Notes:
- All literature is available online. You'll find it by searching on ub.uio.no (must be on UiO network or via kiosk.uio.no)
Required reading:
Ahuja, G. et al. (2008), “Moving beyond Schumpeter: management research on the determinants of technological innovation”, The Academy of Management Annals, 2:1-98.
Arundel, A., Casali, L., & Hollanders, H. (2015). How European public sector agencies innovate: The use of bottom-up, policy-dependent and knowledge-scanning innovation methods. Research Policy, 44(7), 1271-1282.
Bartelsman, E. J. and Doms, M. (2000): “Understanding productivity: lessons from longitudinal microdata”, Journal of Economic Literature, 38 (3): 569-594.
Castellacci, F. and Tveito, V. (2018): “Internet use and well-being: A survey and a theoretical framework”, Research Policy.
Castellacci, F. and Viñas-Bardolet, C. (2018): “Internet use and job satisfaction”, Computers in Human Behavior.
Clarysse, B., V. Tartari and A. Salter (2011), The impact of entrepreneurial capacity, experience and organizational support on academic entrepreneurship, Research Policy, 40:1084-1093.
Cohen, W.M. & Levinthal, D.A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 128-152.
Etzkowitz, H. (1998), The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages, Research Policy, 27(8):823–33.
Garud, R., P. Tuertscher & A. van de Ven. (2013), “Perspectives on innovation processes”, The Academy of Management Annals, 7:775-819.
Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Fuchs, G., Hinderer, N., Kungl, G., Mylan, J., . . . Wassermann, S. (2016). The enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: A reformulated typology and a comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon electricity transitions (1990–2014). Research Policy, 45(4), 896-913.
Grubler, A. (2012). Energy transitions research: Insights and cautionary tales. Energy Policy, 50(Supplement C), 8-16.
Gulbrandsen, M. et al. (2015), Emerging hybrid practices in public-private research centres, Public Administration, 93:363-379.
Hockerts, K., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2010). Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids - Theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 481-492
Kern, F., Smith, A., Shaw, C., Raven, R., & Verhees, B. (2014). From laggard to leader: Explaining offshore wind developments in the UK. Energy Policy, 69, 635-46.
Lundvall, B-Å. & S. Borrás (2005), “Science, technology, and innovation policy”. In Fagerberg et al. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, 599-631.
Mäkitie, T., Andersen, A. D., Hanson, J., Normann, H. E., & Thune, T. M. (2018). Established sectors expediting clean technology industries? The Norwegian oil and gas sector's influence on offshore wind power. Journal of Cleaner Production, 177.
Malerba, F. (2005): “Sectoral systems: How and why innovation differs across sectors”, in Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. and Nelson, R. (Eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Innovation.
Matt, M. et al. (2017), Opening the black box of impact – Ideal-type impact pathways in a public agricultural research organization. Research Policy, 46:207-218.
Mazzucato, M. (2013), The Entrepreneurial State. London: Anthem Press. The later edition and earlier report will also work.
Mazzucato, M. (2018), Mission-Oriented Research & Innovation in the European Union. Brussels: European Commission. Available here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/mazzucato_report_2018.pdf
O’Reilly, C. A. & Tushman, M. (2013). Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future. Academy of Management Perspectives (you can use the open access version online).
Osborne, S.P. and L. Brown. 2011. ‘Innovation, Public Policy and Public Services Delivery in the UK: The Word that Would Be King?’, Public Administration, 89, 4, 1335–50
Parmigiani, A., & Rivera-Santos, M. (2011). Clearing a path through the forest: A meta-review of interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1108-1136
Penfield, T. et al. (2014), Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: A review. Research Evaluation, 23:21-32.
Perkmann, M. et al. (2013), Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42:423-442.
Rasmussen, E. & M. Gulbrandsen (2012), “Government support programmes to promote academic entrepreneurship: a principal-agent perspective”, European Planning Studies, 20:527-546.
Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1994). Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of management review, 19(1), 90-118.
Rip, A., & Kemp, R. (1998). Technological change. Human choice and climate change, 2, 327-99.
Schot, J. & W.E. Steinmueller (2018), Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change, Research Policy, 47:1554-1567. Available here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733318301987
Thune, T. et al., 2014, Noder i kunnskapsnettverket. NIFU-rapport 23/2014.
Turnheim, B., & Geels, F. W. (2012). Regime destabilisation as the flipside of energy transitions: Lessons from the history of the British coal industry (1913–1997). Energy Policy, 50(Supplement C), 35-49.
Unsworth, K. (2001). Unpacking Creativity. The Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 289-297.
Vohora, A., M. Wright and A. Lockett (2004), Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies, Research Policy, 33:147-175.
Wieser, R. (2005): “Research and development productivity and spillovers: empirical evidence at the firm level”, Journal of Economic Surveys, 19 (4): 587-621.
Additional reading
Abreu, M. & V. Grinevich (2012), The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities, Research Policy.
Amabile, T. M. et al (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154-1184.
Arundel, A., Bloch, C., & Ferguson, B. (2018). Advancing innovation in the public sector: Aligning innovation measurement with policy goals. Research Policy.
Bekkers, R. and I.M. Bodas Freitas (2008), Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy, 37 1837–1853.
Bloggene til TIK-prosjektet OSIRIS: https://www.sv.uio.no/tik/english/research/projects/osiris/osirisblog/
Castellacci, F. (2008): ‘Technological paradigms, regimes and trajectories: manufacturing and service industries in a new taxonomy of sectoral patterns of innovation”, Research Policy, 37, 978-994.
Crepon, B., Duguet, E. and Mairesse, J. (1998): ‘Research, innovation and productivity: an econometric analysis at the firm level’, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 7 (2), 115-158
D’Este, P., & Patel, P. (2007). University–industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy, 36(9), 1295–1313.
Davis, J. P. (2016). The group dynamics of interorganizational relationships: Collaborating with multiple partners in innovation ecosystems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(4), 621-661.
Etzkowitz, H. & Loet Leydesdorff (2000), The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government relations, Research Policy, 29:109-123.
Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational Routines as a Source of Continuous Change. Organization Science, 11 (6), 611-629.
George, J. (2008). Creativity in Organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 439-477.
Gibbert, M., Scranton, P. (2009). Constraints as sources of radical innovation? Insights from jet propulsion development. Management & Organizational history, 4(4), 385-399.
Grimaldi, R., M. Kenney, D.S. Siegel & M. Wright, 2011, 30 years after Bayh-Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship, Research Policy, 40:1045-1057 Bozeman, B. (2001), Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory, Research Policy, 29:627-655.
Gulbrandsen, M. (2005), ‘But Peter’s in it for the money’: the liminality of entrepreneurial scientists, VEST Journal for Science and Technology Studies, 18:49-75.
Gulbrandsen, M. & Smeby, J.-C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, 34:932-950.
Laursen, K. & Salter, A. (2004): Searching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source of information? Research Policy, Vol. 33, pp. 1201-1215
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
Murmann, J.P. (2000), Knowledge and competitive advantage in the synthetic dye industry, 1850-1914: The coevolution of firms, technology and national institutions in Great Britain, Germany, and the United States, Enterprise & Society, 1:699-704.
Smil, V. (2010). Energy transitions : history, requirements, prospects. Santa Barbara, Calif: Praeger. (ch. 4)
Smith, A., & Raven, R. (2012). What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Research Policy, 41(6), 1025-36.
Teece, D. J., Pisano G., Shuen A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal. 18(7), 509-533.
Thune, Taran Mari & Mina, Andrea (2016). Hospitals as innovators in the health-care system: A literature review and research agenda. Research Policy. ISSN 0048-7333. 45(8), s 1545- 1557.
Westerman, G. et al. (2006). Organization Design and Effectiveness over the Innovation Life Cycle. Organization Science, 17(2), 230-238.
Wilsdon, J. et al. (2015), The Metric Tide. London: HEFCE, tilgjengelig på https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20180322112445tf_/http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/HEFCE,2014/Content/Pubs/Independentresearch/2015/The,Metric,Tide/2015_metric_tide.pdf.
About the Mazzucato book (note from Magnus)
The book can be bought online in digital and print editions. A report which the book is closely based on is available for free at http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Entrepreneurial_State_-_web.pdf. Professor Mazzucato’s web page also contains various lectures including a TED talk. Read as much of the book as you can, depending on your interests. For some the summary, introduction and conclusion may be sufficient.