Hide
Раскрыть

Journal of the National Research University Higher School of Economics

About

News

Аrchive

Editorial Сouncil

Peer Reviewing

Publication Ethics

Contacts

Publication terms

Authors guidelines

Forthcoming articles

ISSN 1995-459X print
E-ISSN 2312-9972 online
ISSN 2500-2597 online English

Editor-in-chief
Leonid Gokhberg

   



Foresight and STI Governance Journal, 2016, vol. 10, no 2

2016-06-26
The new issue of the Foresight and STI Governance Journal (2016, vol. 10, no 2) is devoted to various methodological aspects of innovation activities, and features specific to particular spheres.

Robotics and advances in artificial intelligence research are breakthrough innovations with a potential to radically change our lifestyle. Andrew Keisner, Julio Raffo, and Sacha Wunsch-Vincent describe this sphere’s innovation system and intellectual property landscape in their paper “Robotics: Breakthrough Technologies, Innovation, Intellectual Property”. Governments play an important role in supporting relevant innovation activities. The traditional patenting leaders – Japan, US, and leading European countries – are being joined by China and Korea. Most active users of such innovations include the automotive, electronics, medical, and information technology industries. The authors note the growing role of open platforms in launching robotics innovations, and discuss intellectual property rights to products created by robots.

The paper entitled “Determinants of Regional Innovation in Russia: Are People or Capital More Important?” analyses Russian regions’ opportunities for developing and implementing their innovation potential under international economic sanctions. The authors, Stepan Zemtsov, Alexander Muradov, Imogen Wade, and Vera Barinova, conclude that patenting activity largely depends on the quality of human capital, the core of which is made by economically active city residents. Another major success factor is expenditures on equipment and basic research which lays the foundation for new developments.

Konstantin Fursov, Yana Roshina, and Oksana Balmush in their paper “Determinants of Research Productivity: An Individual-level Lens” analyse how various parameters of “scientific capital” affect the level of Russian researchers’ publication activity. According to the authors, publication activity of researchers in different age groups is affected by different factors. However, it turns out that researchers’ productivity depends on their general and specific experience more than on their age, other socio-demographic factors, and material motivation. The best strategy for universities and R&D organisations is creating  optimal conditions for professional development of their personnel, and promote their integration into the global professional community.

Attila Havas’s paper “Social and Business Innovations: Are Common Measurement Approaches Possible?” analyses various tools for measuring business innovations and their applicability in the social sphere, with recommendations on policy development. The author notes that the commonly used indicator systems, such as the Innovation Union Scoreboard and the Global Innovation Index, are designed to measure technological innovations created in the scope of R&D projects. However, such tools are hardly adequate for revealing the full effect of social innovations. He stresses the need to distinguish between social innovations as such, framework conditions for relevant activities, and innovations’ socio-economic effects as the object of evaluation.

Alexandra Moskovskaya explores collective knowledge creation mechanisms based on joint professional activities. Her paper “Electronic ‘Knowledge Factories’ versus Micro-environment of Innovation: Who Will Win?” analyses network electronic platforms’ knowledge and innovation creation potential in the course of professionals’ online communication. The main advantage of such platforms is involving a wide range of experts who possess a variety of knowledge and experience. However, being physically removed from each other, coupled with other specific features of online interaction lead to fragmented contribution of knowledge and erosion of borders between knowledge and information. The author concludes that to avoid the risks, the platforms must either learn to recreate the face-to-face communication atmosphere (micro-environment of innovation), or abandon the claims for knowledge creation role.

Keywords: innovation
 
Rambler's Top100 rss