Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Arnt Flysand
University of Bergen, Norway
Stig-Erik Jakobsen
University of Oslo, Norway
Abstract
Recent contributions within the system of innovation approach are marked by an instrumentalism that views
innovation as a predictable and standardized process that in most aspects counters theories and empirical
observations stressing the multilevel, spontaneous and complex features of innovation. Informed by the
relational turn within economic geography this paper develops an alternative analytical framework. We
do this stepwise: first, by elaborating on how innovation was originally defined within the systems of
innovation approach; second, by outlining a relational based analytical framework based on the concept of
social fields; and, finally, by demonstrating how it has been applied.
Keywords
informal knowledge, innovations, relational turn, rules of conduct, social fields
I Introduction
Liberalization of trade and financial markets,
together with technological advances (particularly in information and communications technology) have reduced geographical and other
barriers previously protecting domestic industries
against international trade competition. Firms
must continually innovate to compete beyond
regional borders in this new global reality. The
development of new knowledge, new ways of
doing things and new products have been portrayed as the key factors in improving global
competitiveness for business sectors, places and
regions.
Several approaches, based on studies that
range from applying the evolutionary ideas of
Schumpeter (Fagerberg, 2003) to recent contributions building on ideas of complexity thinking
328
Corresponding author:
Arnt Flysand, Department of Geography, University of
Bergen, Fosswinckelsgt 6, N-5020 Bergen, Norway
Email: arnt.floysand@geog.uib.no
329
policies prioritizing formal know why knowledge above contextual and informal know
what/who/when/where and how knowledge,
ignoring the claim that a combination of both
types of knowledge gives firms a competitive
edge in the market (Howells, 2002; Jensen
et al., 2007; Lundvall, 1992).
We argue that a spatial- and context-sensitive
relational turn is needed to avoid such contradictions. Within the relational turn literature in
economic geography, economic practice is seen
as an action with many goals, from meeting
material needs and making profits, to seeking
symbolic satisfaction, pleasure and power
(Amin and Thrift, 2007; Yeung, 2005). However, it has not yet fostered a comprehensive and
well-defined analytical framework that is ready
for application in studies of innovation (Bathelt
and Gluckler, 2003). As such, it has been accused
of lacking analytical guidelines (Sunley, 2008).
We endorse this criticism.
The essence of our analytical framework is
the concept of social field, capturing both the
interconnectivity and the time-spatial context
of innovation practice. Actors of all kinds, economic actors included, operate in time-space
systems of more or less interrelated, but observable social fields ie, dense patterns of social
relations, marked by a particular time-spatial
scale and knowledge production that constrains
and enables the agency of actors. Some social
fields may be local, while others may cut across
geographical boundaries of clusters, regions and
nations. Practices in such fields are guided by
field-specific knowledge production that concerns both formal and informal knowledge,
ranging from rules of conduct and conventions
to discourses and narratives that may or may not
sustain innovation practice. In a globalized setting, actors participate in several overlapping
and interlinked social fields of different scales,
with different types of actors, knowledge and
rules of conduct. This implies that innovation
practices are multifield based, but normally with
some sort of field hegemony.
329
330
331
332
recognized area of institutional life: key suppliers, resource and product consumers,
regulatory agencies, and other organizations
that produce similar service or products
(DiMaggio and Powell, 1991: 64). In line with
this, Scott (1995: 56) states, The notion of
field connotes the existence of a community
that partakes of a common meaning system and
whose participants interact more frequently
and fatefully with one another than with actors
outside of the field. Within economic geography, the concept of community of practice has
attracted much attention (Amin and Roberts,
2008), referring to systems of relationships
among people, activities, and the world; developing with time, and in relations to other tangential and overlapping communities of
practice (Lave and Wenger, 1991: 98).
There are several similarities between these
different concepts. Still, we find the social field
approach more elastic in the way it deals with
social practice and tacit knowledge in terms of
informal rules of conduct. The homogenization
of practice is pivotal within the concept of organizational field (DiMaggio and Powell, 1991),
while the concept of communities of practice has
been criticized for placing too much emphasis
on community (Amin and Roberts, 2008). The
concept of social field allows for a stronger
focus on the structure-agency dynamics that
constitute innovation. It also allows for a stronger confrontation with the complexity of managerial and organizational practices.
333
334
335
Actor
Neighborhood
field
Ethnic field
Community
field
Household
Field of
employment field
Ethnic
field
Field of
education
Neighborhood
field
Field
of ?
Household
field
Simple field
system
Community
field
Complex
field system
336
and unique dynamics of the field system in question had considerable impact on the innovativeness of the industry. The outcome of these
dynamics is mainly incremental, small-step
innovations facilitated by informal knowledge
production and field-specific rules of conduct.
337
337
338
339
340
V Innovation studies as a
relational phenomenon
In this paper, we have argued for a relational
turn within innovation studies. We have done
this stepwise: first, by going back to roots to elaborate on how innovation was originally defined
within the systems of innovation approach (section II): second, by outlining a relational-based
analytical framework based on the concept of
social fields (section III); and, finally, by demonstrating how it has been applied (section IV).
The discussion has revealed that at the core of
innovation system theory stands the recognition
that innovation needs to be defined as an uncertain process of reflexive and dynamic interacting
actors operating in a given time-spatial context.
We find this definition to be reasonable, and
have consequently been critical towards best-
341
342
Notes
1. The system of innovation approach was developed during the 1980s and 1990s. It is closely linked to the concept of National Innovation System (NIS), and is
sometimes referred to as the NIS-approach (Lundvall,
342
References
Amin A and Roberts J (2008) Knowing in action: Beyond
communities of practice. Research Policy 37: 353369.
Amin A and Thrift N (2007) Cultural-economy and cities.
Progress in Human Geography 31: 14361.
Balzat M and Hanusch H (2004) Recent trends in the
research on national innovation systems. Journal of
Evolutionary Economics 14: 197210.
Bathelt H and Gluckler J (2003) Toward a relational economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography 3:
11744.
Bathelt H, Malmberg A, and Maskell P (2004) Clusters
and knowledge: Local buzz, global pipelines and the
process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human
Geography 28: 3156.
Bourdieu P (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coe NM, Dicken P, and Hess M (2008) Global production
networks: Realizing the potential. Journal of Economic
Geography 8: 27195.
Cooke P (2001) Regional innovation systems, clusters and
the knowledge economy. Industrial and Corporate
Change 10: 94574.
Cooke P, Heidenreich M, and Braczyk HJ (2004) Regional
Innovation System: The Role of Governances in a
Globalized World. London: Routledge.
de Bruijn P and Lagendijk A (2005) Regional innovation
systems in the Lisbon strategy. European Planning
Studies 13: 11531172.
DiMaggio PJ and Powell WW (1991) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality
in organizational fields. In Powell WW and DiMaggio
PJ (eds) The New Institutionalism in Organizational
Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 6382.
Edquist C (1997) Systems of innovation approaches: Their
emergence and characteristics. In Edquist C (ed.)
343
Hagerstrand T (1970) What about people in regional science?
Papers of the Regional Science Association 24: 721.
Hess M (2004) Spatial relationships? Towards a reconceptualization of embeddedness. Progress in Human
Geography 28: 16586.
Howells JRL (2002) Tacit knowledge, innovation and economic geography. Urban Studies 39: 87184.
Jakobsen SE, Gammelster H, and Flysand A (2009) The
spatial embeddedness of professional football clubs in
Norway. Soccer and Society 10: 26179.
(2007)
Jensen MB, Johnson B, Lorenz E, and Lundvall BA
Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation.
Research Policy 36: 680693.
Laumann EO, Galskeiwicz L, and Marsden PV (1978)
Community structures as interorganizational linkages.
Annual Review of Sociology 4: 455484.
Lave J and Wenger E (1991) Situated Learning:
Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Linton R (1936) The Study of Man: An Introduction. New
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
(1992) Introduction. In Lundvall BA
(ed.)
Lundvall BA
Systems of Innovations. London: Pinter, 119.
(2007) National innovation systems
Lundvall BA
analytical concept and development tool. Industry and
Innovation 14(1): 95119.
Martin R and Sunley P (2007): Complexity thinking and
evolutionary economic geography. Journal of Economic
Geography 7: 573601.
Nohria N and Eccles RG (1992) Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Peck J (2003) Fuzzy old world: A response to Markusen.
Regional Studies 37: 72940.
Polanyi K (1944) The Great Transformation. The Political
and Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston, MA:
Beacon Press.
Polt W, Rammer C, Gassler H, Schibany A, and
Schartinger D (2001) Benchmarking industryscience
relations: The role of framework conditions. Science
and Public Policy 28: 24758.
Porter ME and Stern S (2002) National innovation capacity. In Porter ME, Sachs JD, Cornelius PK, McArthur
JW, and Schwab K (eds) World Economic Forum. The
Global Competitiveness Report 20012002. New
York: Oxford University Press, 102119.
Scott WR (1995) Institutions and Organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
343
344
, Lindqvist G, and Ketels C (2003) The Cluster
Solvell O
Initiative Greenbook. Stockholm: Bromma Tryck.
Storper M (1997) The Regional World. Territorial Development in a Global Economy. New York: Guilford.
Sunley P (2008) Relational economic geography: A partial
understanding or a new paradigm? Economic Geography 84: 126.
Swyngedouw E (2004) Globalisation or glocalisation?
Networks, territories and rescaling. Cambridge Review
of International Affairs 17: 2548.
344
Copyright of Progress in Human Geography is the property of Sage Publications, Ltd. and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.