This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
The field would benefit from reading the literature on the internalist/externalist debate in history.
For example: the literature is clear enough, for almost a decade now, on the complex history of the “linear model of innovation”. Yet, Lundvall continues to claim that the model comes from Vannevar Bush (p. 35).
“There is the challenge to make more systematic efforts to produce and disseminate insights that demonstrate the considerable limitations” of standard economics as source of policy advice”, Lundvall, p. 22; “it would be better to neglect the economics mainstream”, Lundvall, p. 56; “important to launch an attack on neo-classical macroeconomics”, Lundvall on Chris Freeman, p. 59.
“I admit of some scepticism about the scientific nature of management studies, where publication often seems to involve little than new catchphrases …”, Steinmueller, p. 152.
“The STS community differs from innovation studies in paying much attention to the negative consequences of new technology and public science policy. Scholars in this tradition are notably less engaged in looking for solutions to policy or management problems”, Lundvall, p. 48.
Martin suggests the opposite: “we seem to be devoting a disproportionate level of effort to addressing yesterday’s problems” (p. 171). He is partly right only. Every day, the field brings in new concepts in order to explain new phenomena.
Lundvall’s chapter, from which the book develops, is a “personal interpretation”, as he calls it. A large part of the chapter is devoted to his personal history over the last decades. Justifying one’s own life usually appears in Mémoires, not in a state of the art.
I sincerely thank seven colleagues from both “inside” and “outside”, as well as five students, for commenting on a first draft of this essay.
References
Becher, Tony, and Paul R. Trowler. 2001. Academic Tribes and Territories, 2nd ed. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Brooks, Harvey. 1982. Social and Technological Innovation. In Managing Innovation: The Social Dimension of Creativity, Invention and Technology, eds. Sven B. Lundstedt, and E. Williams Colglazier, 1–30. New York: Pergamon Press.
Fagerberg, Jan, and Bart Verspagen. 2009. Innovation Studies: the Emerging Structure of a New Scientific Field. Research Policy 38: 218–233.
Frye, Northrop. 1957. Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Godin, Benoît. 2012. “Innovation Studies”: The Invention of a Specialty. Minerva 50(4): 397–421.
Godin, Benoît. Forthcoming. Innovation Contested: The Idea of Innovation Over the Centuries. London: Routledge.
Godin, Benoît, and Joseph P. Lane. 2013. “Pushes and Pulls”: The Hi(story) of the Demand Pull Model of Innovation. Science, Technology and Human Values 38(5): 621–654.
Janis, Irving Lester. 1982. Groupthink: psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Lerner, Josh, and Scott Stern (eds.). 2012. The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity Revisited. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rogers, Everett M. 1962. The Diffusion of Innovation. New York: Free Press.
Rogers, Everett M. 1976. Where Are We in Understanding the Diffusion of Innovations? In Communication and change: The last ten years—and the next, eds. Wilbur Schramm, and Daniel Lerner, 204–222. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.
Rogers, Everett M., John D. Eveland, and Constance Klepper. 1977. The Innovation Process in Public Organizations, Report to the US National Science Foundation, Department of Journalism, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor: Michigan.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This title is inspired by Becher and Trowler (2001).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Godin, B. “Innovation Studies”: Staking the Claim for a New Disciplinary “Tribe”. Minerva 52, 489–495 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-014-9262-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-014-9262-1