8/7/2019 The Innovative Paradox in Science and Science Parks
1/2
97
The Innovative Paradox in Scienceand Science Parks
E. Roland Andersson and Bjarne Jansson1
Karolinska Institutet, Department of Public Health Sciences,
Division
of Social Medicine, Norrbacka Building, 171 77 Stockholm,
Sweden
ABSTRACT
Universities have a synthetic style for radical innovation but
an inappropriate
administrative culture. Science parks, which are supposed to
have such entrepreneurial
culture, instead lack an appropriate synthetic style. Our answer
is to combine appropriate
styles and cultures into a new arena. A modified-systems
approach, based on the
suggested principles, should, however, be structurally tested
and compared with the
current science-park model.
1. RATIONALEIn all developing countries, governments have strong
ambitions to support existing scientific
organisations and enterprises in order to increase the number of
innovations in both the basic and
applied sciences, and in technology. Universities establish
supportive environments for innovative
ideas among their students. How to improve the
university-industry relationship has been reviewed
earlier, and several means for promoting the establishment of
linkages have been suggested (1, 2).
However, understanding of the prerequisites for innovative
processes has never been achieved to any
great extent.
There is a strong belief, that only by increasing investments in
prevailing organisational structures
will the flow of ideas and commercialised innovations reach the
market, and bring profit and wealth to
nations. Several evaluations of science parks, however, show
limited results, despite huge investments
in staff and technology (3). Moreover, many spectacular
discoveries are a result of randomness or
unplanned coincidence. Thus, we lack in-depth understanding of
the fundamental principles andconcepts required for the adoption of
a policy-driven approach. Further, there is intermittent debate
on
the essence of innovation itself. And, in this setting, an
important field for further understanding of how
to use the concept of strategic intuition has been developed
(46). In our view, supported by our own
research and that of others (3, 7), we have more to gain from
changing cognitive style and
organisational culture than from simply promoting an increase in
the number of patents. Today, an
inventive dilemma for scientists is that the research community
often lacks incentives for innovation,
and the prevailing administrative academic and entrepreneurial
cultures risk counteracting efficient
innovation procedures.
The purpose of this review is thus to discuss the distinction
between the analytic and the synthetic,
in both innovation and research, and thereby also spread some
light on the claim that it is essential to
have a valid cognitive style to succeed in innovation (8,
9).
2. INNOVATION AND SCIENCETwo concepts in epistemological
development (based on Kant) are analysis and synthesis (10). An
analytic proposition (a statement based on elucidatory judgment)
takes its point of departure in what is
given, existent and immediate. We derive or deduce from the
given, and are unable to get beyond it. By
contrast, a synthetic proposition (or an extended judgment)
involves enlarging our experience, to
encompass what cannot be said (to be true) or apprehended.
What we seek then are new dimensions and determinations of
concepts and conceptual contexts that
are not directly linked to reality as we can comprehend it, or
true as we speak about it. Accordingly,
different statements about such conditions may be either true or
false. They must first be tested in
reality, and confronted by our experience, and can then be
re-tested.
1Bjarne Jansson, professor, Karolinska Institutet, Department of
Public Health Sciences, Division of Social Medicine, Norrbacka
Building, 171 77
Stockholm, Sweden. Email: [email protected]
8/7/2019 The Innovative Paradox in Science and Science Parks
2/2
The remainder of this article can be purchased instantly at
http://innovationscience.org
Even better, knowledge is power so buy a subscription for your
organization and have access to all
our articles at a very reasonable price!
If you are still undecided email the editor
and he can provide you with this article as a free sample!
International Journal of
Innovation Sciencehttp://InnovationScience.org
Editor-in-Chief: Brett E. Trusko, PhD
Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA
[email protected]
Work phone - 212-824-7639
ISSN Number: 1757-2223 Published quarterly
275 (print + on-line)
264 (print only)
231 (online only)
Open call for articles:Researchers, academics, and practitioners
are invited to submit an article for review in our journal.
IJIS
also welcomes short research notes, research communications,
survey and review papers on all
innovation topics. Prospective author are warmly encouraged to
contact the editor, we love talking
about innovation.
About the Journal
The International Journal of innovation science is leading the
way in transforming innovation from an art
into a science and hopes to expand the literature by discussing
advanced innovation in many different
functional areas, industries, and countries. Visit us for more
infohttp://www.InnovationScience.org
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ijis.htm
