Innovation studies in the 21st century

By Ruud E. H. M. Smits. 2002

302 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management of Technology and Innovation, Management Science and Operations Research, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/518f3fa8bb22970607d12217ce4ff9446ec89c04

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Management of Technology and Innovation

1. L. Klerkx
2. C. Leeuwis
3. A. Hall
4. Marko P. Hekkert
5. J. Edler
6. Harri Jalonen
7. C. Kilelu
8. Luke Georghiou

In Management Science and Operations Research

1. L. Klerkx
2. Elvira Uyarra
3. J. Edler
4. C. Leeuwis
5. Marko P. Hekkert
6. Harri Jalonen
7. Luke Georghiou
8. A. Hall

In Strategy and Management

1. L. Klerkx
2. C. Leeuwis
3. Elvira Uyarra
4. J. Edler
5. A. Hall
6. C. Kilelu
7. Marko P. Hekkert
8. Luke Georghiou

Citations in the corpus

• Public procurement and innovation?Resurrecting the demand side (2007, background): “This cursory overview indicates that despite the inclusion of the user-perspective in innovation literature (Lundvall, 1988, 1992; for an overview, see Smits, 2002), conceptually very little consideration is paid to demand in innovation policy—while supply-side measures are highly differentiated.”
• Beyond knowledge brokering: an exploratory study on innovation intermediaries in an evolving smallholder agricultural system in Kenya (2011, background): “This corresponds with current thinking that supporting innovation goes beyond increasing the supply of new scientific knowledge and technologies, but rather emerges out of the interplay between scientific, technological, socio-economic, institutional, and organizational arrangements (Smits 2002).”
• Evaluating the demand side: New challenges for evaluation (2012, background): “Both call for public action to support articulation of demand – in the public and the private sector (Smits, 2002).”
• Strengthening Agricultural Innovation Capacity: Are Innovation Brokers the Answer? (2009, background): “This so-called OVO-triptych (meaning Research-Extension-Education triptych) has been credited as a key factor in the development of innovative capacity within Dutch agriculture and making it an important player in the global agricultural scene (Roseboom & Rutten, 1998; Smits, 2002).”
• Behavioural responses to photovoltaic systems in the UK domestic sector (2007, unknown): “Therefore coordinating the goals of users and producers is increasingly important in the design of innovations (Smits 2002).”
• Unravelling the role of innovation platforms in supporting co-evolution of innovation: Contributions and tensions in a smallholder dairy development programme (2013, background): “However , co-evolution does not mean seamless and smooth evolution, but is accompanied by tensions and sometimes incongruent actions that affect the outcomes of complex innovation processes (Leeuwis and Aarts, 2011; Smits, 2002 ).”
• The Uncertainty of Innovation: A Systematic Review of the Literature (2011, background): “From the process perspective, innovation is typically seen as an interplay between events and people in which actions at each stage of the process influence events in subsequent stages, which determine whether the innovation process will continue or not (e.g. Cooper 1998; Smits 2002).”
• Competing Claims on Natural Resources: What Role for Science? (2008, background): “A more encompassing approach such as this reflects current thinking on innovation and transition (Smits 2002 ,Berkhout et al. 2003, Grin et al. 2004).”
• Roles of Systemic Intermediaries in Transition Processes (2003, background): “The growing importance of intermediaries in innovation processes relates to a key trend of the last decades to involve more actors and factors in R&D activities (Smits, 2002).”