The PDF file you selected should load here if your Web browser has a PDF reader plug-in installed (for example, a recent version of Adobe Acrobat Reader).

If you would like more information about how to print, save, and work with PDFs, Highwire Press provides a helpful Frequently Asked Questions about PDFs.

Alternatively, you can download the PDF file directly to your computer, from where it can be opened using a PDF reader. To download the PDF, click the Download link above.

Fullscreen Fullscreen Off


Responsible innovation, entrepreneurial university, translation gap, valley of death, sustainability, risk, regulation and governance broadly encompass the oeuvre of innovation studies, and are becoming ubiquitous concepts in the debate on science, technology and innovation (STI). Close reading of the literature shows distinct strands of research within this domain; lack of convergence in terms of conceptual framework leading to articulation of different models for conduct and governance of science and technology (S&T). The persistent selective framing of innovation is leading to considerable bias in the way we theorize and define innovation, resulting in articulation of weak policy frameworks. This note draws attention to two dominant strands of scholarship within innovation studies, one influenced by economic thinking and the other STS (science– technology–society studies) to make the above claim. Keeping this as the basis of argument, the note posits that this divergence is creating impediments in developing successful models for translation of S&T for socio-economic benefits. Thus it calls for exploring and exploiting models that can build convergence between the different strands of innovation research. In this context, it draws attention to the promising possibilities of the ‘post-normal science’ thesis to show this as one of the useful analytical frameworks in the contemporary context.
User
Notifications
Font Size