مدل مفهومی چهارسطحی نوآوری: رویکردی دیالکتیکی به فهم و سیاست‌گذاری نوآوری

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار گروه مطالعات علم و فناوری، موسسه مطالعات فرهنگی و اجتماعی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

نوآوری در ادبیات علمی و سیاستی عموماً با رویکردهای اقتصادی یا فناورانه صورت‌بندی شده است؛ حال آن‌که بررسی دقیق‌تر نشان می‌دهد نوآوری پدیده‌ای چندلایه و دیالکتیک است که نیازمند چارچوبی جامع‌تر برای فهم و سیاست‌گذاری است. این مقاله با اتخاذ روش مروری-مفهومی و تحلیل نظام‌مند منابع کلاسیک و معاصر، مدلی چهارسطحی برای تبیین نوآوری ارائه می‌کند. در سطح معرفتی، نوآوری بر فرایندهای کشف و اکتشاف مبتنی است. در سطح هنجاری-زمانی، در دل روایت‌های پیشرفت و توسعه معنا می‌یابد. در سطح ساختاری، بخشی از جریان تغییرات تدریجی و تحولات بنیادین نهادی و اجتماعی است.  در سطح مولد-اجتماعی، محصول تعامل میان خلاقیت و اختراع و تقلید است. یافته‌های مقاله نشان می‌دهد نوآوری زمانی به پدیده‌ای پایدار و اثرگذار بدل می‌شود که این سطوح به‌صورت دیالکتیکی و پویا در تعامل باشند. مدل پیشنهادی ضمن یکپارچه‌سازی رویکردهای متنوع نظری، امکان ارائه دلالت‌های سیاستی را نیز فراهم می‌آورد: از جمله ضرورت تقویت تعادل میان اکتشاف و کشف در سیاست‌های پژوهشی، بازاندیشی در ارزش‌ها و روایت‌های پیشرفت، بازطراحی نهادها برای پرهیز از قفل‌شدگی‌های فناورانه و نیز حمایت از سازوکارهای اجتماعی خلاقیت و انتشار نوآوری. بر این اساس، مقاله حاضر می‌کوشد نوآوری را نه به‌عنوان مقوله‌ای صرفاً اقتصادی یا فناورانه، بلکه به‌مثابه برساختی اجتماعی-معرفتی با ظرفیت‌های سیاستی روشن بازتعریف کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

A Four-Level Conceptual Model of Innovation:A Dialectical Approach to Understanding and Policy-Making in Innovation

نویسنده [English]

  • Hamid Heydari
Assistant Professor, Department of Science and Technology Studies, Institute of Cultural and Social Studies, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Innovation has traditionally been conceptualized through economic growth indicators or technological advancement, yet such perspectives tend to overlook its broader socio-cognitive and institutional dimensions. A closer examination reveals that innovation is a multilayered and dialectical phenomenon that requires a more comprehensive framework for both theoretical understanding and policy-making. This article, through a systematic conceptual review of classical and contemporary literature, develops a four-level model of innovation that captures these complexities. At the cognitive level, innovation is grounded in processes of discovery and exploration. At the normative–temporal level, it derives its meaning from narratives of progress, development, and critique. At the structural level, innovation is embedded in gradual changes and fundamental institutional–social transformations. Finally, at the socio-productive level, it emerges from the interplay of creativity, invention, and imitation, which together enable the generation, materialization, and diffusion of novelty. The findings demonstrate that innovation becomes sustainable and socially legitimate only when these levels interact dialectically and dynamically. The proposed model not only integrates diverse theoretical traditions but also provides clear policy implications: strengthening the balance between exploration and discovery in research policies, rethinking normative frameworks of progress and responsibility, redesigning institutions to avoid technological lock-in, and supporting social mechanisms that foster creativity and diffusion. Accordingly, this study redefines innovation not merely as an economic or technological category but as a socio-cognitive construct with explicit relevance for science, technology, and innovation policy.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Innovation
  • Creativity
  • Invention
  • Imitation
  • Science and Technology Policy
  • Conceptual Model. How to Cite this Paper:

مراجع

[1] Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. C., & Nelson, R. R. (2006). The Oxford Handbook Of Innovation. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286805.001.0001
[2] Godin, B. (2015). Innovation Contested: The Idea Of Innovation Over The Centuries. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315855608
[3] Ghazinoory, S., et al. (2025). Beyond Technological Rationality: Analysis Of Cognitive Components In Innovative Movements. Cognitive Processing, 26(3), 491-499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-025-01277-6
[4] Merton, R. K. (1968). Social Theory And Social Structure. Free Press.
[5] Nisbet, R. A. (1980). History Of The Idea Of Progress. Transaction Publishers.
[6] Tarde, G. (1903). The Laws Of Imitation. H. Holt.
[7] Edquist, C. (2006). Systems Of Innovation: Perspectives And Challenges. In J. Fagerberg & D. C. Mowery (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook Of Innovation (p. 181). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286805.003.0007
[8] OECD. (2005). Oslo Manual: Guidelines For Collecting And Interpreting Innovation Data (3rd ed.). OECD Publishing.
[9] Schumpeter, J. A. (1983). The Theory Of Economic Development. Transaction Books.
[10] Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion Of Innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
[11] Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
[12] Lundvall, B.-Å. (2010). National Systems Of Innovation: Toward A Theory Of Innovation And Interactive Learning. Anthem Press. https://doi.org/10.7135/UPO9781843318903
[13] Godin, B. (2006). The Linear Model Of Innovation: The Historical Construction Of An Analytical Framework. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(6), 639-667. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243906291865
[14] Nelson, R. R. (1993). National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195076165.001.0001
[15] Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1985). An Evolutionary Theory Of Economic Change. Harvard University Press.
[16] March, J. G. (1991). Exploration And Exploitation In Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
[17] Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities And Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812796929_0004
[18] Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological Transitions As Evolutionary Reconfiguration Processes: A Multi-Level Perspective And A Case-Study. Research Policy, 31, 1257-1274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8
[19] Safdari Ranjbar, M., & Ghazinoori, S. (2019). The Role Of Science, Technology And Innovation Policies In The Development Of Sectoral Systems Of Innovation. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 12(2), 155-169. https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.20080840.1398.12.2.11.6
[20] Asgarshamsi, N., Aghajani, H., & Mohseni Kiasari, M. (2024). A Framework Of Explanatory Factors For The Success Of Open Innovation From The Perspective Of Open Innovation Networks. Innovation Management Journal, 13(2), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.22034/imj.2024.442562.2789
[21] Yazdi, N., & Maleki, A. (2019). Demand-Side Innovation Policies, With An Emphasis On Public Procurement For Innovation (PPI). Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 12(2), 481-494. https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.20080840.1398.12.2.32.7
[22] Godin, B., & Vinck, D. (2017). Critical Studies Of Innovation: Alternative Approaches To The Pro-Innovation Bias. Edward Elgar Publishing.
[23] Styhre, A. (2007). The Innovative Bureaucracy: Bureaucracy In An Age Of Fluidity. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203964330
[24] Dodgson, M., Gann, D., & Phillips, N. (2014). The Oxford Handbook Of Innovation Management. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199694945.001.0001
[25] Fagerberg, J., Martin, B. R., & Andersen, E. S. (2013). Innovation Studies: Evolution And Future Challenges. Oxford University Press.
[26] Shapin, S. (1996). The Scientific Revolution. University of Chicago Press.
[27] Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory Life: The Construction Of Scientific Facts. Princeton University Press.
[28] Provost, F., & Fawcett, T. (2013). Data Science For Business: What You Need To Know About Data Mining And Data-Analytic Thinking. O’Reilly.
[29] Cowen, M., & Shenton, R. W. (1996). Doctrines Of Development. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203392607
[30] Bury, J.-B. (1920). The Idea Of Progress: An Inquiry Into Its Origin And Growth. Macmillan & Co.
[31] Escobar, A. (2001). Encountering Development: The Making And Unmaking Of The Third World. Princeton University Press.
[32] Christensen, C. M. (2013). The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms To Fail. Harvard Business Review Press.
[33] Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444-454. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487
[34] Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity In Context: Update To The Social Psychology Of Creativity. Westview Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429501234
[35] Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow And The Psychology Of Discovery And Invention. HarperCollins.
[36] Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create The Dynamics Of Innovation. Oxford University Press.
[37] Perez, C. (2002). Technological Revolutions And Financial Capital: The Dynamics Of Bubbles And Golden Ages. Edward Elgar.
[38] Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, And Lock-In By Historical Events. The Economic Journal, 99(394), 116-131. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234208
[39] Abernathy, W. J., & Utterback, J. M. (1978). Patterns Of Industrial Innovation. Technology Review, 80(7), 40-47.
[40] Callon, M. (1984). Some Elements Of A Sociology Of Translation: Domestication Of The Scallops And The Fishermen Of St Brieuc Bay. The Sociological Review, 32(1 Suppl), 196-233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.x
               

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار