Institutional change and innovation system transformation: a tale of two academies

Maria Karaulova, Oliver Shackleton, Weishu Liu, Abdullah Gӧk, Philip Shapira

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)
14 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This paper investigates interactions between institutional adaptation and the transformation of science and innovation systems by analysing change and adjustment in post-socialist science academies. Two leading examples are examined: the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS). A heuristic framework of institutional change markers is applied to the analysis of nanotechnology research in both countries. We draw on bibliometric sources, interviews and secondary sources. We find that while the two Academies share a common past as the dominant research agents in their respective systems, their current positions and trajectories now differ. The nanotechnology case shows that CAS has adapted to China’s modernisation, engaged in central government policy initiatives, and interacted with other research performers. CAS remains central to the Chinese research system, and has rejuvenated and expanded its resource base. RAS, on the contrary, has taken a protectionist stance: it still dominates the Russian research system and has a strong nanotechnology position, enforced by its gatekeeper control over journal publication. Nevertheless, RAS has faced difficulties in internal modernisation, leading to the external imposition of reforms and further role diminishment. The paper offers comparative insights into processes of institutional adaptation and highlights how key institutions can influence system transition.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)196-207
Number of pages12
JournalTechnological Forecasting and Social Change
Volume116
Early online date13 Nov 2016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 31 Mar 2017

Fingerprint

Academy of Sciences
institutional change
academy
Innovation
innovation
Nanotechnology
nanotechnology
Modernization
Research
modernization
Social Change
gatekeeper
Bibliometrics
science
Social Adjustment
government policy
Trajectories
Institutional change
Innovation system
Institutional innovation

Keywords

  • research system transition
  • Russian Academy of Sciences
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences
  • Russia
  • China
  • institutional change

Cite this

Karaulova, Maria ; Shackleton, Oliver ; Liu, Weishu ; Gӧk, Abdullah ; Shapira, Philip. / Institutional change and innovation system transformation : a tale of two academies. In: Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2017 ; Vol. 116. pp. 196-207.
@article{f3cec2f99e3245bb9696416fa2baa55f,
title = "Institutional change and innovation system transformation: a tale of two academies",
abstract = "This paper investigates interactions between institutional adaptation and the transformation of science and innovation systems by analysing change and adjustment in post-socialist science academies. Two leading examples are examined: the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS). A heuristic framework of institutional change markers is applied to the analysis of nanotechnology research in both countries. We draw on bibliometric sources, interviews and secondary sources. We find that while the two Academies share a common past as the dominant research agents in their respective systems, their current positions and trajectories now differ. The nanotechnology case shows that CAS has adapted to China’s modernisation, engaged in central government policy initiatives, and interacted with other research performers. CAS remains central to the Chinese research system, and has rejuvenated and expanded its resource base. RAS, on the contrary, has taken a protectionist stance: it still dominates the Russian research system and has a strong nanotechnology position, enforced by its gatekeeper control over journal publication. Nevertheless, RAS has faced difficulties in internal modernisation, leading to the external imposition of reforms and further role diminishment. The paper offers comparative insights into processes of institutional adaptation and highlights how key institutions can influence system transition.",
keywords = "research system transition, Russian Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Russia, China, institutional change",
author = "Maria Karaulova and Oliver Shackleton and Weishu Liu and Abdullah Gӧk and Philip Shapira",
year = "2017",
month = "3",
day = "31",
doi = "10.1016/j.techfore.2016.10.018",
language = "English",
volume = "116",
pages = "196--207",
journal = "Technological Forecasting and Social Change",
issn = "0040-1625",

}

Institutional change and innovation system transformation : a tale of two academies. / Karaulova, Maria; Shackleton, Oliver; Liu, Weishu; Gӧk, Abdullah; Shapira, Philip.

In: Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 116, 31.03.2017, p. 196-207.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Institutional change and innovation system transformation

T2 - a tale of two academies

AU - Karaulova, Maria

AU - Shackleton, Oliver

AU - Liu, Weishu

AU - Gӧk, Abdullah

AU - Shapira, Philip

PY - 2017/3/31

Y1 - 2017/3/31

N2 - This paper investigates interactions between institutional adaptation and the transformation of science and innovation systems by analysing change and adjustment in post-socialist science academies. Two leading examples are examined: the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS). A heuristic framework of institutional change markers is applied to the analysis of nanotechnology research in both countries. We draw on bibliometric sources, interviews and secondary sources. We find that while the two Academies share a common past as the dominant research agents in their respective systems, their current positions and trajectories now differ. The nanotechnology case shows that CAS has adapted to China’s modernisation, engaged in central government policy initiatives, and interacted with other research performers. CAS remains central to the Chinese research system, and has rejuvenated and expanded its resource base. RAS, on the contrary, has taken a protectionist stance: it still dominates the Russian research system and has a strong nanotechnology position, enforced by its gatekeeper control over journal publication. Nevertheless, RAS has faced difficulties in internal modernisation, leading to the external imposition of reforms and further role diminishment. The paper offers comparative insights into processes of institutional adaptation and highlights how key institutions can influence system transition.

AB - This paper investigates interactions between institutional adaptation and the transformation of science and innovation systems by analysing change and adjustment in post-socialist science academies. Two leading examples are examined: the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS). A heuristic framework of institutional change markers is applied to the analysis of nanotechnology research in both countries. We draw on bibliometric sources, interviews and secondary sources. We find that while the two Academies share a common past as the dominant research agents in their respective systems, their current positions and trajectories now differ. The nanotechnology case shows that CAS has adapted to China’s modernisation, engaged in central government policy initiatives, and interacted with other research performers. CAS remains central to the Chinese research system, and has rejuvenated and expanded its resource base. RAS, on the contrary, has taken a protectionist stance: it still dominates the Russian research system and has a strong nanotechnology position, enforced by its gatekeeper control over journal publication. Nevertheless, RAS has faced difficulties in internal modernisation, leading to the external imposition of reforms and further role diminishment. The paper offers comparative insights into processes of institutional adaptation and highlights how key institutions can influence system transition.

KW - research system transition

KW - Russian Academy of Sciences

KW - Chinese Academy of Sciences

KW - Russia

KW - China

KW - institutional change

UR - https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/technological-forecasting-and-social-change

U2 - 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.10.018

DO - 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.10.018

M3 - Article

VL - 116

SP - 196

EP - 207

JO - Technological Forecasting and Social Change

JF - Technological Forecasting and Social Change

SN - 0040-1625

ER -