The reconstruction of innovative studies – selected mechanisms
 
Więcej
Ukryj
1
Uniwersytet w Białymstoku Instytut Socjologii i Kognitywistyki Zakład Epistemologii i Kognitywistyki
Data publikacji: 16-11-2017
 
JoMS 2017;34(3):197–208
SŁOWA KLUCZOWE:
STRESZCZENIE ARTYKUŁU:
The aim of the article is the reconstruction of innovation studies. The object of analysis will be selected knowledge forming mechanisms applied within this scientific area. There will be made an attempt to prove that the idea of innovation was used as the element of hegemonic strategy imposed by international organizations in order to maintain the existing rules of social reproduction. The methodological perspective adopted in the analysis is the constructivist model of cognition, among others, represented by A. Zybertowicz. According to it, the knowledge is determined by the circumstances and mechanisms of the social structures acting in the processes of converting interpretation into facts. Consequently, one is searching for the answer to a question: what role in this process play institutions of the power and money and their rhetorical devices. The research problem is analysed through the prism of two mechanisms: the motion of selective tradition and the strategy of expertise involved. Analysis of existing data and organizations’ reports, reveals that associates of the organizations, e.g. Ch. Freeman, constructed knowledge about the innovation on the foundation of ideological pre assumptions entered in their mission. Also the mechanism of selective tradition had no basis in the form of scientific research in the area of innovation studies, still it was applied due to the hegemonic rationality of the international actors. Therefore, in the field of innovation studies, the knowledge does not perform teleological function nor reach the essence of things, which in scientific cognition is the true, but allows to maintain the state of hegemony for prevailing classes. Paradoxically, innovation studies does not provide much information about innovativeness itself.
 
REFERENCJE (20):
1. Apple, M.W. (1990). Ideology and curriculum, New York: Routledge.
2. Boggs, C. (1961). Gramsci’s marxism, London: Pluto Press.
3. Bourdieu, P. (1972). Outline of a theory of practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Dewey, J. (1981). Public and its problems. The later works of John Dewey, vol. 2. J.A. Boydston (ed.), Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
5. Eklund, M. (2007). Adoption of the innovation system concept in Sweden, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala Studies in Economic History 81, p. 158.
6. Fagerberg, J., Verspagen, B. (2006). Innovation studies – an emerging discipline (or what)? A study of the Global Network of Innovation Scholars, Paper presented at The Future of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Conference, Sussex.
7. Freeman, Ch. (1974). The economics of industrial innovation, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
8. Gramsci, A. (1961). Pisma wybrane vol. 1, Warszawa: Książka i Wiedza.
9. Gramsci, A. (2000). The Antonio Gramsci reader: Selected writings 1916–1935, [in:] D. Forgacs, E. Hobsbawm (eds.), New York: New York University Press.
10. Hayrinen-Alestalo, M. (2001). Is knowledge-based society a relevant strategy for civil society?, Current Sociology 49, p. 203–218.
11. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1983). Scientific communities or transepistemic arenas of research? A critique of quasi-economic models of science, „Social Studies of Science” 12, p. 101–113.
12. Kraemer-Mbula, E., Wamae, W. (2010). Innovation and the development agenda, Paris: OECD.
13. Lundvall, B.-Å., Tomlinson, M. (2002). International benchmarking as a policy learning tool, [in:] M.J. Rodriques (ed.), The new economy in Europe, Cheltenham: Edwar Elgar Publishing.
14. Miettinen, R. (2012). Innovation, human capabilities, and democracy. Towards an enabling Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Niosi, J. (2002). National systems of innovation are ‘x-efficient’ (and x-effective). Why some are so slow learners?, „Research Policy” 31, p. 291–302.
16. Rogers, E.M. (1962). The diffusion of innovation, New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
17. Sojak, R., Wincenty, D. (2005). Zagubiona rzeczywistość. O społecznym konstruowaniu niewiedzy, Warszawa: Oficyna Naukowa.
18. Williams, R. (1977). Marxism and literature, Oxford–New York: Oxford University Press.
19. Wróblewski, M. (2014). Wierni jako zasób kontr-hegemoniczny. Spór o krzyż w kontekście teorii hegemonii, „Kultura Popularna” 1, p. 14–36.
20. Zybertowicz, A. (1995). Przemoc i poznanie. Studium z nie-klasycznej socjologii wiedzy, Toruń: Nicolaus Copernicus University Press.

eISSN:2391-789X
ISSN:1734-2031