Innovation: Exploring the knowledge base

Fagerberg, Jan; Fosaas, Morten; Sapprasert, Koson

doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.008

Cited by 342 publications

(215 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

168

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To address such a gap, we propose a bibliometric study that covers the years from 1985 to 2015. In fact, bibliometric studies have shown their usefulness in a broad range of fields such as management (Podsakoff et al, 2008), entrepreneurship (Landström et al, 2012;Marzi et al, 2017a;2017b), expatriates , corporate social responsibilities , supply chain ( Gonzalez-Loureiro, et al, 2015), operations management (Hsieh & Chang, 2009;Zhu et al, 2015), and innovation (Fagerberg et al, 2012;Appio et al, 2016) by helping scholars to sort the streams of research from the "tangled forest" of the scientific proliferation. Thus, the data collected in this paper covers thirty years of research in such a field allowing scholars to have a wider picture of the knowledge base created.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Product and process innovation in manufacturing firms: a 30-year bibliometric analysis

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Product and process innovation in manufacturing firms: a 30-year bibliometric analysis

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cognitive science forms its own research domain, including a set of disciplines at the intersection between neuroscience, anthropology, artificial intelligence, linguistics, philosophy, and psychology (see Thagard, 2005, p. X [sic]). Innovation appears to be used within social sciences and economic and engineering literature, with an emphasis on multi-and interdisciplinary work (see Crossan & Apaydin, 2009;Fagerberg, Fosaas, & Sapprasert, 2012). As a result, innovation has a number of definitions across and within different disciplines, often related to the "implementation of creative ideas" (Amabile, 1988, p. 126) and echoing two dimensions also used for the definition of creativity on individual levels of novelty and usefulness (see Runco & Jaeger, 2012;Stein, 1953), but typically measured on an organizational level (Sawyer & Bunderson, 2013, p. 14).…”

Section: Cognitive Innovation As a Dispositional Conceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Navigating Cognitive Innovation

Kristensen

Loesche

Maranan

2017

AVANT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper revisits the concept of Cognitive Innovation with the aim of helping newcomers appreciate its (intended) demarcating purpose and relevance to the wider literature on cognition and creativity in the humanities, arts, and sciences. Particular emphasis is paid to discussion of the pitfalls of sense-making and the concept's affordance. The main argument presented is that proponents of the concept face the dilemma of seeking to demonstrate its transdisciplinary nature and applicability vis-a-vis retaining its semantic distinctness. Proceeding from a classification of Cognitive Innovation as a dispositional construct, we discuss how it feeds into existing research approaches and opens up new sensibilities in related areas. The perspectives of temporality, interdisciplinary balancing, technology, and metatheories are proposed as promising areas for future elaboration of the function of Cognitive Innovation.

show abstract

“…It thus became intrinsically interdisciplinary 44 in nature -an intellectual 'melting pot' characterised by diversity and an eclectic borrowing of cognitive resources from others (Fagerberg et al, 2012a;Martin, 2012a). The research was primarily explorative in nature and to a large extent qualitative, with case-studies featuring prominently (Nelson, 2012, p.37).…”

Section: Avoiding Disciplinary Sclerosismentioning

confidence: 99%

Twenty Challenges for Innovation Studies

Martin

2015

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the field of innovation studies now half a century old, the occasion has been marked by several studies looking back to identify the main advances made over its lifetime. Starting from a list of 20 advances over the field's history, this discussion paper sets out 20 challenges for coming decades. At a conference in 1900, David Hilbert put forward a list of 23 unsolved mathematical problems that were to have a profound influence on the work of mathematicians during the 20 th Century. The intention here is to prompt a debate within the innovation studies community on what are, or should be, the key challenges for us to take up, and more generally on what sort of field we aspire to be. It is argued that the empirical focus of our studies has not kept pace with the fast changing world and economy, especially the shift from manufacturing to services and the growing need for sustainability. Moreover, the very way we conceptualise, define, operationalise and analyse 'innovation' seems rooted in the past, leaving us less able to grapple with other less visible or 'dark' forms of innovation.Keywords: innovation studies; science policy; challenges; achievements; dark innovation Acknowledgements A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the Lundvall symposium held at Aalborg University in February 2012. A short version (based on 15 challenges rather than 20) is being published, along with other contributions to that event, in a book on The Future of Innovation Studies (Fagerberg et al., 2013).

show abstract

Innovation: Exploring the knowledge base

Cited by 342 publications

References 29 publications

Product and process innovation in manufacturing firms: a 30-year bibliometric analysis

Product and process innovation in manufacturing firms: a 30-year bibliometric analysis

Navigating Cognitive Innovation

Twenty Challenges for Innovation Studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About