شناسایی و دسته‌‌بندیِ نگاشت‌‌های استعاری در حوزه مطالعات نوآوری

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار گروه سیاست علوم و تحقیقات، مرکز تحقیقات سیاست علمی کشور، تهران ایران

2 دانشجوی دکتری سیاستگذاری علم و فناوری، دانشگاه تربیت‌‌مدرس، تهران، ایران.

3 استاد گروه مدیریت فناوری اطلاعات، دانشگاه تربیت‌‌مدرس، تهران، ایران .

چکیده

نگاشت‌های استعاری طی دهه‌‌های گذشته در حوزه‌‌های مطالعاتی مختلفی استفاده شده‌‌اند و بینش‌های عمیقی را برای تبیین ویژگی‌های جدید یک پدیده کمتر شناخته‌‌شده یا پیچیده ارائه کرده‌‌اند. در مقاله حاضر با تمرکز بر حوزه مطالعات نوآوری به شناسایی و دسته‌‌بندی مهمترین نگاشت‌‌های استعاری پرداخته شده و به این منظور، از مرور نظام‌‌مند پیشینه برای بررسی و تحلیل منابع موجود شامل 48 نگاشت استعاریِ منتخب استفاده شده است. یافته‌‌های پژوهش حاکی از آن است که استعاره‌‌‌‌پردازی در حوزه مطالعات نوآوری ذیل 5 مضمون اصلی شامل «مفهوم‌‌سازیِ فرایند توسعه و انتشار نوآوری»، «تدوین راهبرد و رهنگاشت نوآوری»، «پیش‌بینی تغییرات فناورانه، تکامل و توسعه نوآوری»، «توصیف فضای حاکم بر نوآوری و تعاملات و ارتباطات موجود» و در نهایت «سیاست‌گذاری و مدیریت علم، فناوری و نوآوری» قابل طبقه‌‌بندی است. در نهایت تمامی مضامین مستخرج، در قالب یک کلان‌‌استعاره با عنوان «نوآوری به مثابه راهبرد» با اقتباس از چارچوب 5p مینتزبرگ پیشنهاد شده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Identifying and Categorizing the Metaphorical Maps in the Field of Innovation Studies

نویسندگان [English]

  • Shohreh Nasri 1
  • Asieh Bakhtiar 2
  • Sepehr Ghazinoory 3
1 Assistant Professor, National Research Institute for Science Policy, Tehran, Iran
2 Ph.D. Candidate in S&T Policy, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
3 Professor, Department of Information Technology Management, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Metaphorical mappings have been used in various fields of study over the past decades and have provided deep insights to explain new features of a little-known or complex phenomenon. In the current research, focusing on the field of innovation studies, the most important metaphorical mappings have been identified and categorized. For this purpose, a domain review has been used to review and analyze the existing literature including 48 selected metaphorical maps. The findings of the research indicate that metaphors in the field of innovation studies under 5 main themes including "conceptualization of the process of innovation development and diffusion", "development of innovation strategy and roadmap", " technological changes forecasting, evolution and development of innovation" ", "description of the atmosphere governing innovation and existing interactions and communications" and finally "Policymaking and management of research, technology and innovation" can be classified. Finally, all the extracted themes are suggested in the form of a general metaphor under the title of "innovation as a strategy" by adapting Mintzberg's 5p framework.
Metaphorical mappings have been used in various fields of study over the past decades and have provided deep insights to explain new features of a little-known or complex phenomenon. In the current research, focusing on the field of innovation studies, the most important metaphorical mappings have been identified and categorized. For this purpose, a domain review has been used to review and analyze the existing literature including 50 selected metaphorical maps. The findings of the research indicate that metaphors in the field of innovation studies under 5 main themes including "conceptualization of the process of innovation development and diffusion", "development of innovation strategy and roadmap", " technological changes forecasting, evolution and development of innovation" ", "description of the atmosphere governing innovation and existing interactions and communications" and finally "Policymaking and management of research, technology and innovation" can be classified. Finally, all the extracted themes are suggested in the form of a general metaphor under the title of "innovation as a strategy" by adapting Mintzberg's 5p framework
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Conceptual metaphor
  • Science
  • technology and innovation policymaking
  • Metaphorical mapping
  • Innovation studies
  • Innovation as a strategy

مراجع

[1] Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. InA. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd edn.)(pp. 202–251).
[2] Turner, M., & Fauconnier, G. (2014). Conceptual integration and formal expression. In Metaphor and symbolic activity (pp. 183-204). Psychology Press.
[3] Carpenter, J. (2008). Metaphors in qualitative research: Shedding light or casting shadows?. Research in nursing & health, 31(3), 274-282.https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20253
[4] Madhavaram, S., & McDonald, R. E. (2010). Knowledge-based sales management strategy and the grafting metaphor: Implications for theory and practice. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(7), 1078-1087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2009.12.009
[5] Huang, C. (2022). Metaphor Analysis in Political Discourse Based on Discourse Dynamics Framework for Metaphor: A Case Study. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 12(1), 96-102. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1201.11
[6] Van Lancker, J., Mondelaers, K., Wauters, E., & Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2016). The Organizational Innovation System: A systemic framework for radical innovation at the organizational level. Technovation, 52, 40-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2015.11.008
[7] Breschi, S., & Malerba, F. (1997). Sectoral innovation systems: technological regimes, Schumpeterian dynamics, and spatial boundaries. Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations, 1, 130-156.
[8] Cooke, P., Uranga, M. G., & Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions. Research policy, 26(4-5), 475-491.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00025-5
[9] Carlsson, B., & Stankiewicz, R. (1991). On the nature, function and composition of technological systems. Journal of evolutionary economics, 1, 93-118.
[10] Ghazinoory, S., Nasri, S., Ameri, F., Montazer, G. A., & Shayan, A. (2020). Why do we need ‘Problem-oriented Innovation System (PIS)’for solving macro-level societal problems?. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150, 119749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119749
[11] Binz, C., & Truffer, B. (2017). Global Innovation Systems—A conceptual framework for innovation dynamics in transnational contexts. Research policy, 46(7), 1284-1298.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.05.012
[12] Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard business review, 84(4), 98.
[13] Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition. Harvard business review, 71(3), 75-86.‏
[14] Van der Borgh, M., Cloodt, M., & Romme, A. G. L. (2012). Value creation by knowledge‐based ecosystems: evidence from a field study. R&D Management, 42(2), 150-169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2011.00673.x
[15] Ghazinoory, S., Phillips, F., Afshari-Mofrad, M., & Bigdelou, N. (2021). Innovation lives in ecotones, not ecosystems. Journal of Business Research, 135, 572-580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.06.067
[16] Taghizadeh, N., Ghazinoory, S., & Tabrizian, B. (2021). The new metaphor of IB versus NIS. Rahyaft, 31(82), 23-46. 10.22034/RAHYAFT.2021.10660.1201 }.in persian}
[17] Ghazinoory, S., Nasri, S., Dastranj, R., & Sarkissian, A. (2022). “Bio to bits”: the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) as a metaphor for Big Data ecosystem assessment. Information Technology & People, 35(2), 835-858. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-08-2020-0579
[18] Phillips, F., & Su, Y. S. (2009). Advances in evolution and genetics: Implications for technology strategy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(5), 597-607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2008.08.006
[19] Coccia, M. (2018). Measurement and assessment of the evolution of technology with a simple biological model. Turkish Economic Review-Turk. Econ. Rev.–TER, 5(3), 263-284.
[20] Perakakis, P., Taylor, M., Mazza, M., & Trachana, V. (2010). Natural selection of academic papers. Scientometrics, 85(2), 553-559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0253-1
[21] Hicks, R.C., Dattero, R. and Galup, S.D. (2007), "A metaphor for knowledge management: explicit islands in a tacit sea", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270710728204
[22] Freeman, C. (1987). Technology, policy, and economic performance: lessons from Japan. Burns & Oates.
[23] Miremadi, S. I. (2019). Technological Innovation System: a Scheme of Innovation Policy and Technology Development. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 12(2), 171-192. 20.1001.1.20080840.1398.12.2.12.7. }in persian}
[24] Elyasi, M., & Malekifar, F. (2019). STI Policies to Augment Innovation Ecosystems. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 12(2), 209-220. 20.1001.1.20080840.1398.12.2.14.9}.in persian}
[25] Carayannis, E., & Grigoroudis, E. (2016). Quadruple innovation helix and smart specialization: Knowledge production and national competitiveness. Форсайт, 10(1 (eng)), 31-42.
[26] Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The triple helix as a model for innovation studies. Science and public policy, 25(3), 195-203. https://doi.org/10.1093/spp/25.3.195
[27] Arthurs, D., Cassidy, E., Davis, C. H., & Wolfe, D. (2009). Indicators to support innovation cluster policy. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3-4), 263-279. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2009.023376
[28] Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (2000). Building an innovation factory. Harvard business review, 78(3), 157-157.
[29] Ghazinoory, S., Farazkish, M., & Afshari-Mofrad, M. (2013). The use of nano-filtration metaphor in extracting technology strategy for nanotechnology-based enterprises. Engineering Economics, 24(5), 392-400. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.24.5.5915
[30] Kuhlmann, S., Shapira, P., & Smits, R. (2010). Introduction. A systemic perspective: the innovation policy dance. In The theory and practice of innovation policy. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849804424.00006
[31] Scaringella, L., & Radziwon, A. (2018). Innovation, entrepreneurial, knowledge, and business ecosystems: Old wine in new bottles?. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 59-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.023
[32] Metaclara, (2022). Available from http://metaclara.com/Metaphor/web_axonfiles/sourcetarget.htm
[33] Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group*, T. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of internal medicine, 151(4), 264-269. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135
[34] Afshari-Mofrad, M., Ghazinoory, S., Montazer, G. A., & Rashidirad, M. (2016). Groping toward the next stages of technology development and human society: A metaphor from an Iranian poet. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 109, 87-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.04.029
[35] Razali, N. A., & Rashid, S. M. (2022). The Metaphor in the Conceptualization of Innovation in Lim Kok Wing's Writings. International Journal of English Language Studies, 4(1), 01-13. https://doi.org/10.32996/ijels.2022.4.1.1
[36] Durugbo, C. M. (2020, June). Metaphorically creative: A synopsis of nine thought-provoking metaphors for innovation. In ISPIM Innovation Conference–Innovating in Times of Crisis (pp. 1-16).
[37] Elam, M. (1993). Innovation as the Craft of Combination: Perspectives on Technology and Economy in the Spirit of Schumpeter (Doctoral dissertation, Linköpings universitet).
[38] Armada, A. A., & Martin, A. (2016). Business model disruption: innovation as a catalyst. Frontiers of Health Services Management, 33(2), 39-44.
[39] Magnani, L. (2013). Scientific innovation as eco-epistemic warfare: the creative role of on-line manipulative abduction. Mind & Society, 12, 49-59.
[40] Tena-Espinoza-De-Los-Monteros, M. A. (2016, November). Civic innovation as a response to social problems: the case of Civic and public challenges in Mexico. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (pp. 447-453). https://doi.org/10.1145/3012430.3012555
[41] Forceville, C. (2011). The following is a pre-proof version of a chapter that was published as: Forceville, Charles (2011). The JOURNEY metaphor and the Source-Path-Goal schema in Agnès Varda’s autobiographical gleaning documentaries In: Monika Fludernik (ed.), Beyond Cognitive Metaphor Theory: Perspectives on Literary Metaphor. London: Routledge, 281-297.
[42] Zhang, G., McAdams, D. A., Shankar, V., & Darani, M. M. (2017). Modeling the evolution of system technology performance when component and system technology performances interact: Commensalism and amensalism. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 116-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.08.004
[43] O'Mahoney, J. (2007). The diffusion of management innovations: The possibilities and limitations of memetics. Journal of Management Studies, 44(8), 1324-1348.  
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00734.x
[44] Smith, D. J. (2007). The politics of innovation: Why innovations need a godfather. Technovation, 27(3), 95-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2006.05.001
[45] Felsenstein, D. (1994). University-related science parks—‘seedbeds’ or ‘enclaves’ of innovation?. Technovation, 14(2), 93-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-4972(94)90099-X
[46] Shi, J., Sadowski, B., Li, S., & Nomaler, Ö. (2020). Joint effects of ownership and competition on the relationship between innovation and productivity: Application of the CDM model to the Chinese manufacturing sector. Management and Organization Review, 16(4), 769-789.
[47] Businaro, U. L. (1983). Applying the biological evolution metaphor to technological innovation. Futures, 15(6), 463-477. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(83)90084-8
[48] Devezas, T. C. (2005). Evolutionary theory of technological change: State-of-the-art and new approaches. Technological forecasting and social change, 72(9), 1137-1152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2004.10.006
[49] Sun, H., & Wing, W. C. (2005). Critical success factors for new product development in the Hong Kong toy industry. Technovation, 25(3), 293-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00097-X
[50] Hirschhorn, L., & Gilmore, T. (1992). The new boundaries of the “boundaryless” company. Harvard business review, 70(3), 104-115.
[51] Martinsons, M. G., & Schindler, F. R. (1995). Organizational visions for technology assimilation: The strategic roads to knowledge-based systems success. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 42(1), 9-18. DOI: 10.1109/17.366399
[52] Manesh, M. F., Flamini, G., Petrolo, D., & Palumbo, R. (2022). A round of dancing and then one more: embedding intuition in the ballet of entrepreneurial decision making. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 18(2), 499-528.
[53] Renwick, D. W., Breslin, D., & Price, I. (2019). Nurturing novelty: Toulmin's greenhouse, journal rankings and knowledge evolution. European Management Review, 16(1), 167-178. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12334
[54] Rajapaksha Yapa, D., Senathiraja, R., & Kauranen, I. (2021). A Novel Metaphor Concerning the Terminology of Open Innovation. International Business Research, 14(2).
[55] Markham, S. K., Ward, S. J., Aiman‐Smith, L., & Kingon, A. I. (2010). The valley of death as context for role theory in product innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(3), 402-417.  
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00724.x
[56] Koch-Ørvad, N., Thuesen, C., Koch, C., & Berker, T. (2018). Murmuration as Metaphor for Sustainable Innovation processes. In THIRTY-FOURTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE (p. 179).
[57] Robbins, P., O’Gorman, C., Huff, A., & Moeslein, K. (2021). Multidexterity—A new metaphor for open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(1), 99. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7010099
[58] Poesche, J., Shipin, O., Liu, Y., Huisingh, D., & Kauranen, I. (2019). What biological evolution teaches about sustainable engineering innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 240, 118267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118267
[59] Moehrle, M. G., & Caferoglu, H. (2019). Technological speciation as a source for emerging technologies. Using semantic patent analysis for the case of camera technology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 776-784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.049
[60] Ciborra, C. (2002). The labyrinths of information: Challenging the wisdom of systems: Challenging the wisdom of systems. OUP Oxford.
[61] Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2010). Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other?: a proposed framework for a trans-disciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development (IJSESD), 1(1), 41-69. DOI: 10.4018/jsesd.2010010105
[62] Diasio, S. (2016). Not all that jazz! Jamband as a metaphor for organizing new models of innovation. European Management Journal, 34(2), 125-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.01.006
[63] Leung, R. C. (2013). Networks as sponges: International collaboration for developing nanomedicine in China. Research Policy, 42(1), 211-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.05.001
[64] Marshall, A. (2009). Principles of economics: unabridged eighth edition. Cosimo, Inc..
[65] Sedita, S. R., Caloffi, A., & Lazzeretti, L. (2020). The invisible college of cluster research: a bibliometric core–periphery analysis of the literature. Industry and Innovation, 27(5), 562-584. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2018.1538872
[66] Simonse, L. W., Hultink, E. J., & Buijs, J. A. (2015). Innovation roadmapping: Building concepts from practitioners’ insights. Journal of product innovation management, 32(6), 904-924. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12208
[67] Moore, K., O'Shea, E., Kenny, L., Barton, J., Tedesco, S., Sica, M., ... & Timmons, S. (2021). Older adults’ experiences with using wearable devices: qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 9(6), e23832.
[68] Audretsch, D. B. (1995). The propensity to exit and innovation. Review of Industrial Organization, 10, 589-605.
[69] Stokes, D. E. (2011). Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Brookings Institution Press.
[70] Tijssen, R. J. (2018). Anatomy of use-inspired researchers: From Pasteur’s Quadrant to Pasteur’s Cube model. Research Policy, 47(9), 1626-1638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.05.010
[71] Mintzberg, H. (1987). The strategy concept I: Five Ps for strategy. California management review, 30(1), 11-24. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165263
[72] Vanhaverbeke, W., & Peeters, N. (2005). Embracing innovation as strategy: Corporate venturing, competence building and corporate strategy making. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(3), 246-257.  
 
 

فایل ها

همرسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار