Schools of innovation thought

Cristina Mele, Tiziana Russo-Spena, Maaria Nuutinen, Katri Kallio

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter or book articleProfessional

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This chapter aims to start a debate about the underlying assumptions of innovation schools (research traditions) in which various frameworks and models have been developed. By identifying the social science research dimensions in innovation studies, we highlight three schools of innovation thought: (1) linear and planned, (2) iterative and interactive, and (3) practice based. A common perspective emerges within each school with regard to how scholars recognize themselves as a research community (sociological) and set meanings and purposes in focusing on social phenomena (teleological) according to specific beliefs about the nature and the structure of these phenomena (ontological) that in turn influence the knowledge scholars can obtain about them (epistemological). The overall process of grasping social reality is affected by researchers' values and axiological skills (ethical). Our main claims are that we should be more aware of the epistemological and ontological assumptions of our research, and we should make those assumptions more explicit. In these ways, we cannot only recognize limitations but also be confident when various stances are working "well enough" for practical purposes. Such knowledge creates paths toward new innovation frameworks that reflect the complexity of innovation phenomena and create better conditions for innovation theorizing.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationInnovating in Practice
Subtitle of host publicationPerspectives and Experiences
PublisherSpringer
Pages13-41
Number of pages29
ISBN (Electronic)9783319433806
ISBN (Print)978-3-319-43378-3, 978-3-319-43380-6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2016
MoE publication typeD2 Article in professional manuals or guides or professional information systems or text book material

Fingerprint

innovation
school
school research
social reality
Innovation
social science
community
Values

Cite this

Mele, C., Russo-Spena, T., Nuutinen, M., & Kallio, K. (2016). Schools of innovation thought. In Innovating in Practice: Perspectives and Experiences (pp. 13-41). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43380-6_2
Mele, Cristina ; Russo-Spena, Tiziana ; Nuutinen, Maaria ; Kallio, Katri. / Schools of innovation thought. Innovating in Practice: Perspectives and Experiences. Springer, 2016. pp. 13-41
@inbook{0ce9b7a3cdca478abb8351202b2feb2d,
title = "Schools of innovation thought",
abstract = "This chapter aims to start a debate about the underlying assumptions of innovation schools (research traditions) in which various frameworks and models have been developed. By identifying the social science research dimensions in innovation studies, we highlight three schools of innovation thought: (1) linear and planned, (2) iterative and interactive, and (3) practice based. A common perspective emerges within each school with regard to how scholars recognize themselves as a research community (sociological) and set meanings and purposes in focusing on social phenomena (teleological) according to specific beliefs about the nature and the structure of these phenomena (ontological) that in turn influence the knowledge scholars can obtain about them (epistemological). The overall process of grasping social reality is affected by researchers' values and axiological skills (ethical). Our main claims are that we should be more aware of the epistemological and ontological assumptions of our research, and we should make those assumptions more explicit. In these ways, we cannot only recognize limitations but also be confident when various stances are working {"}well enough{"} for practical purposes. Such knowledge creates paths toward new innovation frameworks that reflect the complexity of innovation phenomena and create better conditions for innovation theorizing.",
author = "Cristina Mele and Tiziana Russo-Spena and Maaria Nuutinen and Katri Kallio",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/978-3-319-43380-6_2",
language = "English",
isbn = "978-3-319-43378-3",
pages = "13--41",
booktitle = "Innovating in Practice",
publisher = "Springer",
address = "Germany",

}

Mele, C, Russo-Spena, T, Nuutinen, M & Kallio, K 2016, Schools of innovation thought. in Innovating in Practice: Perspectives and Experiences. Springer, pp. 13-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43380-6_2

Schools of innovation thought. / Mele, Cristina; Russo-Spena, Tiziana; Nuutinen, Maaria; Kallio, Katri.

Innovating in Practice: Perspectives and Experiences. Springer, 2016. p. 13-41.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter or book articleProfessional

TY - CHAP

T1 - Schools of innovation thought

AU - Mele, Cristina

AU - Russo-Spena, Tiziana

AU - Nuutinen, Maaria

AU - Kallio, Katri

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - This chapter aims to start a debate about the underlying assumptions of innovation schools (research traditions) in which various frameworks and models have been developed. By identifying the social science research dimensions in innovation studies, we highlight three schools of innovation thought: (1) linear and planned, (2) iterative and interactive, and (3) practice based. A common perspective emerges within each school with regard to how scholars recognize themselves as a research community (sociological) and set meanings and purposes in focusing on social phenomena (teleological) according to specific beliefs about the nature and the structure of these phenomena (ontological) that in turn influence the knowledge scholars can obtain about them (epistemological). The overall process of grasping social reality is affected by researchers' values and axiological skills (ethical). Our main claims are that we should be more aware of the epistemological and ontological assumptions of our research, and we should make those assumptions more explicit. In these ways, we cannot only recognize limitations but also be confident when various stances are working "well enough" for practical purposes. Such knowledge creates paths toward new innovation frameworks that reflect the complexity of innovation phenomena and create better conditions for innovation theorizing.

AB - This chapter aims to start a debate about the underlying assumptions of innovation schools (research traditions) in which various frameworks and models have been developed. By identifying the social science research dimensions in innovation studies, we highlight three schools of innovation thought: (1) linear and planned, (2) iterative and interactive, and (3) practice based. A common perspective emerges within each school with regard to how scholars recognize themselves as a research community (sociological) and set meanings and purposes in focusing on social phenomena (teleological) according to specific beliefs about the nature and the structure of these phenomena (ontological) that in turn influence the knowledge scholars can obtain about them (epistemological). The overall process of grasping social reality is affected by researchers' values and axiological skills (ethical). Our main claims are that we should be more aware of the epistemological and ontological assumptions of our research, and we should make those assumptions more explicit. In these ways, we cannot only recognize limitations but also be confident when various stances are working "well enough" for practical purposes. Such knowledge creates paths toward new innovation frameworks that reflect the complexity of innovation phenomena and create better conditions for innovation theorizing.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85009659119&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/978-3-319-43380-6_2

DO - 10.1007/978-3-319-43380-6_2

M3 - Chapter or book article

SN - 978-3-319-43378-3

SN - 978-3-319-43380-6

SP - 13

EP - 41

BT - Innovating in Practice

PB - Springer

ER -

Mele C, Russo-Spena T, Nuutinen M, Kallio K. Schools of innovation thought. In Innovating in Practice: Perspectives and Experiences. Springer. 2016. p. 13-41 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43380-6_2