The Legitimation and Dissemination Processes of the Innovation System Approach

A new approach in science policy making named the innovation system (IS) approach has been developed during the past three decades. Its primary goal is to better understand the processes through which scientific knowledge is produced and transferred to businesses to improve their competitiveness and develop national and/or regional economies. This approach has been adopted as an analytical framework and guideline for science policy making by numerous public sector organizations around the world. Using a case study of the Canadian and Québec public sectors, our research seeks to understand why the IS approach has gained the adherence of government employees and how it has been disseminated from international organizations down to regional civil servants. Findings show that adherence to the IS approach stems from the prestige of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and its associated epistemic community, and from the cultural authority science exerts on government employees; these two factors bestow cultural authority onto the IS approach. The perceived scientific validity of the IS approach also leads government employees to consider its underlying economistic worldview as an unquestionable reality.

[1]  Janet Atkinson-Grosjean,et al.  Changes in Academy/Industry/State Relations in Canada: The Creation and Development of the Networks of Centres of Excellence , 2001 .

[2]  Naubahar Sharif,et al.  Emergence and development of the National Innovation Systems concept , 2006 .

[3]  Daniel Lee Kleinman.  Conceptualizing the Politics of Science: A Response to Cambrosio, Limoges and Pronovost , 1991 .

[4]  The university under the pressure of innovation policy : reflecting on European and Finnish experiences , 1999 .

[5]  Henry Etzkowitz,et al.  Universities and the global knowledge economy , 1997 .

[6]  L. Leydesdorff,et al.  The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and , 2000 .

[7]  Oili-Helena Ylijoki,et al.  Research for Whom? Research Orientations in Three Academic Cultures , 2001 .

[8]  M. Gibbons,et al.  Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty , 2003 .

[9]  D. Pestre.  Regimes of Knowledge Production in Society: Towards a More Political and Social Reading , 2003 .

[10]  Kenya Endo.  The 1993 White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment , 1999 .

[11]  J. Duberley,et al.  Continuity in Discontinuity: Changing Discourses of Science in a Market Economy , 2001 .

[12]  Janet F. Forrest.  Practitioners’ forum: Models of the process technological innovation , 1991 .

[13]  Gilles Paquet,et al.  Local and Regional Systems of Innovation as Learning Socio-Economies , 1998 .

[14]  T. Gieryn.  Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line , 1999 .

[15]  Mathieu Albert,et al.  Universities and the market economy: The differential impact on knowledge production in sociology and economics , 2003 .

[16]  Keith Smith,et al.  Policy learning and innovation theory: an interactive and co-evolving process , 2002 .

[17]  Gilles Paquet,et al.  Local and regional systems of innovation , 1998 .

[18]  John L. Campbell.  Ideas, Politics, and Public Policy , 2002 .

[19]  P. Bourdieu.  Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste* , 2018, Food and Culture.

[20]  Terry Shinn,et al.  The Triple Helix and New Production of Knowledge , 2002 .

[21]  Henry Etzkowitz,et al.  The Endless Transition: A "Triple Helix" of University-Industry-Government Relations , 2014 .

[22]  Emanuel Adler,et al.  The emergence of cooperation: national epistemic communities and the international evolution of the idea of nuclear arms control , 1992, International Organization.

[23]  J. Creswell,et al.  Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design , 1998 .

[24]  Jonathan D. Jansen.  Mode 2 knowledge and institutional life: Taking Gibbons on a walk through a South African university , 2002 .

[25]  M. Albornoz.  Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty , 2003 .

[26]  Science policy and university research: Canada and the USA, 1979-1999 , 2002 .

[27]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  The Knowledge-Based Economy , 2006 .

[28]  Terry Shinn.  Change or mutation? Reflections on the foundations of contemporary science , 1999 .

[29]  M. Finnemore,et al.  International organizations as teachers of norms: the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cutural Organization and science policy , 1993, International Organization.

[30]  John W. Meyer,et al.  World Society and the Nation‐State , 1997, American Journal of Sociology.

[31]  M. Finnemore,et al.  National Interests in International Society , 1996 .

[32]  K. Green.  National innovation systems: a comparative analysis , 1996 .

[33]  H. Etzkowitz,et al.  The Role of Research Centres in the Collectivisation of Academic Science , 1998 .

[34]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  A Triple Helix of University—Industry—Government Relations , 1998, Scientometrics.

[35]  A. S. Yee.  The causal effects of ideas on policies , 1996, International Organization.

[36]  Bengt-Åke Lundvall,et al.  Nation States and Economic Development:From National Systems of Production to National Systems of Knowledge Creation and Learning , 2000 .

[37]  Stefan Kuhlmann,et al.  Future governance of innovation policy in Europe — three scenarios , 2001 .

[38]  Gili S. Drori.  Science in the Modern World Polity: Institutionalization and Globalization , 2002 .

[39]  U. Segerstråle,et al.  Real Science. What it is, and what it means , 2001 .

[40]  Sean Nixon,et al.  WHO NEEDS CULTURAL INTERMEDIARIES? , 2002 .

[41]  Magnus Gulbrandsen,et al.  In Search of ‘Mode 2’: the Nature of Knowledge Production in Norway , 2004 .

[42]  Alberto Cambrosio,et al.  Representing Biotechnology: An Ethnography of Quebec Science Policy , 1990 .

[43]  B. Dalum.  National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning , 1992 .

[44]  P. Weingart.  From “Finalization” to “Mode 2”: old wine in new bottles? , 1997 .

[45]  Peter M. Haas,et al.  Conclusion: epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a reflective research program , 1992, International Organization.

[46]  Laura Bovone.  Cultural intermediaries: A new role for intellectuals in the postmodern age , 1990 .

[47]  P. Haas.  Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination , 1992, International Organization.

[48]  Pierre Milot.  La reconfiguration des universités selon l'OCDE [Économie du savoir et politique de l'innovation] , 2003 .

[49]  Marion Fourcade-Gourinchas,et al.  The Rebirth of the Liberal Creed: Paths to Neoliberalism in Four Countries1 , 2002, American Journal of Sociology.

[50]  Stratégies d'adaptation des organismes subventionnaires en sciences humaines et sociales au Canada et au Québec aux compressions budgétaires gouvernementales , 2000 .

[51]  S. Schwartzman,et al.  The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1994 .

[52]  Steven P. Vallas,et al.  Science, capitalism, and the rise of the “knowledge worker”: The changing structure of knowledge production in the United States , 2001 .

[53]  Michael Gibbons,et al.  Introduction: `Mode 2' Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge , 2003 .