Innovation has become a buzzword in
academic journals, popular media, corporate promotional materials and
government strategies.
The word has expanded from a noun to various hyphenated transmutations. Thus, today we don’t only talk of the importance of innovation to societies, but often of specific types of innovation too, such as green innovation, social innovation, open innovation. The innovation jargon has also expanded to innovation corridors, clusters, poles, and valleys, and to “disruptive”, “radical” and “incremental”.
Not surprisingly then, the average policymaker finds him or herself lost in the maze of innovation studies jargon. Academics and researchers concerned with innovation have produced a new genre of literature that is difficult to use to generate effective policy. In fact, little in the way of standard public policy analysis finds its way into innovation policy work, and hence too often the political, social, and economic feasibility of many recommendations are not taken into consideration.
One reason for this is the tendency of many innovation policy analysts to focus primarily on the big picture, such as the industrial structures of nations, their business cultures, education systems, and legislative frameworks. As a result, governments are often offered recommendations requiring some major socio-economic changes, ranging from calls to overhaul existing educational systems, to calls for centralising or decentralising governance structures. The malleability, risks and costs of such recommendations often go unnoticed, and the policymaker becomes either sceptical or dismissive, despite the validity of many such calls.
To read the full, original article click on this link: Science|Business Lost in Innovation
Author: Sami Mahroum
