فصلنامه سیاست علم و فناوری
سال پنجم شماره 2 (پیاپی 18، زمستان 1391)

Various interpretations of the nature of evolutionary economics and its implications have resulted in different and somewhat contradictory understanding about the subject. Different interpretations of evolutionary economics have implications for science and technology policy also. In order to extracting qualitative content and conceptualization of evolutionary approach in science and technology policy, thematic design and analysis strategy have been used in this paper. Coding, concept extracting and designing resulted in a 2-layer model in this research. In this first layer, the nature of evolutionary economics, and in the second layer its policy implications in science and technology sector have been used. Finally, on the basis of this thematic analysis, a map of science and technology policy rationales have developed. This map is not flat and has some levels to show important concepts. Represented macro design of this paper, not only represents a demarcation criteria about different interpretation of evolutionary economic, but also shows foundations and original rationales of evolutionary science and technology policy and simplifies collective and individual policies.

There are mechanisms and institutions in every society that are related to elite and elite people issues, and shape an elite system. Overall, elite system must include special functions such as recognition, absorbing (or attracting), conducting (more than education), working, supporting, respecting (or glorification), lifestyle making and maintaining (or keeping). Each of these functions becomes operational based on the perception of a society about the concepts of elite and elite people. In fact, this is the common perception of concepts that shapes institutions, their interrelationships, and their missions. But, the growth and development of that perception, based on studies and experiences, make rethinking about those concepts necessary. In this article, based on a system analysis, the concepts of elite and elite people are reconsidered and rethought. The results indicate that the main problem of approaches to talent systems is caused by common perception of the concept of elite: The perception that is only based on the concepts of giftedness and talent and does not take other aspects of elite concept, such as expertise and social interactions, into consideration.

This essay aims to introduce and compare two main approaches in philosophy of science. The first approach, which claims to be the main philosophy of science is still the main stream view of the analytic philosophy of science. However the continental approach to philosophy of science has moved in parallel fashion with analytic philosophy, however, in a completely different framework and often in contradiction to the former. In this study, while presenting general definition of continental philosophy of science, which is somehow new expression in this domain analytic and continental approaches will be compared.

The innovation systems approach has swiftly spread out worldwide in the last two decades and stood as an important approach for studying innovation processes and as a framework for policy-making in the fields of science, technology, and innovation. However, little work has been done about the theoretical soundness of this approach. In this paper, we try to focus on some important policy questions from an epistemological point of view. We study the nature and evolution of innovation systems approach as a case of conceptual revolution against the more established traditions in economics of innovation. Adopting insights from the field of conceptual development, we provide detailed analysis on the kinds and degrees of conceptual changes that occurred during the evolution of innovation systems approach. We demonstrate that the rise of systemic view on innovation include radical changes in the neoclassical view on innovation as well as deeper developments in epistemological and methodological foundations of the old paradigm.

The aim of this paper is to explore whether the process of innovation can be captured in terms of rule-following instructions? To this end the views of Paul Thagard will be critically assessed. Thagard has developed a research methodology for innovation within the framework of naturalized epistemology (qua Quine) and by making extensive use of history of ideas (qua Kuhn). The upshot of the arguments of the paper is the position upheld by Thagard and others fellow-travelers who maintain that algorithms and rules can be developed for promoting/achieving innovation is untenable. Given the fact that innovation is an emergent property which only emerges when social-epistemological systems pass certain threshold of complexity, such an objective can only be attained if ‘proper and optimal Eco niche’ for innovation is in place.