Innovation studies—The emerging structure of a new scientific field

Research Policy 38 (2009) 218233

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research Policy

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / respol

Innovation studiesThe emerging structure of a n

Jan Fagerberga,b,, Bart Verspagenc,a

a TIK, University of Oslo, Norwayb CIRCLE, University of Lund, Swedenc Maastricht Un e Net

a r t i c l

Article history:Received 29 OReceived in re19 NovemberAccepted 18 D

Keywords:InnovationNetworkInvisible collegInter-disciplinCognitive com

n waNewvationhis emis pa

1. Introdu

Innovation is one of those words that suddenly seem to be oneverybodys lips. Firmscare about their ability to innovate, onwhichtheir future allegedly depends (Christensen, 1997; Christensenand Raynor, 2003), and hoards of consultants are busy persuad-ing companPoliticiansstimulate ingovernmeninnovationthe Europelarly in rec2004) andments, etc.search in Juthe socialuniversities

Corresponbox 1108, Blin

E-mail addb.verspagen@a

1 See, for inpractice: A br(COM(2006)50

2 The searchengines at oncthe search was

purthis emerging scientic eld. Despite the popularity of the phe-nomenon, very little has beenwrittenon the community of scholarsthat study innovation and contribute to the knowledge base neces-sary for designing innovation policy. One of the reasons for this lackof attention may be that the eld is not, or at least not yet, orga-

0048-7333/$ doi:10.1016/j.ries about the usefulness of their advice in this regard.care about innovation too, how to design policies thatnovation has become a hot topic at various levels of

t. The European Commission, for instance, has madepolicy a central element in its attempt to invigoratean economy.1 A large literature has emerged, particu-ent years, on various aspect of innovation (Fagerberg,many new research units (centers, institutes, depart-) focusing on innovation have been formed. A webly 2007 identied 136 such units world-wide (withinsciences) of which more than 80% were located in.2

ding author at: Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, Post-dern, N-0317, Oslo, Norway.resses: [email protected] (J. Fagerberg),lgec.unimaas.nl (B. Verspagen).stance, the Communication on innovation Putting knowledge intooad-based innovation strategy for the EU adopted on 13.09.20062) (http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/innovation/index en.htm).for the innovation research centers was done using all major searche through Dogpile (http://www.dogpile.com). The main keyword forinnovation. In addition at least one of the following keywords; cen-

nized as a scientic discipline with departments, undergraduate,graduate and post-graduate teaching, curricula, textbooks etc. Butas Whitley (2000, p. 302) points out, scientic elds are no longercoterminouswith academic disciplines. The hierarchical, homoge-nous, disciplinary community, centered around elite universitiesanddepartments, of the typedescribedby for exampleKuhn (1962),is only one among several ways to organize a scientic eld. Becherand Trowler (2001, p. 27) for example conclude that generaliza-tions from data derived from elite academics in elite institutionshave become increasingly tenuous. Arguably, what primarily char-acterizes the development of the academicworld in recent decades,apart from its tremendous growth, is the increasing variety in howscientic work is organized and carried out (Knorr Cetina, 1999;Whitley, 2000; Becher and Trowler, 2001). Thus, the developmentof innovation studies as a scientic eld is part of a broader trendtowards increased diversication and specialization of knowledgethat blurs traditional boundaries and challenges existing patternsof organization within science (including social science).

ter, centre, institute, unit, department, group,wasneeded for inclusion in the sample.Non-academic organizations, such as government agencies, TTOs, consultancy com-panies and the like (from domains such as .biz, .mil, .gov), were excluded.

see front matter 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.espol.2008.12.006iversity, Department of Economics & UNU-MERIT, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, Th

e i n f o

ctober 2008vised form2008ecember 2008

earitymunity

a b s t r a c t

The scholarly literature on innovatiopaper, this is now rapidly changing.within universities focusing on innoand organizational characteristics of tchallenges. The research reported in thscholars worldwide took part.

ction Theew scientic eld

herlands

s for a long time not very voluminous. But as shown in thejournals, professional associations and organizational unitshave also been formed. This paper explores the cognitiveerging eld of social science and considers its prospects and

per is basedonaweb-survey inwhichmore thanone thousand

2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

pose of this paper is to explore the character of

J. Fagerberg, B. Verspagen / Research Policy 38 (2009) 218233 219

Although little has been written on innovation studies as such,there exists a large literature on the emergence of new scienticelds that we may use as inspiration in our research.3 Themat-ically focused research communities, such as innovation studies,have been studied from a variety of perspectives: cognitive, organi-zational or actor (network) oriented, using different labels, such asspecialisms (Chubin, 1976; Becher and Trowler, 2001), epistemiccommunities (Knorr Cetina, 1999) and scientic elds (Whitley,2000). We prefer to use the last (more general) term here. Froma cognitive perspective, a scientic eld may be dened as allwork being done on a particular cognitive problem (Cole, 1983,p. 130). Ining innovatresearchers1973; Hagstence. Thatnecessary fmulate isof the requcontroversyfollowing Ksus (and success, andbleak prospfound many1983; Becherable disaas a threatis some aissues areresolving thp. 617).

The lattecommunicastandards (freward systbe unlikelyknowledgestances (Coa reputatio or academscientic the academthe establisan importaThis is easithe emergin1997) areresistance,participants(perhaps ri(Hambrick aing scientiattempts toments in elexpected totions and oacademic w

3 For overvi4 Much depe

resistance throHagstrom (196basis for ident2008) for the

phase (Merton, 1973, p. 52), and it also applies as we shall see to innovation studies.

As pointed out by Granovetter (1985, p. 504) most behavior isclosely embedded in networks of interpersonal relationships. Thatthis also gosurprise. In1983 for antogether incolleges (darounda smtant role as

tekesearctratec erveenceearchtingh oneas a

rs areme tancey useay cotogestruervien 2)papeharaof rousahe emarliertionups)lly cadva, 200hallethatbles.of thr cocientve ae nat theunitympecontcon

ationpape

eme

oure theckgrodescformddirtextthis case it is mainly the common focus, understand-ion for instance, and the accumulated knowledge thatin the eld share, that serves to differentiate (Merton,rom, 1965) the emerging eld from other areas of sci-some degree of shared knowledge or consensus isor a scientic eld to thrive and knowledge to accu-generally acknowledged (Cole, 1983). But the extentired consensus has been a matter of considerable. While some of the early literature on the subject,uhn (1962), assumed that a high degree of consen-possibly use of mathematics) was a prerequisite forthat scientic elds without such characteristics had

ects (Pfeffer, 1993; Stinchcombe, 1994), other researchof these assertions to be largely unsubstantiated (Cole,

er and Trowler, 2001; Whitley, 2000). Hence, consid-greements and lively debates should not be seento the survival of a scientic eld as long as there

greement about what the fundamental questions orand as long as there are some agreed upon ways ofeoretical and methodological disputes (Pfeffer, 1993,

r points to theneed for organization:without a separatetion system, such as conferences and journals, commonorwhat is goodworkandwhat is not) andamerit-basedem (that promotes the good work), a scientic eld willto survive for long (Whitley, 2000). Not only becauseaccumulation would be difcult under such circum-le, 1983; Pfeffer, 1993) but also because without suchnal system of work organization (Whitley, 2000, p. 7)ic autonomy as Merton (1973) puts it the emerging

eld would not be legitimate in the eyes of the rest ofic world. Hence, legitimation (Merton, 1973) throughhment of appropriate institutions and organizations isnt aspect of the establishment of a new scientic eld.er said than done, however. In fact, the advocates ofg eld the academic entrepreneurs (Van de Water,often met with considerable skepticism, if not outrightfrom the academic establishment, particularly fromin neighboring scientic elds (or disciplines) that

ghtly) may see this a ght about power and resourcesnd Chen, 2008).4 As a consequence, scholars in emerg-c elds seldom start the search for legitimation byestablish permanent organizational units or depart-

ite universities, where this type of resistance may bebe strong, but tend to choose less prestigious loca-

rganizational forms in the fringes of the establishedorld. This held for sociology, for instance, in its early

ews see Becher and Trowler (2001) and Whitley (2000).nds therefore on the ability of these entrepreneurs to overcome suchugh making a persuasive case for the importance of the eld, what5, p. 215) called utopias to legitimize their claims and to form theication and mobilize the necessary resources (Hambrick and Chen,elds continuing development.

and gathis reconcenscientinot resout sciour resinteracup witterizedscholathe saimportquentlthat mgroups

Thetory ov(Sectioof thistional csurveyone thtutes twith einnova(or grois usuarecentGirvanmary cfactorsensemtion 5broademon scognitied, that leascommhaps coit thateld tothe relof this

2. The

It isoutsid as baa briefwell-inproceea briefes for the behavior of researchers should come as nofact, there exists a large number of studies (see Chubin,overview) demonstrating that scientists tend to work

relatively dense networks or groups, so-called invisiblee Solla Price, 1963; Crane, 1969, 1972), often centeredall numberof prominent academicswhoplay an impor-sources of scholarly inspiration, providers of resourcesepers to external networks. While in the early phase ofh many studies took inspiration from Kuhn (1962), andd on studying the social structure of rapidly changingelds, it soon became clear that such dense groups ared to emerging elds, but are in fact prevalent through-(Grifth andMullins, 1972). The interesting question foris therefore not somuchwhether such dense groups of

scholarsdo in fact exist, but ratherhowthesegroups linkanother into something that (perhaps) may be charac-distinct scientic eld. As pointed out by Crane (1972),normally connected to several different networks at

ime through links of various strengths. Of particularfor our research, therefore, is to identify the less fre-d but still very important weak ties (Granovetter, 1973)ntribute to bringing scholars from these many smallerther into a larger scholarly community.cture of the paper is as follows. After a brief introduc-w of the development of the eld of innovation studieswe proceed in the following sections to the main topicr, which is an analysis of the cognitive and organiza-cteristics of the eld today. Sections 3 and 4 present theesearchers in innovation studies, in which more thannd scholars worldwide took part. This survey consti-pirical basis for the analyses that follow. In accordanceresearch (see above) we adopt the hypothesis that the

studies eld is composed of a large number of networksof closely interacting scholars bound together by whatalled strong ties, e.g., work-relationships, and we usences in formal social network analysis (Newman and4) to verify this. However, as pointed out above, the pri-nge is not somuch to establish this fact as to identify thecontribute to embed such smaller groups into broaderOur hypothesis, whichwe explore inmore detail in Sec-is paper, is that such smaller groups are embedded ingnitive communities that are bound together by a com-ic outlook and a shared communication system, e.g.,nd organizational aspects. If this can indeed be veri-tural question to ask is if the scientists in this area, orgreat majority of them, belong to the same cognitive. Or is the eld more an association of different (per-ting) cognitive communities? In the latter case, what isributes to keeping the eld together? How likely is thetinue to thrive? We explore these questions and discussship to other areas of social science in the nal sectionr (Section 6).

rgence of innovation studies as a scientic eld

hope that this paper may be of interest also to readerseldof innovation studiesproper, and thereforewehaveund information for the analyses that follow includedription of the historical development of the eld. Theed reader will nd little new here and may choose toectly to Section3. It should alsobe emphasized that suchcannot do full justice to the many scholars that over the

220 J. Fagerberg, B. Verspagen / Research Policy 38 (2009) 218233

Fig. 1. Socia ience articles). Source: social science citation index (ISI Web of Science).

years have cof the readoriginal sou

Before 1far betweework of the(18831950bined insighoriginal apchange, focvation andhimself frombecause itlife is essencess constitvery strongenergy withany equilibp. 166). It wto explain.ory of econoEnglish tranbetween inand their ithe approacand Develo1942).

Schumpdriving forca lost causeliterature inmatized, staadmired buedge aboutsocial changeld that thlimited, andeventually aarly interesonwards, w(Fig. 1).

5 For a more6 For a histo7 Another im

Gabriel Tarde1903) came to(see, in particu

s revival started in the USA. Already during early years ofld War the US leadership was well aware of the fact that theys global dominance rested on technological supremacy ande factors underpinning it needed to be catered for. Severalves,t (RAthe

techned foR&Dentith Recotedanteconfectionom, 1967; Mate a(Neherslumeo bes ofrial Rtionthea ve

holdsey Wl science articles with innovation in the title 19562006 (in percent of all social sc

ontributed to the progress of the eld.5 For the beneter we added references to relevant survey articles andrces.960 scholarly publications on innovation were few andn (Fig. 1).6 The main exception to this rule was theAustrian-American social scientist Joseph Schumpeter).7 Working in the early days of social science, he com-ts from economics, sociology and history into a highly

proach to the study of long run economic and socialusing in particular on the crucial role played by inno-the factors inuencing it. In so doing he distancedthe (then) emerging neoclassical strand of economics,

in Schumpeters own words assumed that economictially passive . . . so that the theory of a stationary pro-utes really the whole of theoretical economics . . . I feltly that this was wrong, and that there was a source ofin the economic system which would of itself disrupt

rium that might be attained (Schumpeter 1937/1989,as this source of energy, innovation, that he wanted

His major theoretical treatise on the subject, The the-mic development, published in German in 1912 and inslation in 1934, focused in particular on the interactionnovative individuals, what he called entrepreneurs,nert social surroundings, while later works extendedh to also take into account organized R&D (Researchpment) activities in large rms (Schumpeter, 1934,

eters life-long advocacy for seeing innovation as thee behind economic and social change seemed almostat the time of his death in 1950. Instead, the economicscreasingly came to be dominated by highly mathe-tic, equilibrium exercises of the type that Schumpetert held to carry little promise for improving our knowl-the sources of long run technological, economic ande.However, it soonbecameevident to researchers in the

Thithe Cocountrthat thinitiatiopmensustainhad athe neure inprominated won theoriginaimportamongtors afand ecRogersal., 195The RNelsonresearcThe votinue tsourceindustgenerators toto play

8 Thisand Sidne explanatory power of the static approach was fairlythis led to a search for new insights and approaches

lso to a renaissance for Schumpeterian ideas. The schol-t in innovation increased steadily from around 1960ith particularly rapid growth since the early 1990s

comprehensive treatment see Martin (2008).rical perspective on innovation theory see Godin (2006).portant scholar from the early years was the French sociologist

who through his Lois de limitation from 1890 (English translationinuence later work by sociologists on the diffusion of innovationslar, Rogers, 1962, 2003).

9 For an oveRogers (2003)10 The Ameri

period of morsocial and privthat are less re11 Edwin Ma

questions relaabroad). He istopics (see, insee Diamond (12 The book

nomic Researc(2005, p. 4) paction amongconference, co1966, as imposuch as the establishment of the Research and Devel-ND) Corporation by the US Air Force, were taken to

se advantages. Although most of the research at RANDological focus its leadership also placed emphasis onr understanding the factors affecting success or fail-and innovation. Many researchers that came to be

contributors to the innovation literature were associ-AND8 and some of the most well known publicationsnomics of R&D and innovation from this early periodthere (see, e.g., Nelson, 1959; Arrow, 1962). Anothertopic for innovation researchers at the time, not onlyomists but also sociologists9, was the study of the fac-

ng the spread of innovations, particularly in the largeically important agricultural sector (Griliches, 1957,10

2), but also in other parts of the economy (Coleman etanseld, 196111). A landmark was the collective volumend Direction of Inventive Activity edited by Richard

lson, 1962a,b), to which most prominent US innovationat the time (at least among economists) contributed.12

focused on a number of topics, several of which con-central to the research agenda in this area, such as theinvention (Schmookler, 1962), the role of science for&D (Nelson, 1962a,b) and the allocation of resources toof new knowledge (Arrow, 1962). Among the contribu-volume were also several young researchers who camery important role for economic research on R&D and

for example for Kenneth Arrow, Burton H. Klein, Richard R. Nelsoninter. See Hounshell (2000) for an extended account.

rview of the sociological literature on diffusion of innovations see, particularly chapter 2.can economist (and econometrician) Zvi Griliches contributed over ae than 40 years a large number of studies on topics such as diffusion,ate returns to R&D, spillovers and patenting (as well as other issueslevant in this context). For an overview see Diamond (2004).nseld pioneered the use of rm-level information to explore variousted to innovation and diffusion of technology (in the USA as well asparticularly well known for a series of very inuential books on theseparticular, Manseld, 1968a,b). For an overview of Manselds work2003).was based on a conference convened by the National Bureau for Eco-h (NBER) at the University of Minnesota in the spring of 1960. Schereroints to this conference as the beginning point for scholarly inter-(US) economists on technological change. He also mentions a laternvened by Edwin Manseld at the University of Pennsylvania in Mayrtant for the progress of the eld.


innovation in the decades that followed, such as, for example, ZviGriliches, Edwin Manseld and Frederic M. Scherer.13

Although US researchers dominated the eld during the earlyyears14, subsequently much of the growth occurred elsewhere. Animportant event was the formation of the Science Policy ResearchUnit (SPRU) at the (then newly established) University of Sussexin 1965 with Christopher Freeman as its rst director. From thebeginning, it had a cross-disciplinary research staff consisting ofresearchers with backgrounds in subjects as diverse as economics,sociology, psychology, and engineering. SPRU developed its owncross-disciplinary Master and PhD programs and carried out exter-nally funded research. Inmanyways it served as a rolemodel for themany centeestablishedmentionedthan a 100tion studiesAccording tthird of thethe early bein innovatiopost-gradua

The reseconferencesphase was tcess or failinuentialsummarizein 1974. EigInnovationapproach tochange (Frean analysiswas also inproject whiume TechnDosi, Freemand Soete w

The growteaching inconferencesperhaps moestablishedadditions tople Economof EvolutioChange (19name, the Inhosts an inworking invation ManManagemention, the Dainitially a rannual conf

During tgrown very

13 Managemenot to have hadopment of theand Stalker (1extended acco14 Some Euro

Carter and Wi15 See Fig. 3 f

is a hazardous task. However, to get at least an impression of howthe scholarly literature in this area has developed,16 we decided toexplore the references in articles published in the journal ResearchPolicy between 1979 and 2006.17 This choice was dictated by thefact that Research Policy is the only specialized journal in this areathat has been around for a relatively long period of time (all oth-ers were established in the 1990s), and the nding that the journalaccording to the respondents to our survey (see later) is the mostimportant publication channel for scholarly work on innovation. Itseems reasonable to assume that the authors of articles in this jour-nalwill reference themost important contributions of relevance fortheir topics. Although the authors preferences and topicsmay vary,

ontributions will be referred to many times simply becausere regarded as central for innovation studies more gener-e will take these highly cited references as representative forre literature in innovation studies. Table 1 reports the veitederiodlassior arongntin1960le ase of ito a

ontriandinu

eoriz965)l persizinl knr ofaralre otionbecarial iliterovat

chmo(Pa

ditiovel cal, 1techr a bic hthe

s ofthan

ranstther conticcase, hrea sehanthe

gle yet fromRosend. Somrst urs/institutes in Europe and elsewhere that came to besubsequently, mostly from the mid 1980s onwards. Aspreviously, a web-search in July 2007 identied morecenters/departments worldwide devoted to innova-, the great majority of which were located in Europe.15

o the information on their web-pages, more than onese offer Master or PhD education (or both). Hence, fromginnings four decades ago, a sizeable teaching activityn studies has emerged worldwide at the graduate andte level.arch initiated at SPRU led to a large number of projects,, and publications. An important initiative in the earlyhe SAPPHO project, focusing on factors explaining suc-ure in innovation (Rothwell et al., 1974). Freemansbook The economics of industrial innovation, whichd the existing research on the subject, was publishedht years later the book Unemployment and Technicalappeared, one of the rst studies to apply a system-the role of innovation in long run economic and social

eman et al., 1982). Freeman later followed this up withof the innovation system in Japan (Freeman, 1987). Hestrumental in setting up the large, collaborative IFIASch in 1988 resulted in the very inuential collective vol-ical Change and Economic Theory, edited by Giovannian, Nelson, Gerald Silverberg, and Luc Soete (both Dosiere SPRU PhD graduates).th of the community associated with research and

this area also led to the creation of several new journals,and professional associations. Research Policy, the

st central academic journal in the eld (see later), wasin 1972, with Freeman as the rst editor. More recentthe publication outlets in this area include for exam-ics of Innovation and New Technology (1990), Journal

nary Economics (1991) and Industrial and Corporate92). A professional association honoring Schumpetersternational Schumpeter Society (ISS), founded in 1986,ternational conference every two years for scholarsthe Schumpeterian tradition. The Technology and Inno-agement Division (TIM) of the (American) Academy oft, which meets annually, was formed in 1987. In addi-nish Research Unit for Industrial Dynamics (DRUID),

elatively local Danish affair, has since 1995 hosted anerence with broad international participation.he last few decades the literature on innovation hasvoluminous (Fig. 1) and to summarize it in a few pages

nt, which later came to host many students of innovation, appearsan equally strong focus on innovation in the early years of the devel-innovation studies eld. See, however, Woodward (1958) and Burns961) for possible exceptions to this trend, and Martin (2008) for anunt.pean researchers entered the eld early, however. See, for example,lliams (1957, 1958), Posner (1961) and Freeman et al. (1963, 1965).or details.

some cthese aally. Wthe comost ctime pcited cbooks

Amthat cobeforetral rothe roltinuedlater cNelsona largeary th1959, 1oreticaemphazationanumbe

In pliteratuAs menwhichindustin thisand inntion (Ssectorsity conrm-leLevinthyses ofway foeconomDuringsystemRather

16 SeeG17 Ano

of a sciepresentin this aso-calledanalyzedfor a sindifferen18 The

publishe19 The

(2004).references in Research Policy during three successives starting in 1979. In addition we include the ve mostcs, i.e., citations during the whole period 19792006 toticles published before 1975.the classics (Table 1, panel A), i.e., older works thatue to be highly appreciated, only two were published, both by Schumpeter. This conrms Schumpeters cen-a source of inspiration in this eld. His favorite topic,nnovation in long run economic development, has con-ttract attention from scholars in this area. Examples ofbutions on this topic include Freeman et al. (1982) andWinter (1982). The latter in particular came to exertence (Table 1, panel C and D). Drawing on evolution-ing and insights from organizational science (Simon,, Nelson andWinter developed a radically enriched the-spective on the micro-foundations of economic growth,g the heterogeneous character of rms and the organi-owledge that they posit, inuencing later research in adifferent areas (Meyer, 2001).lel with work on the innovation-growth nexus, a richn innovation in different contexts gradually emerged.ed previously, an early synthesis of much of this work,me widely diffused, was Freemans The economics ofnnovation from 1974. Among the topics emphasizedature were the factors inuencing investment in R&Dion (Arrow, 1962), the sources of invention and innova-okler, 1966) the great differences across industries and

vitt, 1984) in how innovation, including appropriabil-ns (Teece, 1986), operates, and the important role thatapabilities play for innovation and learning (Cohen and989, 1990). Another important contributor, whose anal-nological, institutional and economic change paved theroader, more systemic analysis of innovation, was theistorian Nathan Rosenberg (Rosenberg, 1976, 198218).1990s a new approach, using the concept national

innovation, emerged (Lundvall, 1992; Nelson, 1993).19

focusing on various aspects of innovation in isolation,

rand (1994) for anearlybibliographical studyofparts of this literature.mmonly used approach is to base exploration of the core knowledgeeld on analyses of the contents of textbooks (Cole, 1983). In theowever, there are not many such textbooks around. Often, teachingems to be based on collections of articles, sometimes published asdbooks, a recent example of which is Fagerberg et al. (2004). We alsoreferences in the latter. This yielded a smaller set of references andar only. However, in other respects the results were not qualitativelythose reported here.berg books are collections of papers, most of which were previouslye date back to the early 1960s.

se of the concept was Freeman (1987). For an overview see Edquist


Table 1Innovation studies: inuential works.

Citations in Research Policy Type/journal

(A) Classics: Titles published before 1975, citations from 1979 to 2006Freeman (19 117 BookSchumpeter 77 BookArrow (1962 76 Book ChapterSchmookler 71 BookSchumpeter 57 Book

(B) Citations 1Freeman (19SchmooklerNelson andRosenberg (Freeman et a

Economic(C) Citations 1

Nelson andPavitt (1984Freeman (19Rosenberg (Teece (1986

Collabora(D) Citations 1

Nelson andNelson (199Cohen and LLundvall (19

LearningCohen and L

a Citations t

this approarole of inteaction is infactors.

In shorting with ceHence, the lsistent withthis interpreral new orthe eld ha

3. Explorin

In the prbe consisteing. Howevabout the sliterature ahave emergto approachthemselves

Inmanya scienticmanagemeby the factand there idevoted to tof relevantclearly dennot be excluequally or mwechose tosurvey (seedetail belowof analysisas such and

dnoto deed frweb

ly 20ed m

s/booh prnomies (Nthe

tial sa74) The economics of industrial innovationa

(1942) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy) Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Innovation(1966) Invention and Economic Growth(1934) The Theory of Economic Development

979198874) The economics of industrial innovationa

(1966) Invention and Economic GrowthWinter (1977) In search of a useful theory of innovation1976), Perspectives on Technologyl. (1982) Unemployment and Technical Innovation: A Study of Long Waves andDevelopment

9891998Winter (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change) Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory74) The economics of industrial innovationa

1982) Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics) Proting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration,tion, Licensing and Public Policy9992006Winter (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change3) National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Studyevinthal (1989) Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D92) National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive

evinthal (1990) Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation

o the three different editions of this book (including Freeman and Soete, 1997).

ch favors a more holistic perspective, emphasizing theraction between different actors and how this inter-uenced by broader social, institutional and political

, over time we see a distinct core literature develop-rtain key themes, approaches and central contributors.iterature-based evidence put forward here may be con-the hypothesis of a new scientic eld emerging, and

etation gets further backing by the observation that sev-ganizations and channels of communication devoted tove been formed during the last decades.

whodifailedexclud

Theand Juidentiarticleresearcan ecocountrtion tothe inig the grass-roots: a web-based survey

evious section we provided some evidence that mightnt with the hypothesis of a new scientic eld emerg-er, it would be premature to draw strong inferencesocial organization of the eld from a small sample ofnd the observation that some organizational resourcesed. Arguably, to provide more solid evidence we needthe practitioners in the eld and ask them what theythink about the matter.cases itmay be relatively easy to identify those active ineld. For example, in their recent study of the strategicnt eld, Hambrick and Chen (2008) were greatly helpedthat a society exists (Strategic Management Society)s a journal (Strategic Management Journal) especiallyhis eld. Althoughwehave been able to point to a rangeassociations, conferences and journals, these are not ased as in the case of strategic management, and it can-ded that there are other resources of this type that areore appreciated by the relevant population. Thereforeselect our sample of scholars through a self-organizingAppendix B) the results from which we present in more. In doing so we followed Coles denition of the unitas a community of scientists who identify themselveswho interact (Cole, 1983, p. 130). Hence, respondents

ent contineby the UK amore than 7the initial salways havparticipate.of scholarsexample, gconsequencthe share osubsequent

The recquestionnaidentiedrelatively dsons withWe asked fsearched ouThe person

20 As responbackground inhappened afte21 See Appen24 Book23 Book20 Research Policy18 Book15 Book

64 Book44 Research Policy43 Book41 Book41 Research Policy

96 Book80 Book68 The Economic Journal66 Book

63 Administrative Science Quarterly

t consider themselves to belong to innovation studies, ormonstrate links to other scholars in the network, wereom the sample.-based survey was carried out between January 200405. The initial (starting) sample contained 98 names,ainly by studying reference lists in relevant survey

ks and lists of project leaders in relevant internationalograms. Given that the authors of this study both haveics background, and come from two small Europeanorway and The Netherlands), we paid particular atten-

need to avoid a bias in those directions. The scholars inmple came from16different countries and three differ-

nts. North America had the biggest share (23%) followednd Ireland (20%) and France (10%). No other country had% of the initial sample. The disciplinary composition ofample is difcult to verify exactly, because we did note that information when we sent out the invitations toBut emphasis was placed on including a fair amountfrom other disciplines than economics, such as, foreography, history, management and sociology. As ae of this, at an early stage in the collection of the dataf economists in the sample was well below what itly became (when the sample had become larger).20

ipients were sent an email, asking them to ll in aire, and submit it electronically.21 Respondents whothemselves with innovation studies were asked foretailed information about themselves and the per-whom they cooperate (at various levels of intensity).or email addresses along with these names, but alsorselves for email addresses when these were not given.s named by the respondents then received the same

ses started to come in the share of respondents with an economicscreased and eventually stabilized at the level reported below. Thisr a few months.dix B for detailed information about the questionnaire.


Fig.

invitation to(this methoname gene1999).22 Inallowed torators, the rof scholarlyfavorite me

We tookwere 5199with an invwe were nopersons asresponse raAboutonethemselvesdid not repoThe analysiremaining r

One of tbackgroundanswers toground waeconomics,natural scie(9%), follow(5%). Fig. 3world regioNorth Amer

When pand seminative these npointed to tshould be nscholars thamaywell betify with ththose). In min their chotype we aretion in Nort

22 A related swithin innova2004). Of the pevolutionarythat received twere new redent of that eaearlier survey

disciplinary contexts, rather than the type of cross-disciplinaryenvironments thathaveemerged inEuropeandelsewhere, thismaywell explain the relatively low share of North Americans in the nalsample.

Another way to shed light on this issue is to look at the responserates for scholars from different geographical contexts. The nalsample contained respondents with email addresses from 71 dif-ferent domains, which in most cases correspond to countries.23

US scholars, however, tend to come from edu or com domains,which had response rates of 22% and 23%, respectively, well belowthe average of 32%.24 If we adjust our estimate of the number ofNorth Americans in the sample for the difference in response-rate,

re would be a bit higher, approximately 24% . To have some-o compare these numberswith, we alsomade a geographicalown of the 136 research centers within innovation studiesusly identied (through theweb). The results (Fig. 3) showed% of these centers were located in North America comparedin Europe. Thus, the available evidence indicates that inno-studrs ining aes toties

smalmemode

ties,y emteriztion,explonshiphorshmet

tancetionroupgingwmaroupn iteto sueractcalcuounhoulinderk.4 prt difginn2. Educational (disciplinary) background of respondents.

participate in the survey by lling in the questionnaired is known in the literature as a combination of therator mechanism and snowball sampling, see Lin,this way the community of innovation scholars wasself-organize. In addition to identifying their collabo-espondents were asked questions about their sourcesinspiration, important publishing outlets and their

eting places (organizations/professional associations).stock of the database in July 2005. At that time, there

names included, of which 3484 had been approacheditation to participate in the survey (for those remainingt able to identify an email address, or we identied thedeceased). 1115 responses were obtained, implying ate of 32%, which we consider to be quite satisfactory.fth (218)of these respondents said theydidnot considerto be working in innovation studies, or, in a few cases,rt any strong linkswith one ormore of the respondents.s in this paper is based on the responses from the 897espondents.he questions focused on the respondents educational, their native discipline as it was phrased. Fig. 2 showsthat question. The most common disciplinary back-

s clearly economics (58% of the respondents). Afterengineering (under which heading we include also thences) was the most common disciplinary backgrounded by geography (8%), management (6%) and sociologysimilarly gives the distribution of the respondents overns. As is evident from the gure, Europe (71%) joined byica (17 %) dominate the sample.resenting earlier versions of this paper at conferencesrs we have frequently been asked how representa-umbers are. In particular, reactions to our results havehe relatively low share of North Americans. However, itoted that the purpose of the exercise has been to reacht identify themselves with innovation studies. Therescholars doing research on innovation that do not iden-is label (and our survey has also encountered some of

the shathing tbreakdpreviothat 26to 57%vationschola

Stroit comStrongtivelygrouptivelymWeaklarity bcharacinspira

Torelatioco-autadopt afor insinteraccross-gin brinthe Necross-gusing asplit innal intGirvanthe amwhat sof thenetwo

Fig.work athe beost cases this will be scholars that feel more at homesen disciplines than in a cross-disciplinary eld of theexploring here. To the extent that research on innova-h America has a tendency to take place within existing

urvey aimed towards evolutionary economists (an important strandtion studies) was carried out earlier by Verspagen and Werker (2003,ersons in our initial sample of 98 scholars, 21%had also responded theeconomists survey.Hence, theoverwhelmingmajorityof the scholarshe initial invitation to participate in the innovation studies surveylative to the earlier survey. When our survey encountered a respon-rlier survey, we invited this respondent to revise her answers to the(in light of our broader focus) and answer some additional questions.

23 Hence, themore than fourequests for pfrom 18% in Jamore narrow bsurvey did not24 Canadian25 We assum

reports it.26 Newman a

the fraction owithin-commworkwith thevertices (a ver(no communities as a eld is especially popular in Europe (and amongtially trained in economics).nd weak ties may play quite different roles whenfostering scholarly interaction (Granovetter, 1973).

, we assume, tend to bind scholars together in rela-l groups characterized by strong interaction betweenbers, and at least for most group members a rela-st amount of interactionwithmembers of other groups.however, may counteract this tendency toward insu-bedding such smaller groups in broader communities

ed by shared cognitive frameworks, sources of scholarlymeeting places and publication channels.re the role of strong ties,25 e.g., student-supervisors, links to colleagues within the own institution andip (independently ofwhere these co-authorswork),wehod developed byNewman andGirvan (2004). Assume,, that a network consists of pockets of dense (or thick)(e.g., groups) linked together by a smaller number oflinks. Themore efcient a particular cross-group link is

groups together, the more busy it will tend to be. Whatn-Girvan method does, then, is to identify these busylinks (so-called edges) and eliminate themone by onerative procedure. As a consequence, the network willccessively smaller groups characterized by dense inter-ion. To nd out when to stop partitioning, Newman andlate an index of community strength26, which reects

t of within-group interaction in a network relative tod be expected to occur at random. The maximum valuex is assumed to reect the optimal partitioning of the

esents the community-strength indicator for our net-ferent levels of partition. The indicator rises sharply ining, indicating strong support for the idea that strong

number of domains (or countries) included in the nal sample wasr times that of the initial sample. For 30 domains, more than 10

articipation in the survey were sent out. The response-rates varied,pan (lowest) to 63% in Turkey (highest). Most stayed within a muchand, however. Response rates for countries not included in the initialdeviate signicantly from those that were included.

scholars, however, had a response rate well above the average, 40%.e that a link exists if at least one of the participants in a relationship

nd Girvan (2004, p. 8) call this an index of modularity. It measuresf the edges in the network that connect vertices of the same type (i.e.,unity edges) minus the expected value of the same quantity in a net-samecommunitydivisions butwith randomconnectionsbetween thetex iswhatwecall anetworkmember). The index rangesbetweenzeroy structure) andunity (maximumvalue, strong community structure).


ver w

ties tend toized by denaverage grosize variedgroups tendof disciplindisciplinaryvariations igeographicaciplinary olocation andin Table A1

4. The role

Havingathe existennow movethese grouptake into acsources of smost imporwas askedimportant).egory (e.g.,The columninclude a pcation chanHerf displaindex. Thistion, meetinthe smaller

t imp%).

larly iSchu

d R. NFreem-ke Ln RosePavittni Dosi 6.2% 17.0arx 5.5% 11.8iliches 5.2% 10.0

ing placesational Schumpeter Society (ISS) 15.5% 12.9Research Unit for Industrial Dynamics (DRUID) 13.7% 14.2

ean Association for Research in Industrialomics (EARIE)

5.6% 12.6

my of Management (AOM) 5.1% 13.1Fig. 3. Distribution of the total sample o

Fig. 4. Community strength.

lead to the formation of smaller groups character-

Table 2The mos(above 5

(a) SchoJosephRicharChrisBengtNathaKeithGiovanKarl MZvi Gr

(b) MeetInternDanishEurop

EconAcadese internal interaction. It peaks at 47, implying that anup has slightly more than twenty members. The groupa lot, though, from three to 61 members. The smallered, naturally, to be rather concentrated both in terms

ary background and geographical spread. Highly cross-groups were typically medium-sized and with large

n geographical reach. The largest groups were oftenlly dispersed but quite concentrated in terms of dis-

rientation. Detailed information on the membership,disciplinary orientation of the 47 groupsmay be found

in Appendix A to this paper.

of weak ties

nsweredafrmativelyourrst researchquestion (aboutce of smaller groups dened through strong ties) weto the central topic of this paper, namely what bindss together (and to what extent). To explore this, wecount the information supplied by the respondents oncholarly inspiration, favorite meeting places and thetant publication channels. In each case, the respondentto mention ve (ranked from most important to leastTable 2 reports the most frequent answers in each cat-those mentioned by at least 5% of the respondents).share counts the percentage share of respondents thatarticular source of inspiration, meeting place or publi-nel among the ve most important ones. The columnys the corresponding value of the (inverse) Herndahlindex reects the extent to which a source of inspira-g place or publication channel is widely shared amonggroups (large values), or appreciated by one or a few

(c) JournalsResearch PoIndustrial anJournal of EvEconomics oStructural C

a Inverse He

groups onlyindex will b

The mosprisingly, JChristopherstudy of thential schoBengt-kebeen identiPavitt succResearch Pojournal Induothers, a muities in rmMarx comesome. Howtheorizinggrowth hassubsequent

27 The formathe squared shorld regions.

ortant sources of scholarly inspiration, meeting places and journals

Share Herfa

nspirationmpeter 15.9% 21.2elson 13.8% 19.8an 8.8% 17.5undvall 6.6% 13.8nberg 6.5% 15.7

6.4% 14.6licy (RP) 45.6% 24.8d Corporate Change (ICC) 19.3% 11.5olutionary Economics (JEE) 14.4% 14.0f Innovation and New Technology (EINT) 13.8% 15.7hange and Economic Dynamics (SCED) 7.9% 12.2

rndahl index (see note to Appendix A).

(small values). The more widely shared, the larger thee.27

t important source of inspiration is, perhaps not sur-oseph Schumpeter, followed by Richard Nelson andFreeman, who we have already identied (from our

e scholarly literature) as being among the most inu-lars in this eld. The three next scientists on the list,Lundvall, Nathan Rosenberg and Keith Pavitt, have alsoed as important contributors to the literature (Table 1).eeded Freeman as Professor at SPRU and editor oflicy. Giovanni Dosi, number 7 on the list, editor of thestrial and Corporate Change (ICC) and author of, amongch-cited overview of the literature on innovation activ-s (Dosi, 1988), also has a SPRU background. That Karls next on the list may perhaps come as a surprise toever, in addition to being a social science classic, Marxabout the role of science and technology for economicbeen recognized by many scholars as very relevant forwork in this area (see, e.g., Rosenberg, 1974). In fact,

l denition of the inverse Herndahl index is 1/n

i=1s2i, where s2

iis

are of a particular weak tie in community i.


presen

Table 3Characteristics

r 3.1 G

Number of groNumber of schMost importanConference biaMost importan

inspirationInspiration bia

Most importanJournal biasMost importan

Most importan

Marx contrinspirationentry in theeconomist aviously menissues such1990).

Among ttional SchuIndustrial Dorigin, datiThese twoars in this aAssociation(American)lished evenstudies proand most e

28 See Fagerb(including theFig. 5. Clusters of innovation scholars (Note: numbers in brackets re

of main clusters of innovation scholars.

Cluster 1 Management Cluster 2.1 SchumpeterCrowd

ClustePolicyups 3 13 14olars 22 309 298t conferences AOM, DRUID ISS, DRUID DRUID, ISSs AOM, EGOS ISS, DRUID, EMAEE, EAPE RSAI, RSA, IAt sources of Nelson, Griliches Schumpeter, Nelson Schumpeter

s None Schumpeter, Freeman,Nelson, Rosenberg, Simon,Pavitt, Dosi, Winter, Smith,David

Lundvall, Po

t journals RP, MS RP, ICC RP, JEEJPIM, MS, SMJ RP, JEE, ICC, EINT, SCED RS, Technov

t disciplines Sociology (27%),Management (18%),Engineering (18%),Economics (10%)

Economics (68%) Economics (Geography (Engineering

t locations North-America (73%) South Europe (26%),Central Europe (19%), UKand Ireland (19%), NorthEurope (12%)

Central EuroNorth AmerNorth EuropAmerica (10

ibution was acknowledged as an important source ofalready by Schumpeter (1937/1989, p. 166).28 The nalsources of inspiration list is Zvi Griliches, a mainstreamnd econometrician from the United States, who as pre-tioned is the author of a series of inuential papers onas diffusion, patenting and R&D (Griliches, 1957, 1979,

he favorite meeting places, two stand out, the Interna-mpeter Society (ISS) and the Danish Research Unit forynamics (DRUID). Both are, as noted, of fairly recent

ng back to 1986 (ISS) and 1995 (DRUID) respectively.meetings attract around three times as many schol-rea as the two next entries on the list, the Europeanfor Research in Industrial Economics (EARIE) and theAcademy ofManagement (AOM), both fairlywell estab-ts catering for large audiences transcending innovationper. As for journals, Research Policy (RP), the oldeststablished journal in the eld, is by far the most pop-

erg (2003) for a discussion of the sources for Schumpeters theorizinginspiration from Marx).

ular amongget high mand Corpor(JEE), Journogy (EINT)It is notewo1990s).

5. Cognitiv

The descthe social oto identifymon backg at the Unthe leadingCorporate Cin this areacharacterizsystem, e.gthe eld comthis type?t the number of scholars in the cluster).

eography and Cluster 3.2 Periphery Cluster 4. IndustrialEconomics11 5185 71NBER, AOM EARIE, ISS

MT NBER, R&D Man. EARIE, ISS, Lundvall Griliches, Schumpeter Griliches,

Schumpeterrter Griliches Griliches

RP, RAND RP, AERation AER, RAND, R&D Man. EINT, AER, RAND, JIE40%),20%),(10%)

Economics (61%),Engineering (11%)

Economics (93%)

pe (34%),ica (16%),e (15%), Latin%)

North America (31%),Central Europe (26%),South Europe (16%)

Central Europe (39%),South Europe (23%),North Europe (17%)

the respondents. Four other (specialized) journals alsoarks (although far behind Research Policy): Industrialate Change (ICC), Journal of Evolutionary Economicsal of the Economics of Innovation and New Technol-and Structural Change and Economic Dynamics (SCED).rthy that all four are fairly recent (started during the

e communities

riptive evidence reported abovemay give somehints onrganization of the eld. For instance, we have been ablesome leading academics, some of whom have a com-round (from the Science Policy Research Unit SPRUiversity of Sussex) and a clear relationship to some ofjournals in this area (Research Policy and Industrial andhange in particular). Does this imply that the scholarsshould be seen as part of a common social organization,ed by a shared cognitive framework and communication., what we have termed a cognitive community? Or is

posed of several (perhaps competing) communities of


We shall assume that a cognitive community of the type dis-cussed above is characterized by a specic combination of leadingacademics (sources of inspiration), publishing outlets and meet-ing places. To test for the existence (or lack) of one or more suchcombinations, we use the information given by the respondentsto produce a vector of (weak tie) characteristics for each of theforty-seven groups previously identied.29 We then apply hierar-chical cluster analysis30 to explore the question of how (and towhatextent) these weak links contribute to embed the small groupsdened by strong ties into one or more clearly distinguishablecognitive communities. Hence, groups that have similar scores onsimilar weak ties, will tend to be clustered together into largerwholes.

Fig. 5 reports the results of the cluster analysis. Rather thanfocusing on a single number of clusters, the gure displays vari-ous levels of the hierarchical breakdown. We chose to focus thediscussion on seven clusters (from levels 1 and 2 of the hierarchi-cal analysis). Two of these seven clusters are very small, however,with only following. Treports somwe report ting places amost). In adnicant, pothe rest ofreport thecal orientatreported).31

Cluster 1sociologistsgeographicaAcademy olike the Eurfrom Researelevant pution ManagManagemelow score.(around 7%)ground in mcase becausjournals an

Cluster 2than 300 mtraining, thorientationmunity is pinterest inSociety (ISSers to parti

29 We includwith three timscoring methoresult from a 5latter method,by a responde30 Weuse SPS

clusters. Thismand Rousseeuw31 Because o

of countries fudents) is centrThe Netherlangal, Greece anAnglo-Saxon E

e.g., the European Meeting for Applied Evolutionary Economics(EMAEE) and the European Association for Evolutionary PoliticalEconomy (EAEPE). Josef Schumpeter is theirmain source of inspira-tion, and they value himmore highly than domembers of any othercommunityother well-leaning, suRosenberg,David. Othenizationaljournals theporate Dynalso very fonomics of IChange andgation thismost indicatially the s

(Schster 3us onon inmbegs, eal Scetinlogycomemeiscipnetwontraphicrs inighterizimpod Minueegardearchhig

ith this m

ster 3f theembesociaembof Eagemeetinmonrk. Inery od toh anineshumpes. Ta wh) by ereamnd Jolevelstreve and seven members, and will be disregarded in thehis leaves us with ve main clusters (shaded). Table 3e characteristics for these ve clusters. In each casehe two most important sources of inspiration, meet-nd journals (e.g. what the scientists in the cluster valuedition we report the bias in these assessments, i.e., sig-sitive deviations in these assessments from those ofthe sample (at the 5% level of signicance). We alsosize of the cluster and its disciplinary and geographi-ion (shares of 10% or above of a discipline or region are

(Management) is a relatively small community, inwhichand management scholars are strongly present, with al bias towards the USA. Members go to the American

f Management (AOM) and DRUID meetings. They alsoopean Group of Organizational Studies (EGOS). Apartrch Policy they see management journals as the mostblishing outlets, particularly Journal of Product Innova-ement (JPIM), Management Science (MS) and Strategicnt Journal (SMJ). Sources of inspiration generally get aAlthough this community contains only a small shareof the scholars in the samplewith an educational back-anagement, we chose the management label in this

e the members are so strongly focused on managementd conferences..1 (Schumpeter crowd) is a large community with moreembers. Although most of them are economists by

ere are also many scholars with a multidisciplinaryor a background from other social sciences. The com-articularly strong in Europe. Members share a strongthe meetings of the International Joseph Schumpeter) and DRUID. They are also much more likely than oth-cipate in other meetings with an evolutionary leaning,

e the 15 most frequent answers to each question. This gives a vectores 15, e.g., 45, elements. In constructing the vector we use a 9 5d in order to eliminate the strong element of progressivity that would 1 scoring method. However, we have also experimented with theand the results are qualitatively similar. If an element was not listed

nt, it gets a score of zero.S 14.0.0 for the cluster analysis andWardsMethod for linking cases toethod isknowntoyield relativelybalancedcluster sizes (seeKaufman, 2005).

f the large number of respondents in Europe, we divide this grouprther into ve categories. The largest of these (in terms of respon-al Europe (Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, Luxemburg, Germany andds), followed, respectively, by South Europe (Spain, France, Portu-d Italy), North Europe (Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway), andurope (United Kingdom and Ireland).

valuesClu

previoattentithe memeetinRegionthe meTechnoto thismanagcross-dor theity in cgeograscholahave hcharacis thevall andone iters. Rfor Res(JEE) intentw(which

Clubers othe mings/asto its mBureauof Manities min comnetwoperiphinclinears witdiscipllike ScGrilichple asCrowdmainstand Ralowerof main. They also show strong appreciation for a number ofknown scholars with a Schumpeterian or evolutionarych as Richard R. Nelson, Christopher Freeman, NathanKeith Pavitt, Giovanni Dosi, Sidney Winter and Paulr important sources of inspiration include the orga-

theorist Herbert Simon and Adam Smith. Among they fancy, Research Policy and Industrial Change and Cor-amics (ICC) deserve particular mentioning, but they arend of the Journal of Evolutionary Economics (JEE), Eco-nnovation and New Technology (EINT) and StructuralEconomic Dynamics (SCED). At a lower level of aggre-cluster divides into two, one with very high values ontors (core Schumpeterians), and another with essen-ame distribution of characteristics but lower absoluteumpeterian followers)..1 (Geography & Policy) is comparable in size to thee. Although the DRUID and ISS meetings receive mostthis community too, what particularly characterizes

rs is their pronounced interest in the regional sciencespecially the Regional Studies Association (RSA) and theience Association International (RSAI). They also likegs of the International Association for Management of(IAMOT). 80% of the geographers in our sample belongmunity, as do 48% of the sociologists and 42% of thent scholars. Hence, this community is arguably morelinary in its orientation than the Schumpeter crowdork as a whole (the economists are actually in a minor-st to the sample as awhole). It also has amoredispersedal basis (for instance the majority of the Latin-Americanour sample belong to this community). The membersesteem for Schumpeters work. However, what reallyes this community compared to the rest of the samplertance attached to inspiration from Bengt-ke Lund-chael Porter, two scholars that in different ways havential work on spatial issues and related policy mat-ing journals, members share the general enthusiasmPolicy, and hold the Journal of Evolutionary Economics

h esteem. They also like Regional Studies (RS), consis-eir interest for spatial/regional issues, andTechnovationore oriented towards management)..2 (Periphery) contains around one fth of the mem-total network. Among all the clusters this containsrs that are least interested in taking part in meet-tions. Neither the ISS nor the DRUID seems to appealers. The highest values were reported for the Nationalconomic Research meetings (NBER) and the Academyent (AOM). They also like the R&D Management Activ-gs. Hence, its members have few if any meeting-placeswith the members from largest communities of ourthis sense the members of this cluster constitute a

f the network, hence the label. US scholars are moretake part here than in the sample as a whole. Schol-economics background dominate but a range of otherare also present (although in smaller numbers). Theyeter but what particularly inspires them is the work by

heir preferences for journals also differ from the sam-ole (and in particular from those of the Schumpetermphasizing (in addition to Research Policy) economicsjournals such as the American Economic Review (AER)urnal of Economics (and, also, R&D Management). At athis cluster divides in three, with one group consistingam economists, a second of management scholars and a


l links

third (extreterized by vaccount byin the netw

Cluster 4sized commthan90%)wEuropean Ain high regvious clustethey also paconnectingthe networkpeter. But wcluster thhave also ma generallytaste for macase alsothe sampleof Innovatio(as do the S

It is cleaweak ties cstrong tiesarly inspirathese commthis body ofbody (withsources of inters only. FoFig. 6. Weak links between clusters (alme periphery) with more mixed participation charac-ery low values appreciation of all factors taken intothe present analysis, conrming their peripheral statusork.(Industrial Economics). The members of this medium-unity are predominantly economists by training (moreith a bias towards Europe. Theyhold themeetings of thessociation for Research in Industrial Economics (EARIE)ard. However, in contrast to the members of the pre-r (with whom they otherwise have much in common)rticipate in the Schumpeter Society (ISS)meetings, thusupwith some of the larger groups of our network. As foras a whole they recognize the importance of Schum-

hat they particularly value highly is as in the previouse inspiration from Griliches. Their interests in journalsuch in common with the members of that cluster, withhigh appreciation of Research Policy supplemented by ainstream economics journals (AER, Rand) and in thisthe Journal of Industrial Economics (JIE). Compared toas whole the members also hold the journal Economicsn andNew Technology (EINT) in especially high esteemchumpeter crowd).r from the analysis that, consistent with expectations,ontribute to embed themany groups bound together byin a smaller number of cognitive communities. Schol-tion turns out to be an important feature in delimitingunities. Apart fromSchumpeter, the founding father ofknowledge, who is highly appreciated by almost every-the exception of the small Management cluster), mostspiration tend to be valued highly by one or a few clus-r instance, the Schumpeter Crowd is closely associated

with Nelsonmunity witEconomicsthe introduto live withferences inwhat the fuing theoretiArguably, cplay an imp

How weillustrate thcommunitithe weak tinspiration,in the gurtie, and thparticular lhow impornetwork inweak ties.(Fig. 7), a cties now cothan to con

32 The graphThe lines in thcertain weak tmembers in athe other memincluded)., Freeman and Dosi, the Geography and Policy com-h Porter and Lundvall and the Periphery and IndustrialcommunitieswithGriliches. However, as pointed out inction to this paper, a thriving scientic eld may learn and arguably even gain momentum from such dif-perspective provided that there is some consensus onndamental questions or issues are and waysof resolv-cal and methodological disputes (Pfeffer, 1993, p. 617).ommon meeting places and publication channels mayortant role in mediating such differences.ll does this work in the present case? Figs. 6 and 7e different roles that weak ties may play in linking

es together.32 The gures treat the ve clusters andies that characterize them (e.g., sources of scholarlymeeting places and journals) as a network. The lineses are links between a cluster and a particular weake thickness of a line reects how important (busy) aink is. In Fig. 6 we include all positive links, no mattertant they are. What results is a densely connectedwhich the ve clusters of scholars are linked by manyHowever, when the least important links are removedlearer structure emerges. Most of the retained weakntribute to differentiate clusters from each other rathernect them. The twomain communities, the Schumpeter

s are based on a spring-embedding algorithm (using Ucinet/Netdraw).e graphs reect how the members of a cluster on average assess aie. The medium cut-off value in Fig. 7 corresponds to one in every 7.78cluster giving a certainweak tie an average score on the 15 scale (andbers giving it a zero score).


Crowd andconnectedscholarly inplace (DRUconnected tone tie leftfor Researcscholars inis at this cuIndustrial Elinked to thGeography

This evidSchumpetetribute to necognitive dijournals anwith the coeach other)linked to thcluster constion studiesthe core ofars in this cfrom than iond section(mono-discbetter undethan a currscholars inFig. 7. Weak links between clusters, cut-off val

the Geography and Policy clusters, continue to be wellby, in addition to a common journal (Research Policy),spiration from Schumpeter and a shared meeting

ID). However, the Periphery cluster, which used to beo the other clusters through a number of ties, only hasto the other clusters, through the common appreciationh Policy (RP), conrming the peripheral role of thethis cluster. Moreover, apart form Research Policy, theret-off level no direct link between the Management andconomics clusters. But both clusters continue to be welle Schumpeter crowd and, to lesser extent, also to theand Policy community.ence illustrates that the two largest communities, ther Crowd and Geography and policy themselves con-twork integration. These two communities are, despitefferences, reasonably well connected through commond meeting places. The rest of the network, then, link upre clusters in varying degrees (but not so much with. The periphery cluster is as noted particularly weaklye rest of the network. It seems fair to say that thisists of people who, despite acceptance of the innova- label, have few if any intellectual links with people inthat eld. Most likely the great majority of the schol-luster feel more at home in the disciplines they comen innovation studies as described earlier (see the sec-of this paper). Possibly, the latter may also hold for theiplinary) Industrial Economics cluster which may berstood as a specialism or subeld within economicsent within a broader cross-disciplinary eld. However,Industrial Economics acknowledge the Schumpeterian

inuence othrough thepared to thintellectual

6. Conclus

As socieedge emergthe scientiies of knowfacilitate thstudies is sful one. Its ra long timeOnly one sstill amonghis inuencstarted to gpolicymakeactivity andthe fruitfulnFreeman, ththis eld. Hknown orgaEnglish coujournal andinspired neown studenue=medium.

n their subject and link up with the Schumpeter crowdSchumpeter Society and common journals. Thus com-

e periphery there is a stronger connection in this case,ly and organizationally.

ions, challenges and future prospects

ty develops and changes, needs for new types of knowl-e. Responding to such challenges, entrepreneurs withinc world from time to time try to develop new bod-ledge and establish institutions and organizations thate continuing progress of the emerging eld. Innovationuch a case and, as this paper has shown, a fairly success-ise to prominence is, however, a fairly recent event. Forthere were very few scholars interested in innovation.

cholar from those early years, lasting up the 1960s, isthe most inuential today: Josef Schumpeter. Althoughe remained limited during his own lifetime, his ideasain currency in the 1960s, as the general interest, amongrs as well as academics, in technological change, R&Dinnovation increased. One scholar who believed in

ess of the Schumpeterian perspective was Christophere arguably most important scientic entrepreneur ine was the rst director of what became the most wellnization in the eld (located at a new university in thentryside), founded what today is by far most respectedauthored a number of inuential books and papers thatw generations of researchers (many of whom were hists).


Since the early 1960s the eld has grown tremendously andtoday there are probably several thousand scholars worldwide thatidentify themselves with innovation studies.33 Hence, the eld haslong passed the stage when it could possibly be analyzed as a so-called invisible college (de Solla Price, 1963; Crane, 1972), e.g., arelatively small group of geographically dispersed scholars (nor-mally less than a 100) characterized by common beliefs and veryclose interaction. As we have been able to show in this study, theeld now consists of a large number of (small) groups of interactingscholars. To understand the dynamics of the eld it is not suf-cient to focusmainly onwhat happenswithin these smaller groups.What is of ethat contribscientic eexploring thby meetingcoordinatinand standar

Using bitime, a corearound a smbeen able tresearchersthere is a cizes innovashared by eties we expcommunitieinspiration,group, conspeter crowdmeeting plalook upon tthis mainstrnd anotheabout one thin terms of afocus and reare less weences for mby disciplindeveloped e

Where isto prosper athere doesthe innovatseenas agosurroundinelds (or diattention togration of sthe existingarea have alargest withis also thefundamentaments of quand the lev

33 Our surveidentied themvant populatiopopulation ofWe hold this e34 See Soderq

ate disciplinary content (Becher and Trowler, 2001, p. 59) Someof the basic assumptions underlying this agreement seem to be atodds with those commonly accepted in innovation studies,35 andthis may make an integration of innovation studies into economicsproper difcult since, as Becher and Trowler (2001, p. 59) pointout, within economics, those who question the basic axioms ofthe subject are liable to nd themselves cast into a wilderness oftheir own (. . .), cut off and left to form an independent and self-sufcient community (Becher and Trowler, 2001, p. 59). In fact,many of the most central contributions to innovation studies asidentied in this paper are hardly referred to in core economics

ls. A telling example is Nelson and Winter (1982), arguablyst important theoretical contribution in innovation studiesthe last three decades and clearly the most cited one. Sincelication in 1982 this book has got 3550 citations in the Sociale Citation Index (SSCI), which is exceptional by any standard.er, thzatioeconoundse pscientradier, alvatioxtenross-es ges litto elnageand

ere htion,tiony o

lworls annt thmenpe, aonomboutr natt inmt enttart

vingthatconstionof it

exampd withnovatrdingment

econto th

of EvovolutiMan

Technment che Acaqual or larger importance is to understand the factorsute to link these smaller groups together into a broaderld and make continuing scientic progress possible. Inese factors we focused particularly on the roles playedplaces, associations and conferences,34 and journals ing the activities of such groups and developing agendasds.bliographical evidence we were able to show that, overliterature in innovation studies has emerged, centeredall number of leading academics, who as we have

o demonstrate are also recognized as such by thewho identify with the eld. To some extent, therefore,learly recognizable cognitive platform that character-tion studies. This platform, however, is not equallyverybody. Using the concept of cognitive communi-lored whether the eld is composed of one or mores characterized by a specic combination of scholarlymeeting places and journals. We found that one largeisting of about one third of our sample (the Schum-), has the closest associations with the core literature,ces and journals within innovation studies. We mayhem as the mainstream in this area. Associated witheam through common meeting places and journals, wer large group of scholars (Geography and Policy), alsoird of the sample,with certaindivergent characteristicsppreciation for central scholars in the eld, disciplinarysearch orientation. The remaining parts of the networkll integrated. Their cognitive orientations and prefer-eeting places and journals seem much more inuencedary settings than the interdisciplinary focus that haslsewhere in innovation studies.the innovation-studies eld heading? Will it continuend, if so, in what form? As shown in the introduction,not seem to be a slowdown in the societal interest forion phenomenonon the contrary in fact,whichmay beodomen.However, the continuing interest in the societyg the academic world may also induce more establishedsciplines) within the social sciences to devote greaterthis phenomenon. If so, one could foresee a reinte-

cholars within innovation studies into one or more ofdisciplines. Since more than half of the scholars in thisn economics education, the potential for this may beeconomics. But among the social sciences, economics

one which is the most tightly knit in terms of theirl ideologies, their common values, their shared judg-ality, their awareness of belonging to a unique traditionel of their agreement about what counts as appropri-

y identied over 5000 names. Among the respondents around 80%selves with innovation studies. If our survey reached the entire rele-

n (which it did not), and those that responded are representative, theresearchers in innovation studies worldwide would be around 4000.stimate to be on the low side.vist and Silverstein (1994) for an earlier take on these issues.

journathe mowithinits pubSciencHowevorganinot inbackgr

ThesocialwhichHowevin innosame every cincludthat hathe tw

Madefaultlio. ThinnovainnovaAcademcentrajournaagemeinducein Euroand ecedge ahas, fointeresare noedge ssuit?

Leato notetake ainnovauation

35 Forendowenot in in36 Acco

manageonly twocitationsJournaland/or eStrategic37 The

Managewithin tese citations mainly occur in journals associated withnal science,managementand innovationstudiesproper,omics (which is Nelsons and Winters own disciplinary).36

roblems may be less severe in other elds within theces, such as sociology, geography, and management,tionally have been more open to different perspectives.though sociological research has had a strong inuencen studies, the reverse does not seem to be true to thet. Geography is, as noted by Becher and Trowler (2001),disciplinary in its orientation and innovation clearlyographical aspects. But geography also includes muchle to do with innovation. Thus, although the scopes ofds intersect they are also different.ment is to some extent a cross-disciplinary eld byrm-level innovation falls naturally within its portfo-as been an increasing interest in the management ofaswitnessed for example by growth of the Technology,and management division (TIM) within the Americanf Management Association (AMA).37 Moreover, someks in innovation studies arehighly citedbymanagementd vice versa. So between innovation studies and man-ere clearly is some common ground. However, the maint for the development of innovation studies, particularlyppears to have been the recognition of its wider socialic impact and the perceived need for increased knowl-what role policy may play. This policy-oriented focus

ural reasons perhaps, not attracted the same amount ofanagement. But private and public sectormanagement

irely different matters, and if these bodies of knowl-to integrate, innovation studies may perhaps follow

such interesting but speculative issues aside it is fairchanges of this type usually meet with resistance and

iderable amount of time. The most likely prospect forstudies in the years ahead may therefore be a contin-s current existence as a cross-disciplinary, thematically

le, the assumption of representative (cognitively identical) actorsperfect knowledge is commonly used in mainstream economics but

ion studies (see Nelson and Winter, 1982 for an extended account).toMeyer (2001),NelsonandWinters bookhasmuchmore citations inand organizational science journals than in economics journals. Theomics journals among the ten journals with the highest number ofe book were Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization andlutionary Economics, i.e., journals oriented towards organizationalonary theory. The likelihood of a citation was six times higher in theagement Journal than in the American Economic Review.ology and Innovation Management Division (TIM) of the Academy ofurrently has over 2000members,making it one of the larger divisionsdemy of Management (see http://www.aomtim.org).


oriented scientic eld. In this respect the most relevant questionthat the research undertaken here might lead to is the following:are the current institutions and organizations in the eld strongenough to allow the knowledge of the eld to evolve in a cumu-lative fashion? This may not have been a problem previously, butwith theelds continuinggrowth (anddiversity), onewouldexpectthese requirements to become more stringent. As we have shown,the only channel of communication that reaches the entire eld isthe journal Research Policy. There is no meeting place or associa-tion that spans the entire eld. This may be the most challenginglimitation for the elds continuing development.

Acknowledgements

We thank the participants at these events, two anonymousreferees and the editors of this journal for useful comments

and suggestions. Moreover, we are indebted to Ovar AndreasJohansson, Hkon Normann and Koson Sapprasert for excellentresearch assistance, Tommy Clausen for help in data collectionand management and Diana Crane, Manuel Godinho, MagnusGulbrandsen, Ben Martin, David Mowery, Paul Nightingale andTorben Hviid Nielsen for good advice. Responsibility for the viewsexpressed and remaining errors and omissions is with the authorsonly. Earlier versions of this paper have been presented at theDRUID Summer Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, June 1820,2006, the SPRU 40th Anniversary Conference, The Future of Sci-ence, Technology and Innovation Policy, SPRU, University of Sussex,September 1113, 2006, the Academy ofManagement 2007 AnnualMeeting, Philadelphia, PA, August 38, 2007 and seminars at theUniversity of Oslo and the Norwegian Academy of Science andLetters.

Appendix A

See Table A1.

Table A1Role of geography and discipline in the partition of the network.

Group Number ofscholars

Inverse Herndahlregion

Share of largestregion

Largest region Inverse Herndahldiscipline

Share of largestdiscipline

Largest discipline

1 11 2.7 0.55 North America 3.7 0.36 Sociology2 61 3.9 0.34 UK and Ireland 2.1 0.67 Economics3 23 1.3 0.87 North Europe 5.1 0.26 Economics/Engineering4 8 1.0 1.00 Other (=Turkey) 1.0 1.00 Economics5 17 1.7 0.76 North America 3.6 0.47 Economics6 17 3.0 0.41 South Europe 1.6 0.76 Economics7 22 2.4 0.59 Central Europe 6.4 0.23 Geography/Engineering8 20 2.5 0.55 Latin America 2.2 0.65 Economics9 8 2.5 0.50 Latin America 1.0 1.00 Economics

10 24 2.2 0.58 North America 3.1 0.50 Economics11 3 1.8 0.67 UK and Ireland 1.0 1.00 Economics12 35 2.2 0.66 North America 2.0 0.69 Geography13 27 3.0 0.44 Latin America 3.4 0.44 Engineering14 5 1.0 1.00 South Europe 1.9 0.60 Economics15 22 2.5 0.50 North Europe 1.2 0.91 Economics16 28 3.2 0.46 Central Europe 4.2 0.36 Management17 45 3.7 0.44 South Europe 1.5 0.80 Economics18 36 3.3 0.47 UK and Ireland 2.9 0.56 Economics19 18 1.7 0.72 South Europe 2.1 0.67 Economics20 31 4.0 0.35 Latin America 5.8 0.32 Economics21 7 1.3 0.86 North America 2.0 0.57 Engineering22 13 1.2 0.92 North America 1.2 0.92 Economics23 18 1.7 0.72 Central Europe 1.1 0.94 Economics24 17 1.9 0.71 North Europe 425 36 5.8 0.25 Central Europe 326 23 2.0 0.70 South Europe 127 30 2.9 0.53 North Europe 228 48 2.6 0.56 Central Europe 129 18 2.6 0.56 UK and Ireland 130 3 331 26 132 36 133 4 134 6 235 15 136 11 237 20 438 5 139 13 140 7 141 16 242 17 143 4 244 19 41.8 0.67 UK and Ireland1.6 0.77 Central Europe1.2 0.92 Central Europe1.6 0.75 South Europe1.0 1.00 Latin America3.2 0.47 Central Europe1.2 0.91 Central Europe2.4 0.45 North/Central Europe1.5 0.80 Central Europe2.3 0.54 South Europe1.0 1.00 Asia1.3 0.88 Central Europe3.0 0.47 South Europe1.0 1.00 North America1.5 0.79 Central Europe.7 0.29 Management

.9 0.39 Geography

.3 0.87 Economics

.1 0.67 Economics

.2 0.90 Economics

.6 0.78 Economics

.0 0.33 Sociology/Policy

.5 0.81 Economics

.9 0.72 Economics

.0 1.00 History

.0 0.67 Economics

.1 0.93 Economics

.6 0.55 Economics

.9 0.40 Economics

.0 1.00 Economics

.2 0.92 Economics

.7 0.71 Economics

.7 0.56 Economics

.1 0.94 Economics

.7 0.50 Sociology

.1 0.42 Economics


Table A1 (Continued )

Group Number ofscholars

Inverse Herndahlregion

Share of largestregion

Largest region Inverse Herndahldiscipline

Share of largestdiscipline

Largest discipline

45 6 3.0 0.50 Central Europe 1.0 1.00 Economics46 1247 6 ope

Note. The table y-sevemethod) as re up. Ththe largest sha indica(disciplines) o erseH

a region or dis economore homogen x is un(discipline). Th ipline

Appendix B

Your Nam

1. YOUR BAWe wo

backgrou1a) Whic

fromnatioUK,

Cou1b) Wha

AfCou

1c) In cation dhis/hdegrepleas

InsSupEmYea

1e) Whic(e.g.,Inno

An2a. Doyo

in InnAn

applyIf y

you manswresearesulThan

2. YOUR NEThe fo

would likthese qu The qu

of contsonwhbelowas an aeven hin thethe vlist theof the(questi

waysnt tou liswaysg relast moportfewy acahn Lee ordan Jasontherd alsPresequu lisis is ne resthereven iws e

THED TST IMYOUR

In cknowPleaspleteYOUR

Wemostoverson eis/wamal detc.YOUR

Weimpoorgan2.2 0.58 Central Europe2.0 0.50 UK and Ireland/South Eur

provides information on the geographical and disciplinary composition of the fortected in the share of members coming from the largest region (discipline) in the grore (when two are listed these are of equal size). In addition the table provides anr tend to concentrate in one or a few regions (disciplines) only. This indicator the inv

cipline in the total membership of the group (for example, xj could be the share ofous a group will be in terms of regions (disciplines). The minimum value of the indee index reaches its maximum value (identical to the numbers of regions (10) or disc

. Extract from questionnaire (questions used)

e:

CKGROUNDuld like to know a few details about your academicnd.h country do you consider to be your native countrya SCIENTIFIC point of view (e.g., if you are Italian bynality, but pursued your entire scientic career in thell in United Kingdom here)?ntry:

t is your current (main) afliation?liation:ntry:

se you hold a PhD Degree, at which academic institu-id you get it, who was your (main) supervisor, what is

er current email address, and when did you obtain thee (year)? In case you hold more than one PhD degree,e list the most relevant.titute:ervisor:ail:r:h academic discipline do you consider your native oneeconomics, sociology, engineering; please note thatvation Studies is not what is intended here)?swer:u consider yourself tobe, orhavebeen in thepast, activeovation Studies?

swer: Yes/No (Please delete the option that does not)ou answered No to both of the previous questions,ay now save the le and submit your results without

ering the remaining questions. It is important for ourrch that you submit your results! You may submit yourts by sending the saved le as an attachment back to us.k you for your cooperation!TWORKllowing questions will ask for names of people. Wee to give you a few general directions for answering

estions:estions 2ad refer to different (non-overlapping) types

Alvayo

Alin

Liim

AanJoththreraanA.

Thyothth

IfgiroIN

ASKLEA2a.

2b.

2c.acts/relationships. This means, for example, that a per-owouldqualify as apossible answer to therst question(2a. YOUR Ph.D. STUDENTS), should not be includednswer in any of the following questions (2bd). Thisolds if you decided not to ll in the name of this personrst question, because the person did not rank amonge most important people in the category. Also, nevername of your PhD supervisor as an answer to any

following questions, as that has already been reportedon 1).

workworkresea

2e. YOURWe

impoframownabov2.0 0.50 Geography/Economics1.8 0.67 Economics

n groups (identied through the application of the NewmanGirvane region (discipline) listed to the right of that number is the one with

tor of the extent to which members are spread among many regionserndahl index is dened as 1/

jx2

j, where xj is the share of either

mists among the members of the group). The smaller the index, theity, which means all members of the group belong to the same regions (12)) when the members are spread equally among the alternatives.

include those people that you consider to bemost rele-YOUR work on Innovation Studies, although the peoplet may themselves be active/specialize in other areas.give priority to quality rather than quantity when list-tionships.st important people in a category at position 1, leastant people at position 5.directions for formatting the names. Please do not usedemic titles, so write John Lennon rather than Prof.nnon or dr. John Lennon. Also, please write names iner FIRST NAME - LAST NAME, e.g., Mick Jagger, ratheragger, M.. Finally, please give us as much detail as youably can, i.e., provide full rst names (if you know them)than initials (e.g., Elvis Presley rather than E. Presley),o provide middle initials if you know them (e.g., Elvisley rather than Elvis Presley).estionswill ask for current email addresses of thepeoplet, and it helps us a lot if you can supply us with these. Ifot possible, please leave this eld empty, but complete

t of the answer.are less than ve people who qualify the description

n the question, simply leave the appropriate number ofmpty.E QUESTIONS THAT FOLLOW RESPONDENTS WEREO LIST UP TO FIVE ANSWERS, RANKED FROM MOST TOPORTANT (with email addresses if appropriate)PhD STUDENTSase you ever supervised PhD students, wewould like towho you consider to be the most inuential of these.

e list up to ve PhD students from those who have com-d their dissertation.CO-WORKERSwould like to know who you consider to be theimportant co-workers with whom you have workedyour entire career. We dene a co-worker as a per-mployed in the same organization as yourself, and whos a source of inspiration in the form of formal and infor-iscussions, exchange of ideas, commenting on papers,

CO-AUTHORSwould like to know who you consider to be the most

rtant external co-authors (working outside your ownization at the time of the joint work) whom you have

ed with over your entire career. Please include alsooutside scholarly journals, such as reports for contractrch, etc., in your denition of a co-author.FRAME OF REFERENCEwould like to know who you consider to be the most

rtant people in your frame of reference. We dene thee of reference as those people who have inspired yourwork, but do not t names already considered for thee categories. A good example of a frame of reference


may be classic author who lived before your time (e.g., AdamSmith or Karl Marx). But this category can also include liv-ing people, for example those authors you frequently refer inyour own work, but you have never been in contact with.

4. JOURNALWhich

the bestrst)?

5. MEETINGIn case

go to intations orbest outl

References

Arrow, K., 196In: NelsonUniversity

Becher, T., Troand the Cu

Burns, T., StLondon.

Carter, C.F., WiPress, Lond

Carter, C.F., WiLondon.

Christensen, CCause GrMA.

Christensen, CSustainingMA.

Chubin, D.E., 1Quarterly

Chubin, D.E., 1Colleges, 1

Cohen, W., Levnomic Jou

Cohen, W., Levand innov

Cole, S., 1983.(1), 11113

Coleman, J., KaSociometr

Crane, D., 196College h

Crane,D., 1972University

Diamond, A., 2Research P

Diamond, A., 2growth. Ec

Dosi, G., 1988.of Econom

Edquist, C., 20berg, J.,MoUniversity

Fagerberg, J.,an appra125159.

Fagerberg, J., 2D.C., NelsoOxford.

Fagerberg, J.,MOxford Un

Freeman, C., 1mondswo

Freeman, C., 1Japan. Pint

Freeman, C., SoLondon.

Freeman, C.,study of r2262.

Freeman, C., Hcapital goo

Freeman, C., CStudy of Lo

Godin, B., 200analytic fr

Granovetter, M.S., 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78,13601380.

Granovetter, M.S., 1985. Economic action and social structure: the problem ofembeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91, 481510.

Granstrand, O., 1994. Economics of technologyan introduction and overview ofvelopterdamB.C.,Mges ms, Z., 1ge. Ecs, Z., 19roducts, Z., 19ic Litem, W.Ok, D.Cemenew 33ell, D.,oratiohes, T

, L., Rolysis (Wtina, KBusin, 1962ago.999. Bl, B.-.Interald, E., 1766.ld, E.,Inc.,

ld, E., 1lysis. WB., 20rs onure, UR.K.,s. Univ

., 20r presR.R., 1ical ER.R. (ersityR.R., 1In: NeersityR.R. (EersityR.R., Wy 6 (1.R.,Wersity, M.Eorks.., 198ry. Re., 1993ent as620..V., 1

137.Price,.E., 196E., 200rg, N.omyrg, N..rg, N.ersityl, R., FrHO uM., 209.kler, Jants ontivekler, JbridgeSacademic journals do you consider CURRENTLY to be

outlet for work on innovation studies (most important

PLACESyou regularly (on average at least once every 2 years)

ernationa

Innovation studies—The emerging structure of a new scientific field

Documents

Transcript of Innovation studies—The emerging structure of a new scientific field