scholarly journals Ensuring Social Impact at Every Stage of Technology Research & Development

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (03) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy Pesner

Although the United States national innovation system has produced many technologies, their benefits are not evenly distributed across the country’s population. This stands in direct contrast to the aims of government, which frequently funds science research for the purpose of social benefit. This paper first undertakes a deep reconsideration of the US national innovation system, and then reframes it as a collective impact initiative in order to coordinate every one of its contributors around this goal. It begins by tracing the origins of the longstanding tensions between science undertaken for the sakes of science inquiry versus societal benefit. It then discusses the inadequacies of practices meant to bridge science outcomes and societal needs like the broader impacts and technology transfer. It concludes by proposing a significant expansion of the stakeholders that evaluate the proposals and outcomes of federally funded research. This integrates diverse public participation into the proposal selection process, research discussions, and technology transfer to ensure that universal social impact is routinely considered.

2020 ◽  
Vol 127 ◽  
pp. 109879 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marina Domingues Fernandes ◽  
Victor Bistritzki ◽  
Rosana Zacarias Domingues ◽  
Tulio Matencio ◽  
Márcia Rapini ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (8-9) ◽  
pp. 943-947 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marta Soler ◽  
Aitor Gómez

Social science research has been attacked by neoliberal thinkers who allege that such research lacks economic objectives. In the face of neoliberal and positivist criteria for evaluating the social impact of social science inquiry, social science researchers are developing qualitative evaluation methodologies through which we can have direct contact with citizens. These qualitative methodologies declare our social responsibility as social researchers in addressing relevant problems, especially those affecting the most vulnerable people. From these qualitative methodologies, the most vulnerable groups are included in the assessment of the social impacts of social research. Some examples of people who have participated in this qualitative evaluation include women, youth, immigrants, and Roma organizations. Participants perceived social science researchers as being far from their social reality, but in this research, they began to overcome their skepticism that social science research can help to solve those problems affecting their everyday lives.


2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (01) ◽  
pp. 5-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mie Augier ◽  
Jerry Guo ◽  
Harry Rowen

ABSTRACT This paper discusses some aspects of innovation in China. As China seeks to transition to a knowledge-based economy, it may become more important for China to develop innovative technologies to sustain economic growth. How do China's history, culture, institutions, and organizations aid or hinder innovation? How does China's national innovation system compare to the innovation culture in the US, as well as other developed and emerging economies? What are the prospects for the future of the Chinese national innovation system? Our starting point is the Needham Puzzle – the paradox that while China was once a world leader in technological development, it fell behind; the Industrial Revolution happened in Europe rather than in China. Potential explanations for the Needham Puzzle may shed light on the challenges facing innovation in modern China. We identify three factors that might help explain the Needham Puzzle; assess how the Needham Puzzle and Chinese culture and history have affected the modern innovation system; discuss comparative aspects of innovation ecosystems in the United States and elsewhere; and suggest that Chinese innovation emphasizes exploitation and refinement of existing knowledge to the exploration and development of new knowledge. We also discuss implications for the future of innovation in China.


2012 ◽  
Vol 09 (06) ◽  
pp. 1250044 ◽  
Author(s):  
MASAHIRO HASHIMOTO ◽  
YUYA KAJIKAWA ◽  
ICHIRO SAKATA ◽  
YOSHIYUKI TAKEDA ◽  
KATSUMORI MATSUSHIMA

Academic landscape of innovation research was analyzed by citation network analysis, which was divided into three main clusters; with "technological innovation" as the central core together with "innovation fundamentals" and "innovation management". Historically, research on innovation started from innovation management, such as innovational organization research, but research in the other two cluster areas is currently more active. With this background, we prepared a historical overview of national innovation system policy in Japan and the United States. Finally, we compared the trend of global innovation research with that of the national innovation systems in Japan and the United States.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-146
Author(s):  
Štefan Luby ◽  
Ivan Chodák ◽  
Martina Lubyová

The performance of European Union in terms of R&D investment, innovations, and educational attainments generally lags behind that of its main competitors - the United States and Japan. Within the EU, the new member states from Central and Eastern Europe belong to the group of moderate innovators. As technology is the key component of the innovation system of the 2nd generation, this paper is dedicated to discussing the methods of technology transfer applied by innovation leaders in the EU (e.g. Germany or Finland) and to identifying the factors that may represent the main stumbling blocks in the way of more effective innovation procedures in the new member states (e.g. Governments´ preferences for FDI that is attracted by the relatively cheap and skilled labour force; investors´ preferences for using know-how developed in their home countries; the absence of venture capital available for R&D and technology transfers, etc.). As the situation in the new member states begins to change - wages are growing and the countries are building new research infrastructure with the help of the EU funds - a new innovation and TT paradigm enters the stage. We discuss the ways of coping with these new challenges – such as better governance in the field of patents, extended education of students in the field of innovative competences and entrepreneurial skills, deeper understanding of the operations of industry technology transfer organizations and improved access to venture capital.


2020 ◽  
pp. 97-104
Author(s):  
Oleksandr Davydiuk

Problem setting. The fact of significant technological lag of the national economy of Ukraine from the countries of the European Union and South and North America is obvious. In addition to the economic components of this trend, of great importance is the lack of necessary organizational and regulatory prerequisites for the mass dissemination of technology transfer and development of public relations for their creation, transfer of rights and implementation in the productive sector of the economy. The current legislation that regulates innovation and determines the status of technology, unfortunately, is a branch of law that has been implemented under the influence of global trends in the spread of these processes and is not the result of natural development of society and business practices. Given the leading, initiating role of innovation legislation, the requirements of which create the preconditions for the development of innovative legal relations, legal science faces an extremely important task – to form such an effective and efficient concept of legal regulation of relations that mediate the circulation of technologies that would interest businesses intensive exchange of scientific developments and their more mass bringing to the level of specific production equipment, machinery, machines and mechanisms. Analysis of recent researches and publications in the work were investigated the works of scientists such as Yu. Ye. Atamanova, O. D. Svyatotsky, P. P. Krainev, S. F. Revutsky, S. Yu. Poguliayev, K. Yu. Ivanova, O. V. Hladka, A. I. Denisov etc. Article’s main body. Elements that are part of the technology transfer subsystem: relationships, subjects and objects. Relations that are part of the structure of the technology transfer subsystem of the National Innovation System: (1) Relations within the technology market; (2) Relations within the public-law sector of technology transfer; (3) Relationships involving unorganized ways of creating, transferring and implementing technologies. All entities involved in the technology transfer subsystem of the National Innovative System can be characterized as follows: (a) the author (developer) of the technology; (b) the owner of the object of intellectual property rights (owner of property rights to the object of intellectual property rights) on the basis of which the technology is developed; (c) the recipient of the technology (business entity in which the technology is embodied in the integral property complex); (d) the customer of the technology development process; (e) the state, represented by the authorized bodies of state power, which carries out public administration within the framework of the state technological policy; (f) local governments that, within their competence, influence the specifics of technology transfer within one or more settlements; (g) the investor, the person at whose expense the process of development and further implementation of the technology takes place and is implemented; (h) professional participants (specialized and professional intermediaries), which should include technology brokers, legal entities and individuals providing services related to the use of technology etc. The following forms of technology participation in economic legal relations can act as objects of the technology transfer subsystem of the National Innovative System, namely: (a) material embodiment of technology in the form of an integral technological line and / or experimental design of technology; (b) information implementation of the technology; (c) an integral property complex of the business entity to the production assets of which the technology has already been implemented; (d) technology as an innovative product; (e) technology as an innovative product that is both commodityfunctional and production (industrial) nature. Conclusions and prospects for development. (1) The main areas of improvement of the current legislation of Ukraine regulating relations in the field of technology circulation are: (a) determination of the legal status of subjects and participants of relations related to the creation, transfer of rights and implementation of such objects; (b) creation of normative “tools” for protection of the rights and legitimate interests of subjects and participants of relations related to the circulation of technologies; (c) creation of a normative field that establishes the list and procedure for the functioning of the organizational principles of the technology market (means of state influence, determination of the limits of such influence, the general procedure for implementation). (2) The necessity of adopting an additional new Law of Ukraine “On Technologies in Ukraine”, which will contain all the necessary regulations that will determine the economic and legal mechanism for regulating relations related to the creation, transfer of rights and implementation of technologies and / or its components, which in fact remained outside the subject of regulation of current regulations. (3) It is proposed to enshrine in the current legislation of Ukraine, in a normative document not lower than the level of the Law of Ukraine, an updated concept of the National Innovative System, which would reflect all relevant features of understanding its structure and interaction; (4) To determine in the current legislation of Ukraine the legal status of the technology transfer subsystem as a separate element of the National Innovation System; (5) To fix in the Law of Ukraine “On state regulation of activities in the field of technology transfer” a list of elements of the subsystem of technology transfer of the National Innovation System, for more adequate formation of long-term legislation, which should serve as a guideline for regulatory impact as an integral object of legal regulation by authorized public authorities.


10.26458/1921 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 25-50
Author(s):  
Vita JUKNEVICIENE

Innovations play the crucial role in the economic growth in modern countries. It requires the technological progress and smart people as two main resources, needed for the actors in the national innovation system. Results of the national innovation system depend on the national innovation policy: its goals and priorities set in the agenda, policy formulation and adoption, its implementation process and its correction after the evaluation. But despite of the same stages of the public policy cycle, some countries implement the successful innovation policy (gain competitive advantage and the economic-social benefit from it) and some countries struggle (they try to catch-up other countries in the field of innovations).Lithuania as a small developed country in the EU has made a huge progress in terms of economics, social and technological advantage. However, despite of declared goals of innovation policy and the priorities in national strategies, governmental funding, promotion and support, the national progress in innovations in Lithuania still remains low. Therefore, stimulus and barriers for the successful implementation of Lithuanian innovation policy should be identified and analyzed, looking for problems and possible solutions. This paper aims to explain main theoretical implications about the successful implementation of innovation policy and to reveal how it is reflected in the case of national innovation policy in Lithuania. Scientific methods of the literature analysis, document analysis, secondary data analysis, summarizing, and interpretation are used in the research.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document