Institutional change and innovation system transformation: A tale of two academies

Karaulova, Maria; Shackleton, Oliver; Liu, Weishu; Gök, Abdullah; Shapira, Philip

doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.10.018

Cited by 16 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 88 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, the contemporary Russian research system is heavily path‐dependent on its Soviet predecessor (Karaulova, Gök, Shackleton, & Shapira, ; Karaulova, Shackleton, Liu, Gök, & Shapira, ). Russia is a multiethnic and multifaith country, yet in research and innovation it is appropriate to discuss post‐Soviet Russian heritage .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying author heritage using surname data: An application for Russian surnames

Karaulova

Gök

Shapira

2019

Asso for Info Science & Tech

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research article puts forward a method to identify the national heritage of authors based on the morphology of their surnames. Most studies in the field use variants of dictionary‐based surname methods to identify ethnic communities, an approach that suffers from methodological limitations. Using the public file of ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) identifiers in 2015, we developed a surname‐based identification method and applied it to infer Russian heritage from suffix‐based morphological regularities. The method was developed conceptually and tested in an undersampled control set. Identification based on surname morphology was then complemented by using first‐name data to eliminate false‐positive results. The method achieved 98% precision and 94% recall rates—superior to most other methods that use name data. The procedure can be adapted to identify the heritage of a variety of national groups with morphologically regular naming traditions. We elaborate on how the method can be employed to overcome long‐standing limitations of using name data in bibliometric datasets. This identification method can contribute to advancing research in scientific mobility and migration, patenting by certain groups, publishing and collaboration, transnational and scientific diaspora links, and the effects of diversity on the innovative performance of organizations, regions, and countries.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying author heritage using surname data: An application for Russian surnames

Karaulova

Gök

Shapira

2019

Asso for Info Science & Tech

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Control policies (Buck and Rath 1970 ; Harding 2000 ; Hart 2001 ; George and Prabhu 2003 ; Molnár 2004 ; Na et al 2007 ; Vermeulen et al 2007a , b ; Vasudeva 2009 ; Niosi 2010 ; Liu et al 2011 ; Andrew 2012 ; Doblinger et al 2016 ; Karaulova et al 2017 ; Corsini et al 2018 ; Kapetaniou et al 2018 ; May and Schedelik 2019 ; Allen et al 2020 ; Oborn et al 2021 )…”

Section: Main Determinants Of Institutional Innovationunclassified

“…Governance (Shang and Fagan 2006 ; Yoshikawa et al 2007 ; Pascucci and De Magistris 2011 ; Karaulova et al 2017 ; Yang and Al-Sayed 2021 )…”

Section: Main Determinants Of Institutional Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Systematic review of institutional innovation literature: towards a multi-level management model

AlMalki

Durugbo

2022

Manag Rev Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Institutional innovation creates smart institutions that idiosyncratically thrive in a world of exponential change. Through policy-driven interventions and experiential learning, managers of institutions become adept at delivering praxis- and crisis-driven innovations required for survival and success. Similarly, the management of institutional innovation remains an interest in research due to links of this form of innovation to economic growth, and the demands of on-going major socioeconomic transformations due to technological advances, increased occurrences of major crises, and emerging socioeconomic challenges. Accordingly, a key question arising from the literature concerns the range of determinants and priorities that influence institutional innovation for delivering society value. Thus, the onus is on scholarship to capture and advance knowledge for harnessing the potency of institutional innovation. The purpose of this article is to analyse the current state of research on institutional innovation. Using the systematic review methodology, we identify and critically appraise 485 peer-reviewed scientific publications between 1969 and 2021. The review finds key determinants and management priorities with a view to developing a multi-level management model of institutional innovation. Guided by insights from the review, the article sets a research agenda for future management studies of institutional innovation.

show abstract

“…He also states that learning from experience may feed wisdom and that learning societies where men and women are expected to contribute to the production and use of knowledge are to be preferred to societies where only small intellectual elites produce knowledge. An interesting case in this regard is that of Russia, a country that shows a declining share of nano papers in spite of an increase in research funding (Terekhov, 2017) and a rigid academic structure that does not allow newcomers nor does engage in collaborations with the private sector (Karaulova et al, 2017). Also important in the field of nanotechnology is the performance of Asian countries that Ludvall (2017) deems crucial for the world economic growth.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction to nanotechnology in eco-efficient construction

Pacheco-Torgal

2019

Nanotechnology in Eco-Efficient Construction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past decades, nanotechnology which is not considered a sector by itself but a highly dispersed multidisciplinary area has been on a rise not only in terms of papers and patents but also in terms of applications. A review on paper and patent production for the period 2000e16 shows that United States is the dominant player both in publications in top journals and also in patents although China has shown a relevant growth (Zhu et al., 2017). A recent survey has tracked the patent production in the field of nanotechnology (Ozcan and Islam, 2017), using the patent provider Thomson Innovation. The study shows that there are around 50,000 patent inventions, of which around 30,000 are owned by corporations, around 14,000 by inventors, around 11,000 by academia, and almost 2,000 by government. The shared patents explain the difference in the total. Of course, as Fig. 1 in the paper of Ozcan and Islam (2017) shows, different countries show different proportion of owners in the patent production. Inventors are the majority of the owners in United States. With regard to corporates, the United States and Japan have similar levels of patent ownership. France, for instance, has a higher proportion of government ownership, while in China its academia has the largest proportion. Of course it is important to take into account the method used for patent retrieval because the authors point out that there are some patents on the nanotechnology class that are not related to this field. Sabatier and Chollet (2017) using bibliometric data and a survey of French nanotechnology scientists showed that promoting groundbreaking , innovative research provides an important advantage for future scientific production. However, it is important not to overemphasize the importance of patents because van Raan (2017) showed that only a small amount of patents represent important, "radical," technological breakthroughs. Also in an important essay, Archibugi (2017) mentioned that intellectual property rights may delay the diffusion of knowledge and that disruption by itself does not necessarily lead to progress or to greater economic efficiency, and if it is not properly managed it can lead not only to company losses, but to societal damages as well. In fact, Shapira and Youtie (2015) mentioned that many nanotech sales forecasts were adjusted downwards because some of the promised scale benefits are unlikely to be realized. On one hand complex nanomaterials may not be very environmental friendly and life cycle assessment (LCA) may require further Nanotechnology in Eco-efficient Construction.

show abstract

Institutional change and innovation system transformation: A tale of two academies

Cited by 16 publications

References 88 publications

Identifying author heritage using surname data: An application for Russian surnames

Identifying author heritage using surname data: An application for Russian surnames

Systematic review of institutional innovation literature: towards a multi-level management model

Introduction to nanotechnology in eco-efficient construction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About