Series
Globelics Academy

Permanent Link
https://hdl.handle.net/1853/70889
Series Type
Event Series
Description
Associated Organization(s)
Associated Organization(s)
Organizational Unit
Organizational Unit

Filters

2004 - 2005 6
6
6
6 2 2
6
6
Reset filters

Settings
Author: Mowery, David C. ×

Publication Search Results

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Historical Perspectives on National Systems of Innovation
    (Georgia Institute of Technology, 2005) Mowery, David C.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Universities in National Innovation Systems
    (Georgia Institute of Technology, 2005) Mowery, David C.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Universities in National Innovation Systems
    (Georgia Institute of Technology, 2004) Mowery, David C.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Historical Perspectives on National Innovation Systems
    (Georgia Institute of Technology, 2004) Mowery, David C.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Universities in national innovation systems
    (Georgia Institute of Technology, 2004) Sampat, Bhaven N. ; Mowery, David C.
    The research university plays an important role as a source of fundamental knowledge and, occasionally, industrially relevant technology in modern knowledge-based economies. In recognition of this fact, governments throughout the industrialized world have launched numerous initiatives since the 1970s to link universities to industrial innovation more closely. Many of these initiatives seek to spur local economic development based on university research, e.g., by creating “science parks” located nearby research university campuses, support for “business incubators” and public “seed capital” funds, and the organization of other forms of “bridging institutions” that are believed to link universities to industrial innovation. Other efforts are modeled on a U.S. law, the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, that is widely (if perhaps incorrectly) credited with improving university-industry collaboration and technology transfer in the U.S. national innovation system. This chapter examines the roles of universities in industrial-economy national innovation systems, the complex institutional landscapes that influence the creation, development, and dissemination of innovations.The inclusion of a chapter on university research in a volume on innovation is itself an innovation—it is likely that a similar handbook published two decades ago would have devoted far less attention to the role of universities in industrial innovation. But scholarship on the role of universities in the innovation process, as opposed to their role in basic research, has grown rapidly since 1970. One important theme in this research is the re-conceptualization of universities as important institutional actors in national and regional systems of innovation. Rather than “ivory towers” devoted to the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, a growing number of industrial-economy and developing-economy governments seek to use universities as instruments for knowledge-based economic development and change.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Innovation Through Time
    (Georgia Institute of Technology, 2004) Bruland, Kristine ; Mowery, David C.
    Most analysts of innovation emphasize the importance of a historical approach, with good reason. First, innovation is time consuming, based on conjectures about the future, and its outcomes typically are uncertain for long periods. Analysis of any innovation therefore requires an understanding of its history. Second, innovative capabilities are developed through complex, cumulative processes of learning. Finally, innovation processes are shaped by social contexts, as Lazonick has pointed out: “The social conditions affecting innovation change over time and vary across productive activities; hence theoretical analysis of the innovative enterprise must be integrated with historical study.” Historical patterns of innovation are characterized by complexity, reflecting the heterogeneous nature of economic activity, and diversity of processes of technology creation across sectors and countries. These characteristics make it problematic to construct overarching schemas of historical development. Nevertheless, some historians and analysts of innovation have developed taxonomies of epochs, often based on “critical technologies” that define whole periods of development. One form of this is the wave theory proposed by Schumpeter in Business Cycles, in which steam power drove the first industrial revolution, electricity the second industrial revolution, and so on. Other work that does not rely on wave theories also stresses the role of a small number of technologies in driving broader processes of economic growth. Although valuable, many of these frameworks overemphasize the importance of the allegedly critical technologies while slighting other areas of innovation and economic activity that are no less important. In what follows we challenge some of the historical discussions that stress the transformative effects of ‘critical innovations’. Instead, we emphasize the complex multisectoral character of innovation, and hence the need to take seriously the co-existence of a range of innovation modes, institutional processes, and organizational forms.