Journals / Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2015 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 2

Relationship between Innovation and Invention: An Explorative Investigation Though Metaphors

Yenilik Innovation ve İcat Invention Kavramları Arasındaki İlişki: Metaforlarla Keşfedici Bir Araştırma

Pages
143–164
Publication Date
2015-04-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

According to the results, both social and applied science researchers have same mind on relationship between invention and innovation but they differ on attributed meaning on invention, innovation and their relations

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study which focus on the innovation concept as an intersection of science and business, is constructed on the question of what are the perspectives on relationship between invention and innovation.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It involves a comparison on “Death Valley” and “Darvin Sea” metaphors which are related with Schumpeter’s and Roberts’ thoughts on invention and innovation.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the results, both social and applied science researchers have same mind on relationship between invention and innovation but they differ on attributed meaning on invention, innovation and their relations
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Yenilik · İcat · Metafor

Abstract

This study which focus on the innovation concept as an intersection of science and business, is constructed on the question of what are the perspectives on relationship between invention and innovation. It involves a comparison on “Death Valley” and “Darvin Sea” metaphors which are related with Schumpeter’s and Roberts’ thoughts on invention and innovation. Seventy five researchers from social and applied science participated to the research. As a qualitative study, it utilized cognitive and explorative features, richness and flexibility of metaphors as a research tool. According to the results, both social and applied science researchers have same mind on relationship between invention and innovation but they differ on attributed meaning on invention, innovation and their relations

Özet

Bilimin ve işletmeciliğin kesişim noktası olan yenilik kavramını merkezine alan bu çalışma, yenilik ve icat kavramlarına dair bakış açılarının nasıl olduğu, sorunsalı üzerine inşa edilmiştir. Schumpeter ve Roberts’ın icat ve yeniliğe dair düşünceleriyle ilişkilendirilebilen “Ölüm Vadisi” ve “Darvin Denizi” metaforlarıyla karşılaştırma yapılan çalışmada 75 uygulamalı ve sosyal bilim araştırmacısı katılımcı olarak yer almıştır. Nitel yapıda kurgulanan bu araştırmada metaforların bilişsel ve keşfedici olma yönleriyle zengin bakış açıları geliştirme ve esneklik sağlama gibi özelliklerinden yararlanılmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre her iki katılımcı grup yenilik ve icat arasındaki ilişkiyi benzer şekilde ele alırken, hem bu ilişkiye hem de kavramların kendisine yükledikleri anlamlar konusunda farklılaşmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

DANIŞMAN, S. A. (2015). Relationship between Innovation and Invention: An Explorative Investigation Though Metaphors. Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 2, 143–164. https://ajindex.com/articles/173744

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Ahuja, G.& Katila, R. (2004). Where do resources come from? the role of idiosyncratic situations, Strategic Management Journal, 25(8-9), 887-907.
  2. Altunışık, Remzi, Recai Coşkun, Serkan Bayraktaroğlu ve Engin Yıldırım, (2005), Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri: SPSS Uygulamalı. 4. bs. Sakarya. Alves, J., Marques, M.J., Saur, I. & Marques,P. (2007). Creativity and innovation through multidisciplinary and multisectoral cooperation, Creativity and Innovation Management, 16 (1), 27-34.
  3. Bell, G. (2005).
  4. Research Notes and commentaries, Clusters, Networks and Firm Innovativeness, Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 287-295.
  5. Branscomb, L. M. & Auerswald, P.E. (2002) http://www.atp.nist.gov/eao/gcr02-841/contents.htm
  6. Callahan, R.H. (2006). http://ideaflow.corante.com/archives/2006/10/
  7. Casper, S. & Waarden, F. (2005).
  8. Innovations and institutions, Edward Elgar Publishing, USA. Christensen, C.M. (1997). The innovators dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail, Harvard Business School Press,
  9. Boston, Massachusetts. Chen, Peter and S.M. Hilton (1999), Realtime Interviewing Using The World Wide Web, Sociological Research Online, 4(3) Cho, H. & Pucik, V. (2005). Relationship between innovativeness, quality, growth, profitability and market value, Strategic Management Journal, 26(6), 555- 575. Cohen, A. (2006). Follow the other hand: a remarkable fable that will energize your business, profits, and life, St. Martin's Press;
  10. First Edition edition. Cooke, P., Roper, S. & Wylie, P. (2001). www.innovation.lv/ino2/publications/url4.pdf Cowan, R. & Jonard, N. (2000.
  11. The dynamics of collective invention, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 52, 513-532.
  12. Damanpour F. (1988). Innovation type, radicalness, and the adoption process, Communication Res. 15(5), 545-567.
  13. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational ınnovation: a meta- analysis of effects of determinants and moderators, The Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555-590.
  14. Damanpour, F. (1996). Organizational complexity and ınnovation: developing and testing multiple contingency models, Management Science, 42(5), 693- 716. Dasgupta, P., Gilbert, R.J. & Stiglitz, J.E. (1982). ınvention and ınnovation under alternative market structures: the case of natural resources, The Review of Economic Studies, 29(4), 567-582.
  15. Devarajan, T.P., Ramachandran, K. & Ramnarayan, S. (2003). Entrepreneurial leadership and thriving ınnovation activity, 7th International Conference on Global Business & Economic Development,