Minerva (2014) 52:489495

DOI 10.1007/s11024-014-9262-1
ESSAY REVIEW

Innovation Studies: Staking the Claim for a New

Disciplinary Tribe
Ian Fagerberg, Ben R. Martin and Esben Sloth Andersen (eds.),
Innovation Studies: Evolution & Future Challenges. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 2014
Benot Godin

Published online: 15 November 2014

 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

If anyone in Victorias reign had tried to put himself outside the mystique of
that society and, from outside, coldly to dissect the word gentleman, we can
guess what would have happened to him. Wherever he had found confusion he
would have been told But of course you cant understand. That is because you
yourself are not a gentleman (Clive Staples Lewis, Studies in Words, 1960).
In recent years the phrase innovation studies has come to be used by a group of
scholars to name what was previously called science and technology studies, then
science, technology and innovation studies (the three concepts of the linear model of
innovation). What is innovation studies? Some years ago Ian Fagerberg and Bart
Vespagen produced analyses that defined the field by way of bibliometric data
(Fagerberg and Verspagen 2009). Now, these same researchers (and others) have
produced an argumentation that, in principle, gives a kind of coherence to the field.
Innovation Studies: Evolution & Future Challenges is the outcome of a workshop
held in 2012 in Aalborg on The Future of Innovation Studies, to which some
additional contributions were added.
From time to time researchers publish textbooks and reviews whose aim is to
assess the state of the art of a particular discipline or specialty and point to future
directions. Such is the stated objective of Innovation Studies. The book starts with
reviews of the field from the editors and then Bengt-Ake Lundvall. These are
followed by chapters on innovation and work, developing countries, evolutionary
economics and negative externalities. Part II turns to future challenges. Edward
Steinmueller opens the discussion with a critical review. It is followed by a
prospective analysis from Ben Martin and another critical review from Richard
Nelson. Lundvall concludes the book.
This title is inspired by Becher and Trowler (2001).
B. Godin (&)
385, rue Sherbrooke Est Montreal, Quebec H2X 1E3, Canada
e-mail: benoit.godin@ucs.inrs.ca

123

490

B. Godin

The editors of the book portray the academic activity of innovation studies as
going through a life cycle of development from the early turf wars of competing
disciplinary tribes, through the development of first research centres working
specifically on this field and the pre-eminence of SPRU (Science Policy Research
Unit) as a global hub, through the growth of a lively and heterogeneous
scientific community, to become a mature coherent global research community
(pp. 34). This linear narrative of the romantic progress of innovation studies
towards a happy ending (Frye 1957) resonates throughout the chapters of the book.
Each chapter reinforces the heroes of the journey as innovation studies becomes an established disciplinary tribe (Becher and Trowler 2001) with
its own history and traditions. Such stories are not without value, they serve to
provide a shared narrative for members of the tribe and they help induct new
members. Such stories are also not without problems: they can ignore dissenting
narratives and potentially lead to groupthink (Janis 1982).
This review stands outside the charm of this narrative, foregoing a review of
individual chapters to focus on the meta-discourse of the book or how elite
academics in the field understand and discuss their activity.
What Is Innovation Studies?1
According to several contributors to the book, innovation studies are 50 years
old. If one can date a field so precisely, it means that it has a more or less well
defined structure. Yet, innovation studies elude a precise definition in the book.
One has to wait until pages 147 and 169 for explicit definitions. A definition is
totally absent from where the reader expects one: the introduction. The editors stress
rather the focus of the book in the following terms: How society can derive the
greatest benefit from innovation and what needs to be done to achieve this. [To this
end] one needs to understand innovation processes in firms and the broader
environment of firms (pp. 16). The ultimate aim is contributing to policymaking or
more competent and independent public sector (p. 10).
Every contributor agrees on the firm-centric focus (p. 6) and the policyoriented agenda of innovation studies. However, the contributors differ on what
fields constitute innovation studies. Having defined a core constituted of three
components (more on this below), Lundvall excludes two fields, called adjacent
fields, i.e. not an integral part of innovation studies: entrepreneurship and
science-technology studies (p. 45).
Is innovation studies a breed (p. 14) in danger of becoming parochial
(Nelson, p. 192)? One expects that a phrase such as innovation studies to include
all kinds of studies of innovation. 40 years ago, the sociologist Everett M. Rogers
offered a review of diffusion studies (Rogers 1976). He included every field that
studies the diffusion of innovation, not only his own (sociology). His 1962
1

I use innovation studies in quotes as the study of innovation in the field reviewed here (and
Innovation Studies in italics to refer to the book). Yet, the study of innovation is larger than innovation
studies.

123

Staking the Claim for a New Disciplinary Tribe

491

influential book was similarly inclusive: anthropology, sociology, marketing,

economics, education and health (Rogers 1962). In contrast, innovation studies
are exclusive with the (SPRU) in Sussex, England, as the epicenter. To Martin, the
field was originally known as science policy research (see also Lundvall, p. 47):
the economics, management, organizational and policy studies of science,
technology and innovation, with a view to providing useful inputs to decisionmakers (p. 169). SPRUs journal Research Policy is the emblematic reference.
The journal reaches the entire field (Lundvall, p. 59). Innovation studies is not
alone in such tribal games. According to Tony Becher and Paul Trowler, most
academic disciplines have cultural mechanisms that define boundaries expecting
loyalty to ones collegial group and adherence to its norms (Becher and Trowler
2001: 47), thus creating insiders and outsiders. Nevertheless, such tribal boundaries
have consequences, the definition here excludes the mainstream economists
tradition on innovation (the economics of technological change) (with whom the
relations are not amicable, according to Nelson, p. 192), nor does it mention
network theories or social innovation, to name just a few subfields. To Lundvall, the
sociologist Rogers has too large a definition of innovation (p. 37) and Science and
Technology Studies or STS is too critical and not policy-relevant enough (p. 48).
Edward Steinmueller is the only contributing author offering a larger definition (in a
footnote) that includes STS (p. 147).
In the end, what meaning does the innovation of innovation studies have,
given that the books story includes things studied under other names for decades
(e.g. basic research, technical invention or technology)? Is innovation just an
umbrella term for an old object? While diffusion had a precise meaning to Rogers
the spread of new behaviours over time the semantic of innovation is so large that
anything may be included in it: religious change, political change (Godin
Forthcoming). Various authors hint at defining innovation as either new combinations (p. 33) or as novelty and change (p. 149). Yet, there is no mention of
technological innovation as the application of science to industry and the
commercialization of invention, the two common definitions of innovation in the
field, and certainly one would expect both to be discussed under a firm-centric
focus.

What Has It Accomplished?

Rogers 1976 essay was organized around the concepts that constitute the study of
diffusion (process, innovation, diffusion, units of observation, methods, etc.).
Innovation Studies is rather organized around emblematic authors to the exception
of Martin perhaps; yet, Martin does study trends (in approaches, subjects of study
and academic ethos) rather than conceptual issues. The reviewers (the editors in the
introduction, Lundvall, Steinmueller) select a list of chosen contributors to the field,
with one or two paragraphs on each. Lundvall, for example, identifies the core of
innovation studies as composed of three components looked at through 15 of the
most cited authors. The evolution of theories, models and concepts are not assessed,
compared and evaluated (this would take pages rather than paragraphs). Instead,

123

492

B. Godin

emblematic authors are cited from the start as defining the field, such as Nelson on
the evolutionary component and Tom Burns and Rogers on the socio-economic
component (quite a mixed bag for defining the socio component). Lundvalls
work on the system approach to innovation an interactive process among actors
over time (Lundvall, pp. 3334) as representative of the techno-economic
component, is portrayed as the new twist (p. 6). The notion of National System
of Innovation is one the most important conceptual developments to emerge from IS
[innovation studies] in the last 25 years, says Martin (p. 173).
If National System of Innovation is really the penultimate theory, the field is in
danger of sclerosis. No discipline or specialty develops from a single theory. That
innovation is systemic (everything is related to everything) may leave a fertile field
for theorists to till for decades to come, yet it says and means absolutely nothing
relevant to policymakers and practitioners.2 There are obviously components of the
system that need to be considered before others, particularly in policy matters where
resources for action are limited. Actually, the notion resembles that of social change
studied in the 1960s. Social change is so broad a category that it means nothing and
therefore upon it nothing can be built.
Steinmueller and Nelson are far more critical and reflexive than Lundvall.
Innovation studies may have reached maturity but it is not yet normal science,
claims Steinmueller (p. 15462). Steinmueller criticizes the economic focus, too (p.
156) and the neglect of Rogers tradition (p. 157). Nelson is equally critical of
economic focus (p. 188) and the need for more social or societal considerations
(Harvey Brooks has already pointed to these issues brilliantly in 1982).
In the end, the reader learns little of substance about studies of innovation,
particularly on the theories and models that compose the field, less about the
fundamental concepts used (and abused), and nothing on the limitations or
criticisms made over time of the theories and their relevance (or not) to policy and
to practice.

What Future?
In the name of openness, the chapters in the book repeatedly offer a host of ideas
for further advancing the field. The need for more interdisciplinarity is echoed
throughout with authors calling for more relations with entrepreneurship, STS and
management. The need to study types of innovation other than the technological is
also repeatedly mentioned. Other suggestions include more history and historical
details and more study of diffusion. Similar wishes are expressed by many for
several years, with no effects. Practice has not followed wishes. Wishes do rarely
change things. To take just one example, what more history and historical details
mean that would make a difference and what would it bring for renewing the field?
History of technology is a very large field already. If the editors and contributors

The field would benefit from reading the literature on the internalist/externalist debate in history.

123

Staking the Claim for a New Disciplinary Tribe

493

had been more inclusive, e.g. had defined innovation studies differently, the
claim on history would certainly have been different.3
The authors leave many substantial issues unaddressed. One is time. Studies of
innovation study innovation in a static way, at a single point in time as Rogers put
it long ago (Rogers et al. 1977). If innovation is a process over time, as Lundvall
claims and as it is studied since the 1940s in agricultural sociology, and before that
in anthropology it has to consider seriously the dynamic dimension of innovation.
Yet, innovation studies map systems of innovation, measure factors involved in
innovation but very rarely look at the dynamics of actors and factors over time.
Sequences and stages are dead, because of the (excessive?) criticism of the linear
model of innovation. Paradigms and models remain static approaches despite a
vocabulary on evolution and the like. There are little if any experiments with
models. Second, the socioeconomic problems to which innovation is supposed to
contribute are rarely if ever studied. Innovation is taken for granted as the a priori
solution to every problem of society. It is not only a matter of a pro-innovation bias
(Luc Soete), as Rogers, again, called it in the 1970s. The disappearance of the study
of demand or needs as a factor per se (Godin and Lane 2013), and its blurring
into a systemic understanding of innovation has contributed to the situation, as did
the autonomization or disciplinarization of the object (innovation) and field.
Third, concepts are fundamental to this field (e.g. innovation), as in every field.
Unfortunately, many turn rapidly into fashion, trend and buzzwords, with few
critical analyses.
Fourth, reflexive studies are largely absent from the literature. The very few that
exist are, more often than not, completely disregarded or, worse, ignored. The
chapters from Steinmueller and Nelson are most welcome, but they are the
exception. Contributors are not afraid of criticizing mainstream economics4 and
management,5 and contrasting innovation studies to STS.6 But there is in the book
little evidence of openness to debates on fundamental issues (assumptions,
approaches, models, concepts, typologies, biases and limitations). Innovation
theories are good and the experts are policy-relevant already. No major overhaul is
needed in innovation, only tune-ups. The problem is politics a very old argument
from boundary-work: We dont have to change the kind of innovating that is
occurring to deal more effectively with the poverty problem. There are a variety of

For example: the literature is clear enough, for almost a decade now, on the complex history of the
linear model of innovation. Yet, Lundvall continues to claim that the model comes from Vannevar
Bush (p. 35).

There is the challenge to make more systematic efforts to produce and disseminate insights that
demonstrate the considerable limitations of standard economics as source of policy advice, Lundvall,
p. 22; it would be better to neglect the economics mainstream, Lundvall, p. 56; important to launch an
attack on neo-classical macroeconomics, Lundvall on Chris Freeman, p. 59.

I admit of some scepticism about the scientific nature of management studies, where publication often
seems to involve little than new catchphrases , Steinmueller, p. 152.

The STS community differs from innovation studies in paying much attention to the negative
consequences of new technology and public science policy. Scholars in this tradition are notably less
engaged in looking for solutions to policy or management problems, Lundvall, p. 48.

123

494

B. Godin

policies that almost surely can make headway there, and the problem is the political
one of getting those policies in place (Nelson, p. 189).7
Last but not least, nothing can be accomplished without a major overhaul in
training. One can go and study at SPRU, to take just one example, and learn little on
Rogers, whose theory of innovation, because of its breadth (to the exception of firms
perhaps, but Rogers has studied organizations), is unsurpassed, even by Joseph
Schumpeter. Contributors to the book make a plea for new research projects and
new forms or organization of research, but if basic training programmes remain the
same, the students of the future will continue on the same track as innovation
studies do.

What Kind of Book is Innovation Studies?

Rogers review of 1976 is entitled Where Are We in Understanding the Diffusion of
Innovations? The We here is impersonal. Rogers discusses the ideas and concepts
of studies on diffusion, wherever they come from, as he did in his 1962 book. In
contrast, Innovation Studies We is proprietary. We is the tribe constructed
in the book itself. Most of the contributors to the book regularly use We to talk of
the field, in title (Giovanni Dosi) or inside text. Then, they invite those preemptively excluded to join in. Innovation Studies wishes to attract others to
contribute (p. 14). But these others have already contributed and continue to
contribute to the study of innovation in many ways. That such seminal contributions
are ignored in the discussion of innovation studies as defined here says much
about the nature of academic tribes and their status maintaining activities.8
Every field produces a state of the art at one moment or another. The most recent
one is that from researchers associated to the US National Bureau of Economic
Research, surveying how the field has evolved since The Rate and Direction of
Inventive Activity from 1962 (Lerner and Stern 2012) to be sure, this book has its
own biases, too. Innovation Studies is not a book for the reader who wants to know
what studies of innovation are. In truth, innovation studies, like so many other
disciplines, serves as a brand name for a community of scholars, in order to survive
in a competitive world for intellectual dominance over study of innovation. In this
particular sense, then, the book is useful. Innovation Studies allows us to understand
the rhetoric of the field: how researchers think and talk of themselves, amongst
themselves (Godin 2012). For those who are part of the tribe or want to join, it
provides a road map to the culture.
The call for openness is most welcome. But for what purpose? Without real
contributions from the field itself the call remains diplomatic, with few theoretical
effects. Openness is a two-way relationship and one must demonstrate a willingness to
7

Martin suggests the opposite: we seem to be devoting a disproportionate level of effort to addressing
yesterdays problems (p. 171). He is partly right only. Every day, the field brings in new concepts in
order to explain new phenomena.

Lundvalls chapter, from which the book develops, is a personal interpretation, as he calls it. A large
part of the chapter is devoted to his personal history over the last decades. Justifying ones own life
usually appears in Memoires, not in a state of the art.

123

Staking the Claim for a New Disciplinary Tribe

495

listen before imposing a point of view on others. The book would have been the ideal
vehicle to show the seriousness of the call: inviting outsiders to contribute. Behind
looking at oneself lies the danger of not seeing much else. It is perhaps time to let others
speak about the state and status of the field, above all those students trained in this
paradigm and those emerging through other paradigms and perspectives.9

References
Becher, Tony, and Paul R. Trowler. 2001. Academic Tribes and Territories, 2nd ed. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Brooks, Harvey. 1982. Social and Technological Innovation. In Managing Innovation: The Social
Dimension of Creativity, Invention and Technology, eds. Sven B. Lundstedt, and E. Williams
Colglazier, 130. New York: Pergamon Press.
Fagerberg, Jan, and Bart Verspagen. 2009. Innovation Studies: the Emerging Structure of a New
Scientific Field. Research Policy 38: 218233.
Frye, Northrop. 1957. Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Godin, Benot. 2012. Innovation Studies: The Invention of a Specialty. Minerva 50(4): 397421.
Godin, Benot. Forthcoming. Innovation Contested: The Idea of Innovation Over the Centuries. London:
Routledge.
Godin, Benot, and Joseph P. Lane. 2013. Pushes and Pulls: The Hi(story) of the Demand Pull Model
of Innovation. Science, Technology and Human Values 38(5): 621654.
Janis, Irving Lester. 1982. Groupthink: psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. New York:
Houghton Mifflin.
Lerner, Josh, and Scott Stern (eds.). 2012. The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity Revisited.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rogers, Everett M. 1962. The Diffusion of Innovation. New York: Free Press.
Rogers, Everett M. 1976. Where Are We in Understanding the Diffusion of Innovations? In
Communication and change: The last ten yearsand the next, eds. Wilbur Schramm, and Daniel
Lerner, 204222. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.
Rogers, Everett M., John D. Eveland, and Constance Klepper. 1977. The Innovation Process in Public
Organizations, Report to the US National Science Foundation, Department of Journalism,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor: Michigan.

I sincerely thank seven colleagues from both inside and outside, as well as five students, for
commenting on a first draft of this essay.

123