A Social Innovation Research and Development                            --- LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights       ...
LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights                                                                                   ...
LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights                                                                                   ...
LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights                                                                                   ...
LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights                                                                                   ...
LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights                                                        Andrea Vitali              ...
LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights                                                            Andrea Vitali        hu...
LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights                                                          Andrea Vitaliidentifies f...
LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights                                                         Andrea VitaliWhy such a vi...
LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights                          Andrea Vitali                          Part 1 - Basic Res...
LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights                                                             Andrea VitaliWhat is I...
LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights                                                          Andrea Vitali       Inno...
LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights                                                                       Andrea Vital...
LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights                                                           Andrea Vitaliabout the n...
LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights                                                          Andrea Vitalicontributing...
LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights                                                              Andrea Vitaliregime, ...
LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights                                                         Andrea Vitali       Roger...
LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights                                                         Andrea Vitalicombining bot...
LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights                                                           Andrea Vitaliunder “inno...
LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights                                                             Andrea Vitalihistory o...
LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights                                                        Andrea Vitali    2   Analyt...
LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights                                                                   Andrea VitaliThe...
LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights                                                                    Andrea Vitali  ...
LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights                                                           Andrea Vitali           ...
LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights                                                          Andrea VitaliThe 2007 reg...
LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights                                                         Andrea VitaliLike journey,...
LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights                                                         Andrea Vitali          Gu...
LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights                                                          Andrea Vitalithe ideal ge...
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development

2,093 views

Published on

Object of this personal research is to provide the reader with a new model of Social Innovation based on:
• the genealogical history of Innovation and his linear model of Innovation
• some of the latest research and definitions for Social Economy
• a new Social Value framework driving the Social Innovation model proposed

Why I am sharing this research? Some of the reasons are the following:
- To take part in the continuous and growing researches activities about Social Innovation
- To propose a new Social Value framework for the achievement of a new Social Innovation model
- To collect and understand what the people think, suggest, propose etc. about the ideas and the research itself
- To learn and grow professionally, thanks to the feedback of the people that will read the research: only one favour, please be HONEST in your comments otherwise I won’t be able to understand my mistakes
- To realize if someone or some Institution could be interested in a professional collaboration to develop together, or implement, ideas and opportunities described in the research.

Best regards
Andrea Vitali

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,093
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
26
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
53
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Andrea Vitali - A Social Innovation research and development

  1. 1. A Social Innovation Research and Development --- LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights Andrea Vitali Ver 1.0 - Draft for discussion 14 /5 / 2012
  2. 2. LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights Andrea Vitali Table of ContentAbstract ............................................................................................................................................................ 6The Challenge ................................................................................................................................................... 7Part 1 - Basic Research ................................................................................................................................... 10What is Innovation ? ...................................................................................................................................... 11 Imitation ..................................................................................................................................................... 12 Invention .................................................................................................................................................... 13 Innovation .................................................................................................................................................. 15 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 18What we learned ? ......................................................................................................................................... 19 The XX Century ........................................................................................................................................... 19 Research and Development - How the “D” got into R&D ........................................................................... 20 Research and Development - World’s top 10 leaders statistics ................................................................. 22 Research and Development - Regional average statistics .......................................................................... 24 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 25 Guilds ......................................................................................................................................................... 25 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 26 The Italian Renaissance .............................................................................................................................. 27 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 29 Leonardo da Vinci ....................................................................................................................................... 30 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 31The Social Economy - a common point of view .............................................................................................. 33 The Social Enterprise Compass ................................................................................................................... 34The Social Economy - a new point of view ..................................................................................................... 36 Background ................................................................................................................................................ 36 The architecture of the social economy ..................................................................................................... 41 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 44Part 2 – Applied Research .............................................................................................................................. 45 Ver 1.0 - DRAFT for discussion 2
  3. 3. LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights Andrea VitaliThe Social Economy - the institutional conditions for Innovation .................................................................. 46The Public Economy ....................................................................................................................................... 46 Public Finance: methods to generate internal innovation .......................................................................... 47 Public labor: redesigning the labor contract............................................................................................... 49 Organizational forms .................................................................................................................................. 49 Metrics and assessment ............................................................................................................................. 50 The circuit of information ........................................................................................................................... 51The Grant Economy ........................................................................................................................................ 51 Generation of Innovative projects .............................................................................................................. 52 Finance ....................................................................................................................................................... 52 Packages of Support ................................................................................................................................... 54 Platforms, tools and protocols for innovation ............................................................................................ 54 Governance and accountability .................................................................................................................. 54 Regulatory, fiscal, legal and other conditions for extending the social economy ....................................... 54The Market Economy ..................................................................................................................................... 55 Generation and value creation ................................................................................................................... 55 Finance ....................................................................................................................................................... 55 Organizations and ownership ..................................................................................................................... 56 Information ................................................................................................................................................ 56 Regulatory, fiscal, legal and other conditions for generating innovation in the social economy................ 57The Household Economy ................................................................................................................................ 57 Public spaces for social innovation ............................................................................................................. 57 Valorizing household time .......................................................................................................................... 58 The New Mutualism ................................................................................................................................... 58 Constructed households as sites of innovation .......................................................................................... 58 Social Movements ...................................................................................................................................... 59The Social Economy - the process roots for Innovation ................................................................................. 59 John Dewey ................................................................................................................................................ 59 Roberto Mangabeira Unger ........................................................................................................................ 61The Social Economy - the process for Innovation ........................................................................................... 63 Prompts, inspirations and diagnoses .......................................................................................................... 63 Proposals and ideas .................................................................................................................................... 65 Ver 1.0 - DRAFT for discussion 3
  4. 4. LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights Andrea Vitali Prototyping and pilots ................................................................................................................................ 67 Sustaining ................................................................................................................................................... 68 Scaling and diffusion................................................................................................................................... 71 Systemic change ......................................................................................................................................... 74The Grant Economy – an economic evaluation .............................................................................................. 78 The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project ......................................................................... 78 The Global Civil Society - Statistics ............................................................................................................. 79From Social Economy to Social Innovation ..................................................................................................... 87 What is social innovation? .......................................................................................................................... 87 Why social innovation? .............................................................................................................................. 87 Process dimension...................................................................................................................................... 89 Risks associated with the concept, and what social innovation is not ........................................................ 90 A working definition ................................................................................................................................... 91 Barriers to social innovations ..................................................................................................................... 92 Barriers from the perspective of the ‘social demand’ approach ................................................................ 93 Barriers from the perspective of the ‘societal challenges’ approach ......................................................... 96 Barriers from the perspective of the ‘systemic change’ approach ............................................................. 98 Social enterprise ......................................................................................................................................... 99Conclusion 2° part – Applied Research ......................................................................................................... 100 Social innovation ...................................................................................................................................... 101 Social economy......................................................................................................................................... 103 Policy for science ...................................................................................................................................... 106 Social value ............................................................................................................................................... 106 The linear model of innovation ................................................................................................................ 106Part 3 – Development .................................................................................................................................. 108A new model of Social Innovation ................................................................................................................ 109 Enhancement of previous Social Innovation model ................................................................................. 109 Social value ............................................................................................................................................... 109 Policy for science ...................................................................................................................................... 110 Human Rights ........................................................................................................................................... 110 Environment Rights .................................................................................................................................. 111 The Research and Development social taxonomies ................................................................................. 113 Ver 1.0 - DRAFT for discussion 4
  5. 5. LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights Andrea Vitali The Research role ..................................................................................................................................... 114 The process for the new model of Social Innovation................................................................................ 117 The social innovation economy ................................................................................................................ 119LEONARDO for Human and Environment Rights .......................................................................................... 122 The Learning Environments ...................................................................................................................... 124 Orienting New Approaches ...................................................................................................................... 127 Research and Development Objectives .................................................................................................... 128 High Education ......................................................................................................................................... 134 The target – the demand side .................................................................................................................. 135 The knowledge and skills champion – the supply side ............................................................................. 135Conclusion - the Challenge ........................................................................................................................... 136References ................................................................................................................................................... 137Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... 140Creative Commons Public License ................................................................................................................ 140 Ver 1.0 - DRAFT for discussion 5
  6. 6. LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights Andrea Vitali “Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto” (I am a man: and I deem nothing pertaining to man is foreign to me) Terence, 195/185–159 BC “Imagine no possessions I wonder if you can No need for greed or hunger A brotherhood of man Imagine all the people Sharing all the world... You may say Im a dreamer But Im not the only one I hope someday youll join us And the world will live as one” John Lennon, Imagine - 1971 “Willingness to take risk and see value in absurdity” S. Sundaram, GSI EDU-ResearchAbstractObject of this research is to provide the reader with a new model of Social Innovation based on:  the genealogical history of Innovation and his linear model of Innovation  the current research and definitions for Social Economy  a new Social Value framework driving the Social Innovation model proposedScope of this research is twofold: 1. A research centered on innovation: the 1° part of the document starts with a challenge issued by Godin B. at UNESCO on the effective role of innovation for development countries, the document present a genealogical history of the category innovation to understand which are the origin of this term, its relation with imitation and invention, and how has been influenced by industrial evolution and economy in its accepted linear model of innovation. The consequence of this analysis is that nowadays innovation is commonly referred to technological innovation. The document continues with an analysis on how research and development has changed in the last century and the role of development in shifting from “policy for science” in “science for policy”, becoming R&D a standard de facto all round the world: some supporting statistics are included. Afterwards, some historical references about Guilds, Italian Renaissance and Leonardo da Vinci are introduced to focus how Ver 1.0 - DRAFT for discussion 6
  7. 7. LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights Andrea Vitali humanistic values have influenced the arrival of new form of knowledge and organization. The 1° part concludes with an introduction framework about Social Economy. The 2° part of the document begins with Innovation conditions for Social Economy: institutional requirements for the constituting four sub-economies and the stages of Social Economy process: some supporting statistics about economic evaluation of Grant Economy are presented. The 2° part concludes with an analysis focused on Social innovation: definition, drivers and barriers to Social Innovations are presented. The 3° and final part of the document concerns with a new model of Social Innovation: a project research, whose aim is the development of the new model, is suggested. 2. A project research centered on a new model of Social Innovation: the 3° and final part of the document concerns with a new model of Social Innovation, and the differences with the current model, the reference values and the design structure are presented. Finally a project research, whose aim is the development of the new model, is suggested.The ChallengeThis is the challenged issued by Godin’s communication at UNESCO on March 2011 1.For fifty years, countries have measured their inventive and innovative efforts using precise methodologicalrules. The OECD has developed influential manuals to this end. However, the manuals’ recommendationsare concerned mainly, if not entirely, with the supply side of invention and innovation. … Diffusion ismeasured from the perspective of the innovating firm (process innovation), with no statistics from usersother than firms, whether they be customers, organizations, or whole countries. … Today, “user innovation”has become a catchword. …The majority of UNESCO countries are, first of all, and for the better and the worst, consumers of knowledgeand technology produced elsewhere. There is therefore a need to emphasize these countries’ efforts toabsorb what comes from outside as much as their own inventive and innovative efforts. This means that thestatistical tables should give equal attention to invention and imitation, which is not the case currently. Tothis end, one must shift his attention from an exclusive focus on firms.The OECD recently published a document intended to contribute to integrating innovation into the policyagendas of developing countries. Innovation and the Development Agenda, published in 2010, is part of theOECD Innovation Strategy of that same year. This document is most welcome. The explicit aim is tointroduce in innovation policies a “different lens” from that of industrialized countries. This short note1 B. Godin (2011), A User-View of Innovation: Some Critical Thoughts on the Current STI Frameworks and TheirRelevance to Developing Countries, Communication presented at Expert Meeting on Innovation Statistics, UNESCO, 8-10 March, 2011. Ver 1.0 - DRAFT for discussion 7
  8. 8. LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights Andrea Vitaliidentifies four assumptions and biases on which Innovation and the Development Agenda rests. Theobjective is to suggest the continuance of, and deeper thoughts on, what is certainly a beginning toward abroader understanding of innovation. 1. Innovation is the (not-so) new (miracle) solution to development issues. To the OECD, “the last half- century has seen different approaches to development which have achieved varying degrees of success”. In their place, innovation should now be considered a strategy for development: “most current social, economic and environmental challenges require creative solutions based on innovation and technological advance”. But is it really the case and how precisely? The document, as with most of the literature on innovation, starts with innovation as a panacea, not with problems of development (except in general terms) or the extent (and limitations) to which innovation is or is not a (THE) solution. 2. The document promotes, again as most of the literature on innovation does, a supply-side view of innovation: firms, the commercialization of invention and the use of invention in industrial production. I agree that this must be part of every innovation strategy. But a supply-side view needs to be complemented by a user-side one. To a certain extent, a “different lens” is offered in the OECD document: a certain emphasis is placed on the informal sector and non-technological innovation and on the need to adapt the National Innovation System (NIS) framework to developing countries such as: considering product innovation as much as process innovation (but the issue here is still discussed in terms of the old, namely competitiveness), innovation in low-tech sectors, incremental innovation, and adaptive capacities and learning. However, the framework remains a supply-side view. Nothing in the document goes beyond innovation as commercialization. 3. A demand or user-side view, namely a consideration of the user or adopter of (already existing) innovations, is poorly developed. Certainly, the document admits that, “If governments are to support innovation activity, there is a case for policies that encourage the conversion of knowledge, however that knowledge is gained”; “the demand-side of technology and innovation needs to be stressed in addition to the conventional focus on the supply side”. Nevertheless, the document has very little to say except general thoughts about absorptive capacities, mentions that developing technologies need to be adapted to local needs. The document discusses the issues in terms of the old: technology-flow– there is nothing on flows of scientific knowledge and how developing countries get and use scientific knowledge from foreign sources. All in all, a user-side view still needs to be articulated. It is one thing that a firm extracts value from innovation, but another if the end user is not better for it – that it does not share in that added value. 4. There is little concern for “people” as innovators (doing things differently) except, again, as introducers of new inventions to the market or as buyers of new inventions. Certainly, the consideration of people as innovators in the larger sense gets some hearing in Innovation and the Development Agenda, like the discussion of the informal sector. However, the issue is entirely discussed in terms of the market. As if every solution to health, poverty and education need a firm, a technology, a market. How do people change their behavior in response to new knowledge (like AIDS)? How organizations (schools, hospitals) contribute to people adopting new behaviors? What about microcredit, certainly one of the most innovative ideas of the last decades in the developing country. Is it included in the statistics, as the current survey is constructed? Ver 1.0 - DRAFT for discussion 8
  9. 9. LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights Andrea VitaliWhy such a vision? Simply because the authors continue to use the dominant frameworks – and the OECDitself urges implanting of its own methodology in developing countries, like reviews of innovation policies. …In the last five decades, all frameworks used at the OECD have been supply-side including NIS.… NIS isentirely centered on innovation in firms: the system gravitates around firms and the way otherorganizations and institutions contribute to innovation in firms. The manual is entirely concerned withsurveying innovation in firms. Innovation is defined as “implementation”, namely introducing invention onthe market or bringing a new invention into industrial use. With regard to diffusion (“the spread ofinnovation”) and transfer (“linkages and flows”), the manual deals only with how the firm acquiresknowledge and technology from outside. Residual attention is given to end-users, including individuals (intheir jobs), customers and organizations other than firms. There is nothing on end users, the capacity usershave to use invention, how a (potential) user like a developed country comes to know (foreign) knowledgeand technology, what mechanisms it has to this end, what supporting infrastructures, etc.What would a survey of innovation look like if one starts with a user-based view? It would:  Address and focus on specific and precise problems or areas of development – like one does in the case of specific surveys, like ICT, biotechnology – not innovation in general and broad terms (“percentage of enterprise that introduced innovation”).  Survey end-users, not just producers.  Cover individuals, groups, organizations and government.  Measure diverse kinds of innovation: ideas, behaviors and things (and compared the new to the old). Where does the innovation come from?  What use, if any, is made of the innovation? By whom?  Identify the mechanisms through which innovation diffuse and their presence or absence in a developing country: Do and how knowledge about X gets into country Y? What lags? Why?  What effects (quality of life), including the bad ones? To what extent is the innovation adapted to a country’s needs?  Evaluate the role of government as innovator in matter of policies (not only as “hampering factor”): what infrastructures, policies and programs exist in country Y for supporting innovation? Moreover, in order to increase its relevance, a survey of innovation (be it supply-based or user-based) should look for facts rather than rely on questions with answers of a subjective nature.A Radical Proposal  Forget OECD’s frameworks and statistics and start anew  Back to basic concepts: invention, diffusion and useVery interesting Challenge, why don’t accept it ? How can we proceed and try to solve it ? Ver 1.0 - DRAFT for discussion 9
  10. 10. LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights Andrea Vitali Part 1 - Basic Research Ver 1.0 - DRAFT for discussion 10
  11. 11. LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights Andrea VitaliWhat is Innovation ?Godin’s challenge requires a New Innovation Framework based on forgetting OECD’s frameworks2 (and it’sstatistics / measures) and to go back to basic concepts. But if we have to forget something we need, first ofall, to understand what we have to forget and it’s basic concept.Therefore, it is necessary to point out:  what Innovation means  how Innovation meaning have been influenced by the OECD firm visionTo reach out these objectives some of Godin’s concepts 3 are presented.Innovation is everywhere … (and) is also a central idea in the popular imaginary, in the media, in publicpolicy and is part of everybody’s vocabulary. … To many, innovation is a relatively recent phenomenon andits study more recent yet: innovation has acquired real importance in the twentieth century. In point of fact,however, innovation has always existed. … Many people spontaneously understand innovation to betechnological innovation. The literature itself takes this for granted. More often than not, studies ontechnological innovation simply use the term innovation, although they are really concerned withtechnological innovation. However, etymologically and historically, the concept of innovation is muchbroader. … (Moreover) innovation generally understood, in many milieus, as commercialized innovation …but other types of innovation are either rapidly forgotten or rarely discussed. By contrast, every individual isto a certain extent innovative; artists are innovative, scientists are innovative, and so are organizations intheir day-to-day operations. …A genealogical history of the category “innovation” … concentrates on the “creative” dimension ofinnovation … (and) identifies the concepts that have defined innovation through history, and that have ledto innovation as a central category of modern society.Innovation … does not exist as such, it is constructed through the eyes and through discourses. Thegenealogical study … (is analyzed) by three hypothesis:  Innovation is about novelty (arising from human creativity), as etymology, dictionaries and history suggest. As such, innovation is of any kind, not only material or technological. In this sense, innovation as category has a very long history. …  History of innovation as “creativity” is that of three concepts and their derivatives … (seen as) sequential steps in the process leading to innovation: Imitation → Invention → Innovation2 As Godin point out in his communication “This is no judgment on OECD works, but its relevance to development”3 Godin, B. (2008), Innovation: The History of a Category, Project on the Intellectual History of Innovation, INRS:Montreal, Forthcoming Ver 1.0 - DRAFT for discussion 11
  12. 12. LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights Andrea Vitali  Innovation as a break with the past… in the sense that it suggests that invention per se is not enough. There has to be use and adoption of the invention, namely innovation, in order for benefits to accrue.ImitationImitation is a concept of Greek origin … (and) Plato’s philosophy is entirely concerned with imitation and itsmany senses and opposites: appearances (or images) – versus reality; falsity – versus truth. To Plato, evenphysical objects are imitations, compared to God and true nature. But it is through Aristotle that theconcept of imitation got its main influence. To Aristotle, (practical) arts imitate nature (mimesis). Such anunderstanding of art gave rise to imitatio as the central problem of art, with pejorative overtones, then toimitation as inspiration. … The mimetic orientation was the most primitive aesthetic theory, art imitates theworld of appearance. The “artist” extracts the form of the natural world and imposes it upon an artificialmedium. … However, according to most theories, imitation is only instrumental toward producing effects, …a literary mechanism for the production of difference.Until the mid-eighteenth century, imitation was presented as a positive practice, not one that wasdistrusted or pejorative (… a method for teaching, … selective borrowing and creative copying, … enrichesthe tradition focusing on interpretation, … a way to come closer to real knowledge of nature by imitatingnature, … as a substitute for imported commodities): … briefly stated, imitation is taken for granted and is acommon practice. …Imitation has often been portrayed as being invention itself. The view in the Middle Ages of the work ofartisans is that of art learned by imitating nature, but in so doing, the artisan changes nature, as claimed bythe alchemists. Equally, in Renaissance literary theory and visual arts, one finds recurrent descriptions ofimitation as rediscovery of the old, as something “new” to copy, as something never seen before. … Anargument frequently evoked is that imitation requires work, experimentation, judgment and imagination.All these descriptions in literature, arts and crafts generally refer to an idea that has been very influentialamong many authors in defining invention, and subsequently innovation: that of combination. Imitation isinvention because, when combining elements from nature, it combines the best of them, and by so doingimproves nature. Combination “creates a whole that is more perfect than nature”. Equally, in combiningprevious schools of thought, the combination surpasses the work of past authors. Compilatio, a “wideliterary activity which encompassed various genres in the Middle Ages” and after, is combination of others’material into a new work, a unio. … In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, patents and their precursorsin the fifteenth century like letters and privileges, were not granted to inventors, as they are today, but toimporters of existing inventions … Now, if we turn to the twentieth century, we clearly observe thatimitation gave rise to, and was often used as a term for, diffusion. … Contemporary theories on innovationnow include diffusion (or use) as a step in the innovation process. In summary, imitation has rarely beenseparated from invention. To many, imitation has close links to invention, and even constitutes inventionitself. However, with time imitation came to be contrasted to invention. Starting from the mid-eighteenthcentury, imitation was regarded as mere copying, while originality became the criterion for real invention. Ver 1.0 - DRAFT for discussion 12
  13. 13. LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights Andrea VitaliInventionInvention is a term that comes from rhetoric. In classical rhetoric, invention was the first of five divisions ofthe rhetorical art. Invention is composed of guidelines to help speakers find and elaborate language. In DeInventione, Cicero (106-43 BC) defined invention as the “discovery of valid or seemingly valid arguments torender one’s cause probable”. However, in the history of rhetoric, invention as so conceived has beeneclipsed by one or more of the four other divisions (arrangement, style, memory and delivery).Invention as a term in other domains really came to be used in the mid-fourteenth century as finding ordiscovery, namely with regard to knowledge, or science (knowing). It came to be applied to making as well,in poetry then in visual arts. From the sixteenth century, invention was used more and more to apply tonewly-created things (artifacts). … From late medieval Europe, the idea of invention spread everywhere, todifferent degrees and under different terms. … In the Renaissance, there was “no unanimity in usage ofdivino, ingegno, fantasia, immaginazione and invenzione”, … (and) the idea of progress is a major oneduring the Renaissance. … In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the idea of novelty is everywhere andbecomes very much a (positive) cultural value: nowhere is the idea of novelty more presents than in science,… frequently discussed as an active search or hunt (venatio), a very old metaphor. … One thing is clear: inthe sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the idea of novelty is everywhere and becomes very much a(positive) cultural value:  Philosophy: praxis4  Literary theory and visual arts: imagination, originality, creation  Arts and crafts (engineering): ingenium, invention  (Natural Philosophy and) science: discovery, experiment, scientific change  History: change, revolution, progress  “Evolutionists”5: growth, development, evolution, variation, mutation  Anthropology: culture (or cultural) change  Sociology: action, social change  Psychology: attitude change; creativity  Management and politics: organizational change  Economics: entrepreneurship, technological change, innovationChange became a preoccupation of study in many emerging scientific disciplines, from sociology and historyto natural philosophy, or the sciences: … from the eighteenth century are the “men of science” who havetaken change most seriously. …Whatever its name, the new is not without its opponents: the Querelle between the ancients and themoderns, in literature and philosophy but also in science and education, is that between imitating (andsurpassing) the ancients versus a totally new enterprise, … perhaps the first systematic debate in history4 In philosophy, praxis has not really been theorized because of the emphasis on mind. It slowly begins to be becomean issue, quite imperfectly according to many, with expressiveness, utilitarianism (free will), existentialism (life, will,consciousness), pragmatism (experience, inquiry), and the philosophy of action5 Evolutionists: early geology, early paleontology, natural history, and biology Ver 1.0 - DRAFT for discussion 13
  14. 14. LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights Andrea Vitaliabout the new as opposed to tradition. … The defenders of invention often have an ideological aim: todistinguish oneself (identity) and to justify one’s activities (image of scientists, inventors and writers), forpurposes of patronage, among other things. Hence, the construction of oppositions portraying tradition andthe like as static (transmission from generation to generation: irrational and arbitrary) versus invention andthe like as cumulative and progressive. Over time, invention in science came to share the vocabulary ofwriters with the term discovery: … for some time, invention meant finding as well as making, and wasapplied without qualification to both activities. … Later, a distinction was made between the two concepts:discovery referred to facts or things that already exist out there and that one finds out, while inventioncombines and makes new things, including scientific theories. … Literature and visual arts are other fieldswhere the idea of novelty is widespread. Contrary to science, with its emphasis on facts and method and itsnegative assessment of imagination, the “power of imagination” is rehabilitated. In fact, literary theory andvisual arts (painting, sculpture) in the Renaissance adapted invention from the literature on rhetoric to apsychological process of imagination. …, (and) originality came to define the artist and the metaphor ofcreation (already present in Greek mythology). … Certainly, originality, as with imitation and invention,plays his important role: … originality means origin, or source (authorship), … and a distinctive quality ofwork, or novelty, as well. … As such, originality came to characterize the genius, an important figure in theRenaissance, … and a concept with a long history: first defined as spirit (which gave inspiration), it came tomean innate talent or ability (ingenium), then a person with superior creative powers. … (So), the terminvention was applied to ingenious things like “machines, artifices, devices, engines, methods”.Ingenuity was also a key concept for the artisan from the Middle Ages onward: … the artisan, first of allalchemists, through their art created new things in their opinion, and for the first time made art a creativeforce rather than only an imitative entity. Equally, in Renaissance painters, ceramists and sculptors reallythought they were creating new things, not only practicing an imitative art. This creative power over naturegave rise to the figure of the inventor, a genius or hero who, as to scientists and artists, was not withoutopponents. As a matter of fact, it took time for inventors to be admitted to the pantheon of great men. Upto the beginning of the nineteenth century, and again after the commercialization of technologicalinventions on a large scale at the end of this same century, the inventor was anonymous.The alignment of the term invention with technological invention was helped by the conventionalization, orinstitutionalization, of technological invention through privileges and patent laws from the late fourteenthand fifteenth centuries onward. … As patents attest, the qualities previously attributed to the genius orartist (like originality) become those attributed to the commodity. Over time, technological inventionobtained a relative “monopoly” in the vocabulary of invention because of the culture of things, or materialculture, and patents are witness to this phenomenon. Over time, the culture of things has developed andowes its existence to many factors. One such factor is the “consumer revolution”, … a second factor is whatcame to be called the “industrial revolution” and the use of technologies in industrial processes, … (a thirdfactor), or innovation, occurred at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentiethcentury: (large) firms began setting up research laboratories as a way to accelerate industrial development.As A.N. Whitehead put it long ago, “the greatest invention of the nineteenth century was the invention ofthe method of invention”, (in fact) men have invented a method for (systematic and cumulative) invention.… Along with the patent system discussed above, the development of industries based on the researchlaboratory and the commercialization of technological inventions on a large scale were major factors Ver 1.0 - DRAFT for discussion 14
  15. 15. LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights Andrea Vitalicontributing to a conception of invention as technological invention. Briefly stated, technological inventionsgot increased attention because they have utilitarian value as opposed or contrasted to Ancient knowledge,as it was often said from Bacon onward … Things, and utility, have a place in science too: … for F. Bacon, themain exponent for more useful knowledge in science, namely for the mechanical arts and artificial objects,“the real and legitimate goal of the sciences is the endowment of the human life with new inventions andriches”.InnovationNovation is a term that first appeared in law in the thirteenth century. It meant renewing an obligation bychanging a contract for a new debtor. … Until the eighteenth century, a “novator” was still a suspiciousperson, one to be mistrusted, … and the term was rarely used in the various arts and sciences before thetwentieth century. … Until innovation took on a central place in theories on social and economic change,imitation and invention (under different terms, as discussed above) were seen as opposites, as was the casein social practices. … While previous theories of invention were of a “psychological” kind and focused oninspiration, imagination and genius, the end of the nineteenth century saw the emergence of new theoriesfor explaining novelty, and these were of a social kind. The first such theories arose in anthropology.anthropology made very few uses of the term innovation. Innovation was nevertheless whatanthropologists of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century studied as culture change: changes inculture traits, but also inventions in agriculture, trade, social and political organizations (law, customs,religion, family) and technology. …Many anthropologists framed the discussion in terms of invention versus diffusion (as imitation) to explainstages of civilization. This gave rise to what came to be called the diffusion controversy. On one side wereevolutionists, to whom invention stems from multiple centers and occurs independently in different cultures:parallel inventions, as they were called, reflect the psychic unity of human nature, and differences in culturereflect steps of the same process, or varying speeds of evolution. … At the opposite end were diffusionists, towhom man is essentially uninventive: culture emerges from one center, then diffuses through borrowings,migrations and invasions. … Until about the mid-twentieth century, evolutionism was the frameworkanthropologists used to study culture change. Then acculturation, as the study of cultural change resultingfrom contacts between different cultures, developed. Anthropologists stopped looking at diffusion as mereimitation contrasted to invention: diffusion is inventive adaptation. Barnett (an anthropologist) developed acomprehensive theory of innovation, defined as “any thought, behavior, or thing that is new because it isqualitatively different from existing forms”, … and everyone is an innovator. … We have to turn tosociologists, and then economists, to find the systematic development of studies on innovation. What placedoe the term and category of innovation take in sociological theories? In studying the literature, oneobserves a move from multiple terms used interchangeably to innovation: the most frequent terms are thecombined one invention/discovery and technology. …The first theory of innovation comes from the French sociologist Gabriel Tarde (who) was interested inexplaining social change (or social evolution): grammar, language, religion, law, constitution, economic Ver 1.0 - DRAFT for discussion 15
  16. 16. LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights Andrea Vitaliregime, industry and arts. … The success of an invention (i.e.: imitation) depends on other inventions (oropposition between inventions) and social factors. To Tarde, invention is the combination of previous orelementary inventions …. Invention comes from individuals (not necessarily great men), and is sociallyinfluenced. … Invention is the driving force of society, but society is mainly imitative. … However, to manycritics over time sociologists have been concerned with imitation (as socialization) rather than with creativeaction: the study of individual creativity was left to psychology. … Ogburn and Gilfillan started looking atinventions, above all technological inventions, as causes of cultural change or social change (socialorganizations and behaviours). To Ogburn, “the use of material things is a very important part of the cultureof any people”. What he observed was the growth and acceleration of material culture. … Ogburndeveloped the concept of the cultural lag to account for this process. There is an increasing lag between thematerial culture (technology) and the rest of culture (adaptive culture) due to inertia and lack of socialadaptation. …To the sociologists, technological invention is … a social process rather than an individual one. Certainly“without the inventor there can be no inventions”, but “the inventors are not the only individualsresponsible for invention”: social forces like demographic (race) and geographic factors, and “culturalheritage” play a part. Secondly, technological invention is social because it is cumulative (or evolutionary),namely the result of accumulation and accretion of minor details, modifications, perfectings, and minuteadditions over centuries, rather than a one-step creation. Finally, technological invention is social in a thirdsense: it is more and more systematic, it comes from organized research laboratories specifically dedicatedto this end. … This meaning of innovation as technological invention used and adopted is the commonsociological understanding of innovation, although a fourth meaning would soon be used as well, followingthe economists’ definition: technological invention as commercialized by industry. … Despite thisunderstanding, explicit definitions of innovation are rare among sociologists. The early few definitions thatexist differ considerably. Certainly, they all refer to the idea of novelty, but they differ in the sense that someinclude the act itself (combination), others the impacts of innovation, still others the subjective perception ofit. … Innovation as process is also how economists understand the category. However economists add theirown stamp to the idea: innovation is the commercialization of (technological) invention. And unlike thedefinitions of sociologists, this definition came with time to be accepted among economists, and by others,including the sociologist.  Tarde (1820): Invention, imitation, op position  Ogburn (1920): Invention(and diffusion), maladjustment (lag)/ adjustment  Bernard (1923): Forumula, blue print, machine  Chapin (1928): Invention, accumulation, selection, diffusion  Ogburn and Gilfillan (1933): Idea, trial device (model or pl), demonstration, regular use, adoption  Gilfillan (1935): Idea, sketch, drawing; model, full-size experimental invention, commercial practice  Gilfillan (1937): Thought, model (patent), first practical use, commercial success, important use  US National Resources Committee (1937): Beginnings, development, diffusion, social influences  Ogburn and Nimkoff (1940): Idea, development, model, invention, improvement, marketing  Ogburn (1941): Idea, plan, tangible form, improvement, production, promotion, marketing, sales  Ogburn (1950): Invention, accumulation, diffusion, adjustment  Rogers (1962): Innovation, diffusion, adoption Ver 1.0 - DRAFT for discussion 16
  17. 17. LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights Andrea Vitali  Rogers (1983): Needs/problems, research, development, commercialization, diffusion and adoption, consequencesThe study of change is not the traditional concern of economics. Historically, economics is concerned withequilibrium rather than dynamics. Although the concepts of work (labor), production and growth heldcentral place in early economic theories, the study of economic change is not a fundamental concept ineconomics, as culture change is in anthropology or as social change is in sociology: change really got intoeconomics with the study of technology as a cause of economic growth, … called technological change, asthe use of technological inventions in industrial processes. …Increased interest in technological change can be traced back to the years following the Great Depression,where the bicentenarial debate on the role of mechanization on employment reemerged, … (and) the studyof technology developed via the measurement of productivity: increases in productivity as an indicator oftechnology usage. … Subsequently, the formalization of the measurement developed through what wascalled the production function, … an equation … that links quantity produced of a good (output) toquantities of inputs. … Economists interpreted movements in the curve of the production function astechnological change (the substitution of capital for labor). … Then economists started correlating R&D withproductivity measures: beginning in the late 1950s, a whole literature developed, analyzing the contributionof research to industrial development, and to performance, productivity and economic growth, first frommainstream economists.It is through evolutionary economics, among them J.A. Schumpeter, that innovation really got intoeconomics. To Schumpeter, capitalism is creative destruction: disturbance of existing structures, andunceasing novelty and change. In his view, innovations are responsible for this phenomenon. Schumpeteridentified five types of innovation: 1) introduction of a new good; 2) introduction of a new method ofproduction; 3) opening of a new market; 4) conquest of a new source of supply of raw materials or half-manufactured goods; and 5) implementation of a new form of organization. Part of the explanation for theuse of the term innovation in the economic literature has to do with a reaction against historians andagainst the term invention. Following others, Schumpeter distinguished innovation from invention. ToSchumpeter, “innovation is possible without anything we should identify as invention and invention does notnecessarily induce innovation”. Invention is an act of intellectual creativity and “is without importance toeconomic analysis”, while innovation is an economic decision: a firm applying an invention or adopting aninvention. However, it took time for the category to gain acceptance. In the early 1960s, the category wasstill not widely accepted. … In the 1970s, the skepticism continued: the “use of the term innovation iscounterproductive”, … because each individual has his or her interpretation. … Schumpeter is usuallycredited in the economic literature, particularly by evolutionary economists, as being the first theorist ontechnological innovation: … Schumpeter did develop influential ideas on technological innovation as asource of business cycles … (where) the entrepreneur (and, in a next stage, the large firm) is responsible fortechnological innovation. But how? …Over time, authors from business schools and economists developed theories or conceptual models oftechnological innovation as a process from invention to diffusion, similar to those of the sociologists. Inthese theories, technological innovation was defined as a step (the ultimate step) of a process starting withinvention – and defined as commercialized innovation. … The most popular and influential … theory Ver 1.0 - DRAFT for discussion 17
  18. 18. LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights Andrea Vitalicombining both production (of goods) and distribution … is what came to be called the “linear model ofinnovation”: … technological innovation starts with basic research, then goes through applied research, thendevelopment, and then production and diffusion. Such an understanding of technological innovation hasbeen very influential on science policy after 1945.While innovation as technological innovation and as commercialized innovation came to dominate theliterature, other conceptions of innovation developed elsewhere. Inside the category of social innovation wecan include political innovation (innovation in public institutions such as schools and government agencies),… organizational innovation (… study of innovative behaviors of research activities, … of organizationsdeveloped such as organizational structure and management style).What role did policy play in all this? A major one, indeed. Over the twentieth century, innovation was in facta policy-driven concept. Psychologists, sociologists, economists, including “evolutionary” economists, andresearchers from management, business schools and economics acted as consultants to governments, andwere concerned with offering policy recommendations for “social engineering”, productivity and economicgrowth based on their theories, the more recent ones being conceptual frameworks like the knowledge-based economy, the information economy, the information economy, the new economy, and nationalinnovation system. …. However, there has never been a “policy for science” period, as many authors argue,only a “science for policy” one, during which public research and universities were urged to contribute totechnological innovation. Science policy has always been concerned with applying science to public goals.From its very beginning, science policy, whether implicit or explicit, was constructed as a means to achievesocial, economic and political goals.Conclusion… Innovation as a (widely-used) category during the twentieth century is witness to a certain context or era- capitalism - and to changes in political values. As J. Farr put it, “to understand conceptual change is inlarge part to understand political changes”. Until early in the twentieth century, invention, ingenuity andimagination were discussed as symbols of civilization and as attributes of geniuses, and their contribution tothe progress of the race. Then, the growing role of organizations in the twentieth century led to changes invalues. If there was to be increasing economic efficiency, there had to be innovation - through organizationsand the mobilization of their employees’ creative abilities. Such were the discourses of managers as well aspolicy-makers. Theorists from many disciplines started studying innovation in terms of the effects oftechnological innovation on the economy and society. To sociologists, gone was the lonely inventor as ahero or genius. It was a myth created by past authors. Innovation is rather a social process. To economists,gone was invention without market value. It is a subject for the historian. To the policy-maker, gone was (orshould be) research with no application. The golden age between the state and the funding of the basicscientist, although short-lived, is finished. Innovation as a category in the twentieth century expressesprecisely these political changes: a demarcation with past understandings, values and practices. Thecategory’s previous meanings or predecessors (invention, ingenuity, imagination, etc.) came to be subsumed Ver 1.0 - DRAFT for discussion 18
  19. 19. LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights Andrea Vitaliunder “innovation”, and the creative abilities of an individual placed in the service of organizations,industrial development and economic growth.Innovation is the last of a series of terms imagined to give meaning to modern practices. Certainly,innovation is, to a certain extent, continuity with the past, in the sense that more often than not it refers totechnological invention. However, it is also a break with the past: invention per se is not enough. In fact,many ideas and inventions fail, according to the history of technology. There has to be use of the invention,namely innovation, in order for benefits to accrue. This is the first aspect of the break. Another concerns theproduction of invention. While it was the individual, or genius, who was the source of invention in previousrepresentations, innovation places emphasis on the firm. And there is a third aspect of the break: benefitsderiving from invention concern economics, not culture or civilization.There are now many people trying to broaden the understanding of innovation as technological innovation.One now hears discourses on “social innovation”, meaning either major advances in the social sciences,policy/institutional reforms for the betterment of society, or solutions to social needs and problems, comingfrom the community sectors among others. Calls for do-it-yourself innovation, user-led innovation, openinnovation and “democratizing innovation” are in the same vein: technological innovation comes from manysources, not only the research laboratory, but also users. … The OECD Oslo Manual itself, in its latest edition,has broadened the definition of innovation to include organizational and marketing innovation, althoughthis is limited to firms. However, projects are now in progress for measuring innovation in the public sectorsin the near future.The main goal of the promoters of these new ideas is ensuring that policy-makers takes account of non-technological aspects of innovation in their policy. Whether the ideas will have an impact on the currentunderstanding of innovation remains to be seen. For the moment, they certainly contribute to extending thediscourses on, and the fascination with, innovation to more spheres of society, and mobilizing more peoplein the name of innovation.What we learned ?How can we define a new paradigm for Social Innovation ? Thanks to Godin’s research presentation it ispossible to fix some starting points.The XX CenturyThe last Century represented a turning point for invention and innovation concepts, seen as thecommercialization of invention and the use of invention in industrial production: this fact got to a newcapitalistic metric where technology and things culture lead science for policy and, as a consequence, forhuman being. This revolution has radically influenced, and maybe substituted, the natural fulcrum of the Ver 1.0 - DRAFT for discussion 19
  20. 20. LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights Andrea Vitalihistory of humanity: the human being. The humanity development, thanks to the central role of humanbeing, allowed during centuries flow an holistic vision of the word, where the different needs of humanbeing have been compared, from time to time, to individual or collective values “immanent” at thebelonging cultures: the apogee of human being centrality date back to Renaissance. The capitalism, and itsrole in the transformation of innovation concept, took to a time continuum where the measure unit isassumed “transcendent” to human being, the capital, which in turn standardize and trivialize human life toa monetary value that follows a necessary and continuous growth in its material measure. The concept soimportant for the economy for which “Invention is an act of intellectual creativity and is without importanceto economic analysis, while innovation is an economic decision” fully represents the paradoxical necessityto take the capitalistic economy, “transcendent”, at being the only material asset that could measure andsubstitute individual and collective values, which are “immanent”. The perversion of this model permeatingthe XX Century is faithfully shown by recent facts where finance and world crisis that we are living andsubject to nowadays, as evolution and representation of a necessary and continuous growth, has becomeitself “transcendent” with respect to capitalistic economic, which is in turn “transcendent” to human being.To conclude we can say that this vision concerning with human being, capitalistic economy and at lastfinance, for sure stressed but not so far from reality, remembers very well the poem by Goethe “TheSorcerer’s Apprentice” where, for our case, the Sorcerer could be no other than the human being.Research and Development - How the “D” got into R&DOne of the main issues raised by Godin is the role of Development as a firms’ domain.R&D6 is a central component of official definitions of Science & Technology (S&T). Decades of work ontaxonomies and statistics on research are testimony to the construction behind the definition.We can identify three stages in the construction of development as a category for statistical purposes: 1° Development was only a series or list of activities without a label, but identified for inclusion in questionnaire responses. 2° Development came to be identified as such by way of creating a subcategory of research, alongside basic and applied research. This was Huxley’s innovation, and Anthony was influential in its measurement. 3° Development became a separate category, alongside research. It gave us the acronym we now know and use: R&D.The category had three main purposes: 1 Organizational. It corresponded to the type of research conducted in industry, to research divisions in firms, and to entire organizations that defined themselves according to both research and development.6 B. Godin (2006), Research and Development - How the “D” got into R&D, Science and Public Policy, volume 33,number 1, February 2006, pages 59–76, Beech Tree Publishing, 10 Watford Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 2EP, England Ver 1.0 - DRAFT for discussion 20
  21. 21. LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights Andrea Vitali 2 Analytical. Here, it was industrialists, consultants and academics in business schools who developed models identifying development as a separate and decisive step in the innovation process. 3 Political. The category served political ends, among them the greater amount of money firms could obtain from public funds by including development in research expenditure.Despite its widespread use, the category was not without its methodological problems. Early on, theseproblems were discussed at a meeting organized by the National Science Foundation (NSF) in 1959, and atthe OECD meeting that launched the Frascati Manual in 1963. Most of the problems concerned thedemarcation between development and other activities, and the absence of precise accounting practices todistinguish types of activity properly. This was an additional factor explaining the inclusion of developmentin statistics on research.Methodological difficulties also explain the exclusion of development from more recent statistics on S&T.Development as an activity is in fact located somewhere between two other activities: research andproduction. We have already alluded to the difficulty of separating applied research from development. Thisbecame even more pronounced when the category was used for research other than industrial research. AsW H Shapley from the US Bureau of Budget commented at the NSF meeting in 1959: “The practical problem results chiefly from the fact that a distinction between research and development is not recognized in the way Government does its business … Projects and contracts cover both research and development, and the distinction is usually not made even in the financial records at the local operating level … because of the large number of projects”.The other demarcation problem concerned development and production. Since, for example, minordevelopments can also occur during this later stage, “the main difficulty arises in determining the point atwhich development work ceases and production begins” (OECD). This is particularly important in the case ofmilitary research, because R&D is not a separate entity, but part of general expense appropriations orprocurement contracts. This practice has enormous consequences on statistics: many different statisticalestimates frequently coexist for measuring the same phenomenon. As a National Research Council report(known as the Frank Press report) argued in the mid-1990s: “Nearly half of traditional federal research and development spending involves initial production, maintenance, and upgrading of large-scale weapons and space systems … Those activities are neither long-term investments in new knowledge nor investments in creating substantially new applications. If they were excluded, the research and development investment budget — called the federal S&T (FS&T) budget in this report — would be between $35 billion and $40 billion annually”.As a consequence, and in line with the Frank Press report, the US Government started compiling a FederalScience and Technology Budget in 1999, different from Federal Research and Development Spending. Thetwo now appear in the Budget. Federal Research and Development Spending, on one hand, is theconventional way of counting R&D expenditure, and amounted to over US$117 billion in 2003. Here,expenditure is broken down according to the standard three categories — basic research, applied research,and development — to which ‘facilities and equipment’ is added. The Federal Science and TechnologyBudget, on the other hand, is a collection of federal programs designed to be easy to track in the budgetprocess, rather than constituting a comprehensive inventory of federal S&T investments. The budget forthese programs amounted to nearly US$60 billion in 2003. Ver 1.0 - DRAFT for discussion 21
  22. 22. LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights Andrea VitaliThe main difference between this and the Federal Research and Development Spending budget is that itexcludes most development, such as Department of Defense weapons systems development, and includessome scientific and technical education and training activities.The Federal Science and Technology Budget presents a new concept in measuring S&T, and allows nocomparisons with other countries’ statistics. It differs from both the OECD definitions and the Press reportsuggestion. Since its first introduction in 1999, the definition has also changed regularly. It is the mostrecent official response to the statistical challenges of measuring development: not abandoning thehistorical and traditional methodology, but adding a second series of numbers. At the same time, it is a(timid) acceptance of the decades-old complaint, initially offered by Bernal: the statistics on money spent onresearch “is delusive because it includes money spent on non-profit making plant on a semi-industrial scale,an expense far greater than that of scientific research proper”.Research and Development - World’s top 10 leaders statistics Expenditure on R&D (GERD) Expenditure by type of R&D activity Latest on Country available R&D (GERD) Basic Applied Experimental year in 000 Unknown research research development current PPP$ (%) (%) (%) (%) United States 2008 398.194.000 17,4 22,3 60,3 Japan 2008 148.719.235 11,4 21,7 62,6 4,3 China 2008 121.369.732 4,8 12,5 82,8 France 2008 46.262.320 25,4 39,0 35,6 Republic of Korea 2008 43.906.413 16,1 19,6 64,3 United Kingdom 2008 40.096.350 8,8 40,6 50,6 Russian Federation 2009 33.368.083 21,0 20,1 58,9 Italy 2008 24.510.194 27,0 45,6 27,4 Spain 2008 20.434.838 20,9 43,3 35,8 India 2005 19.617.935 18,1 25,1 22,0 34,8 Total Average 89.647.910 17,1 29,0 50,0 Fig 1 - World’s top 10 leaders in gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) by type of R&D activity, 2009 or latest available year7.Notes:  Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics, UIS database, June 2011, Science and Technology Statistical table 30.  Source for PPP conversion factor (local currency per international $): World Bank; World Development Indicators, as of April 2011.7 UNESCO Institute for Statistics Ver 1.0 - DRAFT for discussion 22
  23. 23. LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights Andrea Vitali Expenditure on R&D (GERD) by type of R&D funding Latest Country available By By By By By year Business Higher Private Government Abroad enterprise education non-profit % % % % % United States 2008 67,3 27,1 2,7 3,0 NA Japan 2008 78,2 15,6 5,1 0,7 0,4 China 2008 71,7 23,6 NA NA 1,2 France 2008 50,7 38,9 1,2 1,1 8,0 Republic of Korea 2008 72,9 25,4 1,0 0,4 0,3 United Kingdom 2008 45,4 30,7 1,2 4,9 17,7 Russian Federation 2008 28,7 64,7 0,5 0,2 5,9 Italy 2008 45,2 42,9 1,3 2,8 7,8 Spain 2008 45,0 45,6 3,2 0,6 5,7 India 2008 NA NA NA NA Na Total Average 56,1 34,9 2,0 1,7 5,9Fig 2 - World’s top 10 leaders in gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) by type of R&D funding, 2008 8.Notes:  Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics, UIS database, June 2011, Science and Technology Statistical table 30.  “NA” – Data not available  “Business enterprise” - R&D expenditure in the business sector, where the business sector in the context of R&D statistics includes (Source OECD - 2002, Frascati Manual): o All firms, organizations and institutions whose primary activity is the market production of goods or services (other than higher education) for sale to the general public at an economically significant price. o The private non-profit institutions mainly serving them.  “Government” - R&D expenditure in the government sector, where the government sector in the context of R&D statistics includes (Source OECD - 2002, Frascati Manual): o All departments, offices and other bodies which furnish, but normally do not sell to the community, those common services, other than higher education, which cannot otherwise be conveniently and economically provided, as well as those that administer the state and the economic and social policy of the community. Public enterprises are included in the business enterprise sector. o The non-profit institutions (NPIs) controlled and mainly financed by government but not administered by the higher education sector.  “Higher education” - R&D expenditure in the higher education sector, where the higher education sector in the context of R&D statistics includes (Source OECD - 2002, Frascati Manual): o All universities, colleges of technology and other institutions of post-secondary education, whatever their source of finance or legal status.8 UNESCO Institute for Statistics Ver 1.0 - DRAFT for discussion 23
  24. 24. LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights Andrea Vitali o It also includes all research institutes, experimental stations and clinics operating under the direct control of or administered by or associated with higher education institutions.  “Private non-profit” - The Private non-profit sector in the context of R&D statistics includes (Source OECD - 2002, Frascati Manual): o Non-market, private non-profit institutions serving households (i.e. the general public). o Private individuals or households.  “Abroad” - In the context of R&D statistics, abroad refers to (Source OECD - 2002, Frascati Manual): o All institutions and individuals located outside the political borders of a country; except vehicles, ships, aircraft and space satellites operated by domestic entities and testing grounds acquired by such entities. o All international organizations (except business enterprises), including facilities and operations within a country’s borders.Research and Development - Regional average statistics Fig 3 - Gross domestic expenditure on R&D as a percentage of GDP, 2009 or latest available yearThe previous Fig 3 illustrates the percentage of GDP devoted to R&D activities. This indicator reflectsnational R&D intensity by presenting gross domestic R&D expenditure relative to the size of the nationaleconomy. Ver 1.0 - DRAFT for discussion 24
  25. 25. LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights Andrea VitaliThe 2007 regional averages, in descending order, are:  2.6% for North America;  1.9% for Oceania;  1.6% for Europe;  1.6% for Asia;  0.6% for Latin America and the Caribbean;  0.4% for Africa.ConclusionWhat we learned ?  Development has been a Research practice from the beginning  Development original mission has been modified for firm’s interests  The average of world’s top 10 leaders in gross domestic expenditure on R&D activity is assigned for 50% to Development  The average of world’s top 10 leaders in gross domestic expenditure on R&D funding is assigned for 56,1% to business enterprise  The so called “developing countries” present the lowest level of percentage of GDP devoted to R&D activitiesGuildsGuilds have contributed at patent laws but they indicated an interesting approach to social organization aswell.A guild9 is an association of craftsmen in a particular trade. The earliest types of guild were formed asconfraternities of workers. … An important result of the guild framework was the emergence of universitiesat Bologna, Paris, and Oxford around the year 1200; they originated as guilds of students as at Bologna, orof masters as at Paris. … The structures of the craftsmens associations tended everywhere in similardirections: a governing body, assisting functionaries and the members assembly. The governing bodyconsisted of the leader and deputies. … The guild was made up by experienced and confirmed experts intheir field of handicraft. They were called master craftsmen. Before a new employee could rise to the level ofmastery, he had to go through a schooling period during which he was first called an apprentice. After thisperiod he could rise to the level of journeyman. Apprentices would typically not learn more than the mostbasic techniques until they were trusted by their peers to keep the guilds or companys secrets.9 Guild - Wikipedia Ver 1.0 - DRAFT for discussion 25
  26. 26. LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights Andrea VitaliLike journey, the distance that could be travelled in a day, the title journeyman derives from the Frenchwords for day (jour and journée) from which came the middle English word journei. Journeymen were ableto work for other masters, unlike apprentices, and generally paid by the day and were thus day labourers.After being employed by a master for several years, and after producing a qualifying piece of work, theapprentice was granted the rank of journeyman and was given documents (letters or certificates from hismaster and/or the guild itself) which certified him as a journeyman and entitled him to travel to other townsand countries to learn the art from other masters. These journeys could span large parts of Europe and werean unofficial way of communicating new methods and techniques, though by no means all journeymenmade such travels - they were most common in Germany and Italy, and in other countries journeymen fromsmall cities would often visit the capital. After this journey and several years of experience, a journeymancould be received as master craftsman, though in some guilds this step could be made straight fromapprentice. This would typically require the approval of all masters of a guild, a donation of money andother goods (often omitted for sons of existing members), and the production of a so-called masterpiece,which would illustrate the abilities of the aspiring master craftsman; this was often retained by the guild.The medieval guild was established by charters or letters patent or similar authority by the city or the rulerand normally held a monopoly on trade in its craft within the city in which it operated: handicraft workerswere forbidden by law to run any business if they were not members of a guild, and only masters wereallowed to be members of a guild. Before these privileges were legislated, these groups of handicraftworkers were simply called handicraft associations. The town authorities might be represented in the guildmeetings and thus had a means of controlling the handicraft activities. This was important since towns veryoften depended on a good reputation for export of a narrow range of products, on which not only theguilds, but the towns, reputation depended. Controls on the association of physical locations to well-knownexported products, helped to establish a towns place in global commerce — this led to modern trademarks.The economic consequences of guilds have led to heated debates among European historians. Ogilvieargues that their long apprenticeships were unnecessary to acquire skills, and their conservatism reducedthe rate of innovation and made the society poorer. She says their main goal was rent seeking, that is, toshift money to the membership at the expense of the entire economy. Epstein and Praks book rejectsOgilvies conclusions. Specifically, Epstein argues that guilds were cost-sharing rather than rent-seekinginstitutions. They located and matched masters and likely apprentices through monitored learning. Whereasthe acquisition of craft skills required experience-based learning, he argues that this process necessitatedmany years in apprenticeship.ConclusionWhat we learned ?  Guild played an important role to support knowledge and skills of a specific social domain Ver 1.0 - DRAFT for discussion 26
  27. 27. LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights Andrea Vitali  Guild formalized an organizational approach based on different levels of knowledge and skills, and on three concepts seen as sequential steps in the process leading to innovation: o imitation (as demanded to apprentice)  o invention (as demanded to journeyman)  o innovation (as demanded to craftsmen)  Guild, made up by experienced and confirmed experts in their field of handicraft called master craftsmen “applied” what we know as the linear model of innovation: o research (as knowledge) o development (as apprenticeship) o production (as journeyman)  o diffusion (as journey)The Italian RenaissanceThe Renaissance10 was a cultural movement that spanned roughly the 14th to the 17th century, beginning inFlorence in the Late Middle Ages and later spreading to the rest of Europe. The term is also used moreloosely to refer to the historical era, but since the changes of the Renaissance were not uniform acrossEurope, this is a general use of the term. As a cultural movement, it encompassed a flowering of literature,science, art, religion, and politics, and a resurgence of learning based on classical sources, the developmentof linear perspective in painting, and gradual but widespread educational reform. Traditionally, thisintellectual transformation has resulted in the Renaissance being viewed as a bridge between the MiddleAges and the Modern era. Although the Renaissance saw revolutions in many intellectual pursuits, as wellas social and political upheaval, it is perhaps best known for its artistic developments and the contributionsof such polymaths as Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo, who inspired the term "Renaissance man".The Italian Renaissance11 began the opening phase of the Renaissance. Although the origins of a movementthat was confined largely to the literate culture of intellectual endeavor and patronage can be traced to theearlier part of the 14th century, many aspects of Italian culture and society remained largely Medieval; theRenaissance did not come into full swing until the end of the century. The word renaissance (Rinascimentoin Italian) means “rebirth”, and the era is best known for the renewed interest in the culture of classicalantiquity after the period that Renaissance humanists labeled the Dark Ages. The Italian Renaissance is bestknown for its cultural achievements. Accounts of Renaissance literature usually begin with Petrarch (bestknown for the elegantly polished vernacular sonnet sequence of the Canzoniere and for the craze for bookcollecting that he initiated) and his friend and contemporary Boccaccio (author of the Decameron). Famousvernacular poets of the 15th century include the renaissance epic authors Luigi Pulci (author of Morgante),Matteo Maria Boiardo (Orlando Innamorato), and Ludovico Ariosto (Orlando Furioso). 15th century writerssuch as the poet Poliziano and the Platonist philosopher Marsilio Ficino made extensive translations fromboth Latin and Greek. In the early 16th century, Castiglione (The Book of the Courtier) laid out his vision of10 Renaissance - Wikipedia11 The Italian Renaissance - Wikipedia Ver 1.0 - DRAFT for discussion 27
  28. 28. LEONARDO for Human & Environment Rights Andrea Vitalithe ideal gentleman and lady, while Machiavelli cast a jaundiced eye on "la verità effettuale della cosa"—the actual truth of things—in The Prince, composed, humanist style, chiefly of parallel ancient and modernexamples of Virtù. Italian Renaissance painting exercised a dominant influence on subsequent Europeanpainting (see Western painting) for centuries afterwards, with artists such as Giotto di Bondone, Masaccio,Piero della Francesca, Domenico Ghirlandaio, Perugino, Michelangelo, Raphael, Botticelli, Leonardo daVinci, and Titian. The same is true for architecture, as practiced by Brunelleschi, Leone Alberti, AndreaPalladio, and Bramante. Their works include Florence Cathedral, St. Peters Basilica in Rome, and the TempioMalatestiano in Rimini (to name a only a few, not to mention many splendid private residences: seeRenaissance architecture). Finally, the Aldine Press, founded by the printer Aldo Manuzio, active in Venice,developed Italic type and the small, relatively portable and inexpensive printed book that could be carried inones pocket, as well as being the first to publish editions of books in Ancient Greek.Lorenzo de Medici12 was an Italian statesman and de facto ruler of the Florentine Republic during theItalian Renaissance. Known as Lorenzo the Magnificent (Lorenzo il Magnifico) by contemporary Florentines,he was a diplomat, politician and patron of scholars, artists and poets. His life coincided with the high pointof the early Italian Renaissance; his death marked the end of the Golden Age of Florence. The fragile peacehe helped maintain between the various Italian states collapsed with his death. Lorenzo de Medici is buriedin the Medici Chapel in Florence. Lorenzos grandfather, Cosimo de Medici, was the first member of theMedici family to combine running the Medici bank with leading the Republic. Cosimo, one of the wealthiestmen in Europe, spent a very large portion of his fortune in government and philanthropy. He was a patron ofthe arts and funded public works. Lorenzos father, Piero the Gouty de Medici, was also at the center ofFlorentine life, active as an art patron and collector. His mother Lucrezia Tornabuoni was a poet and writerof sonnets. She was also a friend to figures like Luigi Pulci and Agnolo Poliziano and became her sonsadvisor when he took over power. Lorenzos court included artists such as Piero and Antonio del Pollaiuolo,Andrea del Verrocchio, Leonardo da Vinci, Sandro Botticelli, Domenico Ghirlandaio, and MichelangeloBuonarroti who were involved in the 15th century Renaissance. Although he did not commission manyworks himself, he helped them secure commissions from other patrons. Michelangelo lived with Lorenzo andhis family for five years, dining at the family table and attending meetings of the Neo-Platonic Academy.Lorenzo was an artist himself, writing poetry in his native Tuscan. Cosimo had started the collection of bookswhich became the Medici Library (also called the Laurentian Library) and Lorenzo expanded it. Lorenzosagents retrieved from the East large numbers of classical works, and he employed a large workshop to copyhis books and disseminate their content across Europe. He supported the development of humanismthrough his circle of scholarly friends who studied Greek philosophers, and attempted to merge the ideas ofPlato with Christianity; among this group were the philosophers Marsilio Ficino, Poliziano and Giovanni Picodella Mirandola.Renaissance humanism 13 was an intellectual movement in Europe of the later Middle Ages and the EarlyModern period. The 19th-century German historian Georg Voigt (1827–91) identified Petrarch as the firstRenaissance humanist. Paul Johnson agrees that Petrarch was "the first to put into words the notion thatthe centuries between the fall of Rome and the present had been the age of Darkness.” According toPetrarch, what was needed to remedy this situation was the careful study and imitation of the great12 Lorenzo de’ Medici - Wikipedia13 Humanism - Wikipedia Ver 1.0 - DRAFT for discussion 28

×