This handbook looks to provide academics and students with a comprehensive and holistic understanding of the phenomenon of innovation. Innovation spans a number of fields within the social sciences and humanities: Management, Economics, Geography, Sociology, Politics, Psychology, and History. Consequently, the rapidly increasing body of literature on innovation is characterized by a multitude of perspectives based on, or cutting across, existing disciplines and specializations. Scholars of innovation can come from such diverse starting points that much of this literature can be missed, and so constructive dialogues missed. The editors of The Oxford Handbook of Innovation have carefully selected and designed twenty-one contributions from leading academic experts within their particular field, each focusing on a specific aspect of innovation. These have been organized into four main sections, the first of which looks at the creation of innovations, with particular focus on firms and networks. Section Two provides an account of the wider systematic setting influencing innovation and the role of institutions and organizations in this context. Section Three explores some of the diversity in the working of innovation over time and across different sectors of the economy, and Section Four focuses on the consequences of innovation with respect to economic growth, international competitiveness, and employment. An introductory overview, concluding remarks, and guide to further reading for each chapter, make this handbook a key introduction and vital reference work for researchers, academics, and advanced students of innovation. Contributors to this volume - Jan Fagerberg, University of Oslo William Lazonick, INSEAD Walter W. Powell, Stanford University Keith Pavitt, SPRU Alice Lam, Brunel University Keith Smith, INTECH Charles Edquist, Linkoping David Mowery, University of California, Berkeley Mary O'Sullivan, INSEAD Ove Granstrand, Chalmers Bjorn Asheim, University of Lund Rajneesh Narula, Copenhagen Business School Antonello Zanfei, Urbino Kristine Bruland, University of Oslo Franco Malerba, University of Bocconi Nick Von Tunzelmann, SPRU Ian Miles, University of Manchester Bronwyn Hall, University of California, Berkeley Bart Verspagen , ECIS Francisco Louca, ISEG Manuel M. Godinho, ISEG Richard R. Nelson, Mario Pianta, Urbino Bengt-Ake Lundvall, Aalborg

The Oxford Handbook of Innovation

What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields (Chinese Translation)

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057%2Fbm.2000.20.pdf

‘Trust — the social virtues and the creation of prosperity’

El artículo tiene como objetivo evaluar el nivel de desarrollo de la capacidad de absorción realizada (RACAP) en las Pyme colombianas. Se parte de una muestra de 363 Pyme colombianas (Dane,2012), se usa una revisión de literatura con apoyo del análisis de contenido y un modelo de regresión lineal, que permiten mostrar la existencia de una correlación lineal positiva entre la adquisición y asimilación del conocimiento externo en las organizaciones objeto de estudio,. Palabras clave: Capacidades de absorción, capacidades de absorción potencial, medición de las capacidades de absorción ABSTRACT:

Measurement of potential absorption capacity in Colombia's innovative companies [Medición de la capacidad de absorción potencial en las empresas innovadoras de Colombia]

Summary.  Experimentation is a powerful methodology that enables scientists to establish causal claims empirically. However, one important criticism is that experiments merely provide a black box view of causality and fail to identify causal mechanisms. Specifically, critics argue that, although experiments can identify average causal effects, they cannot explain the process through which such effects come about. If true, this represents a serious limitation of experimentation, especially for social and medical science research that strives to identify causal mechanisms. We consider several experimental designs that help to identify average natural indirect effects. Some of these designs require the perfect manipulation of an intermediate variable, whereas others can be used even when only imperfect manipulation is possible. We use recent social science experiments to illustrate the key ideas that underlie each of the designs proposed.

Experimental designs for identifying casual mechanisms

Conditions for innovation in public sector organizations

Public employees’ use of social media: Its impact on need satisfaction and intrinsic work motivation

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/padm.12617

Intensity of innovation in public sector organizations: The role of push and pull factors

Despite the growing interest in understanding innovative activities, an important limitation of the current literature on innovation—both public and private—is an assumption that innovative activity is a homogeneous phenomenon. However, most innovative activities are heterogeneous in nature. One way of characterizing innovation heterogeneity is the complexity of innovations. Using data from public organizations, this paper is one of the first studies to develop a framework for and provide an empirical test of the main influences on innovation complexity within the public sector context. The empirical evidence suggests that employees’ innovative behavior and cooperation, along with collaborating with important external sources and the ability to work in a complex environment, are positively associated with complex innovations in the public sector, suggesting that the influences on complex innovations span the individual, work group, and external environment levels. However, an organization’s leadership quality and innovation climate do not have any statistical effect on complex innovations.

Conditions for complex innovations: evidence from public organizations

A growing literature in public management has identified the key role that innovation can play in enhancing agency efficiency, effectiveness, performance and legitimacy. However, considerably less is known about the actual sources of knowledge generating innovative activity in the public sector. This paper fills this crucial gap in the literature by explicitly analyzing the link between a key source of knowledge and ideas, universities, and the innovative activities of public organizations. By utilizing a new source of data, this paper is able to show that not only do universities play a key role in generating innovative activity in public organizations, but the nature of innovations and their impact on public sector performance are related to the role played by universities. The findings suggest that universities play a key role in generating innovative activity in public organizations as doing so can increase the quality of public services, employee job satisfaction, and interagency collaboration.

Mehmet Akif Demircioglu

Papers

Conditions for innovation in public sector organizations

Public employees’ use of social media: Its impact on need satisfaction and intrinsic work motivation

Intensity of innovation in public sector organizations: The role of push and pull factors

Conditions for complex innovations: evidence from public organizations

Public sector innovation: the effect of universities