authorities can resolve challenges related to climate change, urbanization and resource depletion. The paper investigates how different public governance regimes affect local authorities’ ability to move upwards in the waste hierarchy. It identifies three different governance regimes – traditional bureaucracy, new public management and networked governance – and uses the insights from innovation in urban waste in three Norwegian city regions – Oslo, Drammen and Bergen – to illuminate how these regimes possess both strengths and weaknesses in how they affect system optimization and system change. The observed working practices signal that the issue of urban waste systems is perceived as a challenge of system optimization rather than system change. Viewing this as a challenge requiring system change would probably have ensured a stronger directionality and a broader anchoring of actors. Such an approach is likely to have arrived at a waste prevention mode earlier than the step-by-step-solutions implemented so far. The paper concludes that there is not one best governance regime, but a need to acknowledge their co-existence and carefully consider the characteristics of the respective regimes in order to arrange urban waste systems for long-term dynamic and sustainable city regions.     

Exploring the emerging knowledge base of ‘the knowledge society’

Science, technology and innovation have grown in importance over the last 50 years as we have moved towards a more knowledge-intensive society (the ‘knowledge society’). A number of new research fields have emerged in an effort to understand these developments and to offer advice to decision-makers in government, industry and elsewhere. This special issue focuses on studies of three relatively distinct though thematically related research fields (innovation studies, entrepreneurship studies, and science and technology studies). The first three articles use a particular methodology based on analysis of the references cited in the chapters to authoritative ‘handbooks’ to identify the core contributions in the three fields. A fourth article examines the relationship between the core literatures in three fields and how this has evolved over time. Other articles look at the evolution of innovation studies as reflected in highly cited papers, at the development of entrepreneurship as seen by a key ‘insider’, and at the creation of new centres in these fields and the difficulties they face. The last article in this special issue shows how interdisciplinary centres in innovation studies suffer from research assessment systems that are intrinsically biased against interdisciplinary research. This introduction presents a synthesis of the articles in this special issue, discusses similarities and differences between the three fields and their development over time, and considers challenges for policy and governance arising from the research presented here.     

浅谈医学专科学生科技创新意识与能力的培养

为适应社会发展的需要,对医学专科学生科技创新意识和现状进行了分析,对加强医学专科学生科技创新意识和能力的培养途径进行了探讨。     

分类思想与科学研究选题创新

分类是指根据事物的属性进行区分和类聚,并按照其相互关系进行组织的活动。通过学科分类体系,科学研究选题能够实现精确定位,能够通过学科分类体系的上、下位类的选择及不同类目的交叉调适研究命题的大小,也能够通过类目的边缘化和交叉性以实现科研创新。