Arie Rip  (University of Twente, Netherlands) Putting the K Back in:  Knowledge , Research and Innovation Systems (KRIS) S...
Approach (1) <ul><li>(National) systems of knowledge, research and innovation show  paths of development  (changes, but lo...
STI policy (mostly top down) KRIS, and  frame conditions: productive constellations, and evolution over time outputs, furt...
Approach (2) <ul><li>Knowledge (rather than science), including informal and local knowledge </li></ul><ul><li>Universitie...
Knowledge <ul><li>There is now recognition of a “third sector” of knowledge production (consultancies, NGOs, patient assoc...
Knowledge (2) <ul><li>Includes professional, informal and local/indigenous knowledge (e.g. increasingly recognized importa...
Development paths of KRIS <ul><li>Linked to emergence of strong (modern) nation states in 19th century </li></ul><ul><li>M...
Emergence of the  modern  research (and innovation) system in Europe, USA and Japan, since 1870 <ul><li>Not uniform across...
By now, strongly  institutionalized (outer ring is still being articulated) I’ve used this mapping of institutions as a di...
Patient associations  influence research agendas and engage in research themselves, undermining the exclusive rights of sc...
Other paths are possible  <ul><li>Modern research system is opening up – to some extent </li></ul><ul><li>Developing count...
Growth points <ul><li>‘ Knowledge blending’ and ‘technoblending’: productive mixes of local and imported (visible in agric...
Improving your system <ul><li>Centres of excellence  and  relevance are proposed, but too often focused on “high” ST </li>...
In conclusion <ul><li>Add analysis (and diagnosis) of evolution of KRIS: emerging paths (path dependencies) </li></ul><ul>...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Manifesto Seminar: Arie Rip

1,322 views

Published on

Arie Rip of the University of Twente gave a STEPS Centre Manifesto Seminar on February 19 2009 entitles 'Putting the K back in: Knowledge, Research and Innovation Systems'.

Analysis of science, technology and innovation in terms of a national research or innovation system is a starting point for policy making, as well as policy implementation. There is a risk, however, that some national research or innovation systems become a model for other countries. This paper starts by offering a broader analysis of the dynamics of “modern” (i.e. OECD-countries, since 1870) research and innovation systems, which opens up the possibility of other paths of development.
Considering recent changes in “modern” research and innovation systems, as well as actual dynamics and needs of developing countries, it is clear that research captures only part what is important. Knowledge has to be recognized as an integral element, and institutionalized science then becomes one form of knowledge production. The paper argues that in this way, developing countries might actually create centres of excellence & relevance that can compete globally.

Find out more at: http://www.steps-centre.org/manifesto/index.html

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,322
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Manifesto Seminar: Arie Rip

  1. 1. Arie Rip (University of Twente, Netherlands) Putting the K Back in: Knowledge , Research and Innovation Systems (KRIS) STEPS Seminar, University of Sussex, 19 February 2009
  2. 2. Approach (1) <ul><li>(National) systems of knowledge, research and innovation show paths of development (changes, but lots of continuity, cf. Nelson 1993) </li></ul><ul><li>In principle, different paths are possible, and should be considered in their own right. </li></ul><ul><li>In practice, dominance of so-called ‘modern research system’ paths (TRIAD countries, with some internal variety), </li></ul><ul><li>ST policy studies reflect this dominance. Instead, consider alternative paths as topics of study, and not just for developing countries </li></ul><ul><li>Subsequent question: How to modulate ongoing development in direction of a desirable path? </li></ul>
  3. 3. STI policy (mostly top down) KRIS, and frame conditions: productive constellations, and evolution over time outputs, further effects: contribution to economic growth, poverty alleviation, social coherence simplistic view: ongoing activities, patterns, dynamics embedded in, & modulating the system Against the linear view of policy making
  4. 4. Approach (2) <ul><li>Knowledge (rather than science), including informal and local knowledge </li></ul><ul><li>Universities and public research institutes are not the only knowledge producers, and not automatically guardians of quality </li></ul><ul><li>Cf. recognition of ‘third sector knowledge production’ and ‘distributed innovation’ (up to ‘collective experimentation’, cf. Joly, Rip & Callon) in developed economies – for developing countries even more important </li></ul><ul><li>Competencies, and learning – key element (since Lundvall), but overworked as a catchphrase </li></ul>
  5. 5. Knowledge <ul><li>There is now recognition of a “third sector” of knowledge production (consultancies, NGOs, patient associations) in developed countries </li></ul><ul><li>There are equivalents in developing countries? </li></ul><ul><li>Quality of the knowledge? </li></ul><ul><li>Local and interpretive knowledge – how to achieve broader validity than local? </li></ul><ul><li>Systematic (eventually, ’evidence based’) knowledge is important – but lack of applicability in concrete locations </li></ul><ul><li>So a trade-off! </li></ul>
  6. 6. Knowledge (2) <ul><li>Includes professional, informal and local/indigenous knowledge (e.g. increasingly recognized importance of traditional healers and their professionalization) </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge blending and technoblending occurs, and is increasingly recognized as productive </li></ul><ul><li>Comparative advantage of developing countries: </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge about situations where new technology may be taken up, or where poverty alleviation has to take place </li></ul>
  7. 7. Development paths of KRIS <ul><li>Linked to emergence of strong (modern) nation states in 19th century </li></ul><ul><li>Modern research system emerges after 1870 in Europe, USA and Japan </li></ul><ul><li>In colonies and Commonwealth countries subsidiary systems </li></ul><ul><li>Innovation systems since 1950s </li></ul><ul><li>Decolonisation; changes in Mediterranean countries; now globalisation </li></ul>
  8. 8. Emergence of the modern research (and innovation) system in Europe, USA and Japan, since 1870 <ul><li>Not uniform across countries, but there are overall similarities </li></ul><ul><li>Is productive, also because of existing informal interactions, political culture </li></ul><ul><li>Strong core, successive recontextualisations </li></ul><ul><li>Now opening up to other knowledges than professionalized scientific knowledge production </li></ul>
  9. 9. By now, strongly institutionalized (outer ring is still being articulated) I’ve used this mapping of institutions as a diagnostic tool, e.g. for South Africa Increasing interactions between science and society 1870 1945 1970 1985 2000
  10. 10. Patient associations influence research agendas and engage in research themselves, undermining the exclusive rights of scientists Technology Assessment , Ethical, Legal & Social Aspects surround ongoing science and technology (Human Genome Project initiated this) Outreach, public engagement – feedback into research agendas? (ex. interactive TA of GM vines) Also consultancies (and NGOs) bridging science and the economy, science and the community Authority over science (knowledge production) is also claimed by non-scientists (from USA Congressmen to patients and indigenous people); counter-authority is not the answer. Re-contextualization of science Increasing interactions between science and society 1870 1945 1970 1985 2000 key challenge
  11. 11. Other paths are possible <ul><li>Modern research system is opening up – to some extent </li></ul><ul><li>Developing countries have a different history – may “grow” their own path? </li></ul><ul><li>Obviously, there are lots of constraints and dependencies. Including post-colonial (incl. the Commonwealth pattern), and responses ranging from self-pity to asserting oneself (as in African Renaissance) </li></ul><ul><li>Indications of reseach systems must then also be about “own” growth! </li></ul>
  12. 12. Growth points <ul><li>‘ Knowledge blending’ and ‘technoblending’: productive mixes of local and imported (visible in agriculture and health, also elsewhere) </li></ul><ul><li>Role of informal sector, also because role of intermediaries – which is an important feature of productive innovation systems generally </li></ul><ul><li>Identification of such growth points based on a diagnosis of system dynamics; especially importance of heterogeneous/hybrid developments </li></ul>
  13. 13. Improving your system <ul><li>Centres of excellence and relevance are proposed, but too often focused on “high” ST </li></ul><ul><li>Try “low” ST (analysis of uptake/embedding of technology; poverty reduction “on location”) </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge production and civil society (cf. also ‘people’s research’) </li></ul><ul><li>Universities as a location for capacity building, but often constrain the broader capacities ( go for “porous” and “post-modern” universities rather than “traditional” excellence) </li></ul>
  14. 14. In conclusion <ul><li>Add analysis (and diagnosis) of evolution of KRIS: emerging paths (path dependencies) </li></ul><ul><li>Indicators/indications can be specified, but require a diagnosis of: </li></ul><ul><li>system dynamics (esp. heterogeneity), and </li></ul><ul><li>a desirable path (political choices) </li></ul><ul><li>Empirical work? Include case studies </li></ul><ul><li>For Sussex Manifesto: add systemic perspectives </li></ul><ul><li>Convergence of developments in European KRIS and developing countries’ KRIS? </li></ul>

×