Content uploaded by Madeleine Akrich
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Madeleine Akrich
Content may be subject to copyright.
THE FUTURE OF KEY ACTORS IN THE
EUROPEAN RESEARCH AREA:
SYNTHESIS PAPER
Madeleine Akrich and Riel Miller
Paris, May 2006
Contribution to the DG Research Expert Group on The Future of Key Actors
ABSTRACT
Many of the conclusions of this synthesis report are fully consistent with the directions of
current research policies. The work of this High Level Expert Group on the Future of
Research Actors (RA) in the European Research Area (ERA) highlights the importance of
efforts, already well underway, to reinforce the functioning of the ERA as an integrated base
that overcomes a wide range of geographic, institutional and disciplinary barriers to the both
the competition and sharing of knowledge. Knitting together the different European research
actors into a more transparent and diversified whole would seem to be one of the best ways
to create a stronger platform for knowledge creation and diffusion. A less anticipated
conclusion, and less part of the existing consensus, is that simply pursuing the ambition of
multiplying the number of effective research platforms in Europe may miss a key part of
tomorrow’s research agenda. The in-depth expert papers on the eight different research
actors of the ERA, the insights arising from the synthesis developed in this paper, and the
analytical results of a rare scenario pooling exercise, all point very clearly to the risk that
current policies are excessively technology centric and may miss crucial emerging attributes
of research and research actors in the knowledge society. Thus, over and above the value-
added for assessing the direction and implementation of current approaches to improving the
production and use of research in Europe, this report recommends new policies aimed at
accelerating the development of emergent forms and sources of research. The policy
message is that Europe must move beyond industrial-era challenges to embrace those of the
knowledge society.
Further opening, expanding and integrating the European Research Area requires:
1) Policies that put into practice expanded criteria for designing and funding research
programmes for the European Research Area to include user-centred technological,
organisational and social innovation.
2) Policies that initiate experiments that validate (quality/trust/transparency) new forms and
producers (including individual independent researchers) of knowledge.
3) Policies, both budgetary and regulatory, that create and facilitate both new collaborative
environments for research, including user-centred research, and new governance
processes.
ii
4) Policies to enhance the capacity of policy makers (including at the regional level) to
recognise and facilitate new forms of research and particularly new approaches to the
governance of research processes.
5) Policies to abolish national borders for researchers and for students both within Europe
and outside Europe.
6) Policies to strengthen the autonomy of universities, including areas so far strictly
controlled by most governments such as a university’s strategic profile and selection of
specialisations.
7) Further research is required regarding the relationship between the changing nature of
research and intellectual property rights (IPR).
8) Further research is required regarding the functional division of labour amongst different
research actors in the context of the emerging “open innovation model”.
9) Further research is required in order to describe and analyse the contribution of civil
society to research and innovation.
10) Further research is required on how to establish trust in highly complex and diversified
knowledge societies.
11) Further research is required to define and measure new forms of innovation, particularly
with respect to the innovation related research occurring in the service sector, SMEs and
the community (social innovation) that point towards new models of innovation.
Akrich and Miller The Future of Research Actors in the European Research Area
1
TABLE OF CONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION 3
SOME DEFINITIONS .......................................................................................................................................3
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................4
2. SYNTHESIS OF THEMATIC REPORTS 6
RESEARCH ACTORS SUMMARY PART A: THE WORLD OF RESEARCH ....................................................6
RESEARCHERS: KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION IN TRANSITION (BASED ON THE CONTRIBUTION BY ANDREA
BONACCORSI) .................................................................................................................................................6
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS: RECONFIGURING RESEARCH NETWORKS, BETWEEN
BASIC AND APPLIED RESEARCH (BASED ON THE CONTRIBUTION BY JOS LEYTEN).....................................9
UNIVERSITIES: RELATIONS BETWEEN RESEARCH AND HIGHER EDUCATION (BASED ON THE
CONTRIBUTION BY ATTILA HAVAS) ............................................................................................................12
RESEARCH ACTORS SUMMARY PART B: FIRMS IN INNOVATION NETWORKS.....................................13
MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES: DEFINITION OF MULTINATIONALS AND INNOVATION MODELS (BASED
ON THE CONTRIBUTION BY GUIDO REGER).................................................................................................13
SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES: DIVERSITY OF INNOVATION NETWORKS (BASED ON THE
CONTRIBUTION BY BART CLARYSSE)..........................................................................................................15
RESEARCH ACTORS SUMMARY PART C: POLICY AND SOCIETY ...........................................................18
NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS (BASED ON THE CONTRIBUTION BY JARI ROMANAINEN)..............................18
REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS (BASED ON THE CONTRIBUTION BY LUIS SANZ) ............................................20
CIVIL SOCIETY (BASED ON THE CONTRIBUTION BY HENNING BANTHIEN)................................................21
3. IDENTIFYING COMMON DISRUPTIVE TRENDS FOR POSSIBLE
FUTURE CONTEXTS 23
A) WHAT KNOWLEDGE? ............................................................................................................................23
B) PRODUCING KNOWLEDGE: TOWARDS A LEARNING SOCIETY? ........................................................25
THE USER’S MULTIPLE INVOLVEMENTS ......................................................................................................25
COMMUNITIES!OR THE SOCIAL EMBEDDEDNESS OF LEARNING ACTIVITIES ..............................................26
C) KNOWLEDGE ACCESS AND RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS ..................................................................27
D) LOCALIZATION OF KNOWLEDGE .........................................................................................................29
E) R&D UNDER PUBLIC SCRUTINITY: EXTENDING THE SCOPE OF LEARNING PROCESSES ................30
4. SCENARIOS 32
FRAMING ASSUMPTIONS.............................................................................................................................32
A SYNTHESIS MODEL FOR MAPPING THE SCENARIOS.............................................................................33
MAPPING THE RA SCENARIOS...................................................................................................................38
CAPSULE SUMMARIES OF THE RA SCENARIOS ...........................................................................................38
CHARTING THE RA SCENARIOS ...................................................................................................................43
COMMENTS ON THE SCENARIOS................................................................................................................44
SCENARIO WEAK SIGNALS ...........................................................................................................................44
SCENARIO GROUPS........................................................................................................................................46
SCENARIO DENSITY AND DISPERSION PATTERNS........................................................................................49
Akrich and Miller The Future of Research Actors in the European Research Area
2
WHERE TO NEXT? A CHALLENGE FOR POLICY MAKERS 52
RECOMMENDATIONS – POLICIES FOR CREATING A SEAMLESSLY
OPEN, DIVERSIFIED AND EXPERIMENTALIST EUROPEAN RESEARCH
AREA 56
POLICIES THAT OPEN, EXPAND AND INTEGRATE THE EUROPEAN RESEARCH AREA........................56
RECOMMENDED POLICY ACTIONS TO OPEN, EXPAND AND INTEGRATE THE EUROPEAN RESEARCH
AREA.............................................................................................................................................................57
RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES FOR FURTHER RESEARCH INTO THE FUTURE OF RESEARCH .....................59
Akrich and Miller The Future of Research Actors in the European Research Area
3
1. INTRODUCTION
The mission entrusted to this group is the following: describe the situation of the main
research actors in Europe; identify attributes of the present that might frame the evolution of
research in the future; construct scenarios that describe distinctive outcomes for research in
2020, from a heuristic perspective; and, finally, based on the preceding elements, draw up
public policy recommendations.
Before considering these different points, it is necessary to define the methodology and
terms that will be used throughout the report.
At a general level this work conforms to the expectation, articulated by the Lisbon Summit
strategy, that knowledge and innovation will become the main sources of wealth creation.
The authors of this report take the view that this vision of a more knowledge intensive
economy and society calls for a reconceptualization of societal development and hence a
renewal of the frameworks proposed by the social and economic sciences.
SOME DEFINITIONS
Knowledge is defined today as a learning and cognitive capacity. Most importantly, it has to
be apprehended in action. This implies a fundamental distinction between information and
knowledge. Information consists of explicit formatted data which, unlike knowledge, cannot
on its own generate new information. Although it can easily be copied and transported
(writing on paper or in digital form), its use always involves the implementation of other
knowledge, some of which is partially embodied. For instance, simply reading a scientific
article does not allow for the replication of an experiment that, in most cases, requires the
mobilization of practical, theoretical, common sense and experience knowledge, not to
mention diverse material and organizational investments
1
.
Various authors have proposed different typologies of knowledge. Some are based on the
source of the knowledge and its format. Traditionally a distinction is made between implicit
knowledge (e.g. daily life or common sense knowledge, experience knowledge, local or
indigenous knowledge, action knowledge) and explicit knowledge (practical, theoretical or
creative knowledge). Other typologies emphasize the context in which knowledge is used, as
defined by the knowledge itself (normative and descriptive knowledge, strategic and
operative knowledge, scientific and empirical knowledge, past- and future-oriented
knowledge). Finally, certain authors focus more on the modes of inscription of knowledge,
and thus distinguish between: 'embrained' knowledge (based on certain conceptual and
cognitive skills), embodied knowledge, 'encultured' knowledge (built up in the processes of
socialization that lead to shared forms of understanding), embedded knowledge (in systemic
routines), and encoded knowledge (which can be considered as equivalent to information).
2
This extension of the concept of knowledge helps to reveal a number of current phenomena.
First, it exposes “research actors” that have typically not been included as long as knowledge
was essentially defined as codified knowledge produced by basic or applied scientists. Now,
1
For a synthetic analysis of the subject: Foray, D. (2000). L'économie de la connaissance Paris: La
Découverte
2
Amin, A., & Cohendet, P. ((2004). Architectures of Knowledge: Firms, Capabilities, and Communities
Oxford: Oxford University Press) synthesized these diverse conceptualizations.
Akrich and Miller The Future of Research Actors in the European Research Area
4
as is developed in more detail below, the field of actors engaged in knowledge production
expands considerably. Second, the redefinition of the concept of knowledge is accompanied
by a redefinition of research activities themselves. If the production of knowledge by
researchers mobilizes other knowledge that is varied in nature, in its mode of construction
and in its appropriation, this can have multiple impacts on the material, organizational and
geographic conditions likely to stimulate that production. Such developments are reflected in
recent economic analyses of the growth in the share of intangible capital (education, training,
R&D, etc.) and the steady expansion of knowledge-intensive economic activities.
Yet the enlargement of the concept of knowledge may take the analysis even further, beyond
the expansion of both the number of actors and of the ways knowledge is actually produced.
Reconceptualising knowledge might also allow for the possibility that research, as the
generic form of knowledge production, enters into economic and social life in new ways.
Such explorations do not undermine more restrictive terms like “scientific research,” which
continue to describe both particular research practices, like laboratory experimentation, and
particular research results, like codified and peer certified findings. On the contrary, the
combined broadening of the range and refinement of the meaning of research can be seen
as a way of avoiding confusing different types of knowledge in a period when the boundaries
and definitions are being challenged. Indeed, it is hoped that one of the main contributions of
this report will be help to avoid the error of allocating all of the increases in the production
and circulation of knowledge, often linked to the spectacular development of information and
communication technologies, to the past’s more limited set of knowledge categories.
As the expert papers make clear, the greater intensity and incomparably more extensive
circulation of both codified and non-codified knowledge, including from scientific sources, is
what makes the facilitating role of ICT so apparent. Even ‘laypersons’ now seek and find
specialised information, further helping to drive up the demand for ever more efficient
information tools. Greater access to information and capacity to network helps, in turn, to
propel a virtuous spiral of engagement and democratisation that then generates further
investment and innovation in the social and technological infrastructure. A similar self-
reinforcing cycle is occurring in the transaction and networking spheres as people pursue
their desires to trade, discuss, collaborate and invent. Blogs and wikis, email and chat, all are
giving new meaning to the qualitative and quantitative extension of knowledge that may
someday underpin a knowledge-based society and economy.
METHODOLOGY
The group's work adhered to a precise, predefined framework established at the outset by
DG Research. Eight 'actors' were chosen as particularly important subjects and a monograph
on each was commissioned according to a set structure that consisted of: an introduction
that defined the object of analysis and the main concepts used; a description of the present
situation; an analysis of the key developments as they appear today; an identification of the
major forces likely to impact on future developments; and, finally, scenarios for 2020. The
aim of these monographs was to provide a rich and well-documented presentation of the
main trends considered pertinent to the evolution of each actor, its missions, its
competencies, and its relations with the other actors of the research and innovation 'system'.
The most forward-looking part – the scenarios, accompanied by policy recommendations –
aims to broaden the range of possible futures. In this respect the scenarios are intended
neither to take into account all current constraints nor to draw a path from today leading up to
2020; rather, the scenarios project contrasting worlds in order to allow the assumptions that
underpin today’s choices to be examined more explicitly.
The different monographs on which this report is based concern the following research
actors (in alphabetical order of the authors' names):
Akrich and Miller The Future of Research Actors in the European Research Area
5
Civil Society – Henning Banthien
Researchers – Andrea Bonaccorsi
Small and Medium Enterprises – Bart Clarysse
Universities – Attila Havas
Research and Technology Organizations – Jos Leyten
Multinational Enterprises – Guido Reger
National Governments – Jari Romanainen
Regional Governments – Luis Sanz
The first versions of these monographs were discussed during a one and a half-day meeting
in September 2005. On this basis, a first draft synthesis, aimed at highlighting the 'common
disruptive trends for the elaboration of possible future contexts', was drawn up and a
framework for the elaboration of scenarios was proposed. At a second meeting in November
2005 an overall discussion was held around comparisons between the different hypotheses
that had guided the elaboration of the monographs. This discussion provided a number of
complementary elements for the synthesis. A final gathering, to consider the policy
implications, was convened for a half day on May 4, 2006.
The structure of the present report corresponds to these different steps. First, there is a
synthesis of the monographs highlighting those elements that seem to be the most relevant
to an analysis of possible contexts (scenarios) for research fifteen years from now. This first
part aims to gather the author’s insights about how the present may be setting the stage for
possible futures that are not simply a linear continuation of the past. The second part adopts
a cross-cutting perspective by identifying the concepts and frames of analysis, common to
the different monographs, in order to reveal the emergent realities and descriptive tools that
might offer operational insights for decision makers. The third part focuses on mapping the
scenarios based on a framework established in the first and second parts. The paper
concludes with a number of questions regarding the assumptions that underpin current policy
choices and a set of eleven policy recommendations.
A few additional points are worth mentioning at the outset:
Although the monographs followed a set pattern, the Commission left the authors free to
choose their own hypotheses and frames of analysis. The idea was to facilitate a proliferation
of models, an approach considered advantageous in a creative exercise like this one.
Consequently, in order to construct a coherent analysis this synthesis paper does not simply
aggregate all of the diverse elements but instead attempts to select those parts that fit into a
logical story. Hence the first part of this paper does not claim to cover all the points
developed by the monographs but rather proposes a reading that is as exhaustive as
possible while still aligning what is presented to the analytical aims discussed above, i.e.
identifying the new regimes of production and circulation of knowledge in a knowledge-based
society and economy.
The choice of 'actors' to consider is not intended to be exhaustive. For instance, Europe and
its institutions have obviously not been treated as such, although they appear in the analyses
of other actors. It is moreover necessary to relativise the concept of an actor. As we will see
below, each category comprises extremely heterogeneous sub-categories. Furthermore, the
idea that the 'actors' defined at the outset can disappear or be completely reconfigured is one
of the hypotheses that has been put forward to elaborate the scenarios. This is consistent
with the aim of gaining a better understanding of the articulation between the 'institutional'
definition of the actors – which is more or less what was opted for in the choice of themes for
the monographs – and a 'pragmatic' definition which takes as a starting point the analysis of
Akrich and Miller The Future of Research Actors in the European Research Area
6
activities and effective practices. Exploring this changing articulation and its dynamics helps
to expose the emergence of new categories and identities.
2. SYNTHESIS OF THEMATIC REPORTS
These different reports are grouped together in three main sets: first the world of researchers
and their institutions, then that of firms and, finally, that of collective institutions, including
national and regional governments, as well as civil society.
RESEARCH ACTORS SUMMARY PART A: THE WORLD OF RESEARCH
This part groups together the syntheses of the three monographs on researchers, research
and technology organizations (RTOs), and universities, respectively. None of these actors
are situated in exactly the same space, they represent complementary points of view on
composite realities: for instance researchers are an integral part of RTOs and universities.
Moreover, as will become clear below, today's RTOs have two sides to them: they are
indeed clearly identified organizations with a history behind them, but they may also be a
mode of functioning of research that has been imported by a number of other institutions –
which obey other logics – like universities. Hence, rather than considering each monograph
as an exhaustive description of an 'actor', the following summaries concentrate those
aspects considered most pertinent to the futures oriented task of the HLEG.
RESEARCHERS: KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION IN TRANSITION (BASED ON THE
CONTRIBUTION BY ANDREA BONACCORSI)
The paper on researchers focuses primarily on people who currently belong to public
research systems. Three main themes appear to be central to achieving a dynamic
understanding of the research actor as defined by the author: the evolution of the researcher
population, transformations in knowledge production, and researchers' relations with
'society'.
A CHANGING POPULATION
The population of European researchers is currently facing a demographic problem. As in
most sectors, this population is aging, in line with the general trend over the past sixty years.
This leads to the expectation that huge numbers of researchers will retire over the next few
years and that as a consequence it will be necessary to rapidly recruit new researchers,
whose numbers will obviously depend on the resources allocated to R&D, in part contingent
on public policies. Some analyses estimate that it will be necessary to recruit 700 000
researchers
3
in Europe by 2010. This recruitment challenge poses a number of problems:
First, students in Europe tend to be turning away from science and technology, especially
when it is research-oriented. Some see this as a consequence of the more critical attitude
that has developed towards technical 'progress', which is perceived as bringing as many
threats as it does hopes. Others stress the lack of attractiveness of careers in these fields in
terms of workload, status and pay. In Europe researchers salaries are relatively low when
compared to industry or the service sector.
3
http://europa.eu/abc/europein2005/research_en.htm
Akrich and Miller The Future of Research Actors in the European Research Area
7
In the context of internationalization of higher education and research, the question of
remuneration is crucial. In the absence of European policies that take into account stiff
competition to recruit the best PhDs and post-docs, many young European researchers are
attracted abroad, especially to the US. For the same reasons, this outward migration is not
compensated for by sufficient inward migration, both quantitatively and qualitatively. From
this point of view, the development of training in English for undergraduate students seems
to be essential, since an international approach is important from the first years of university
training in order to enhance the attractiveness of the European education system.
The research job market in Europe is fragmented, organized on a national or even local
scale, with a low level of competition. Selection takes place in a relatively opaque way, which
often favours local candidates. This mode of functioning does not promote international
openness and leads to unequal levels of quality. Many authors agree that the broader a
market is, the greater its specialization and the higher the overall level of quality. The low
level of internationalization of the European research job market is not offset by intra-
European mobility, which remains limited due to the rigidity of statuses and organizations,
and the absence of systems for managing scientific careers on a European scale, even if
young researchers, typically post-doctoral, are much more mobile than they used to be,
thanks to a strong European policy. Scientific dynamics and the capacity to innovate,
strongly based on the possibility of establishing original links between separate research
currents, would undoubtedly be enhanced by active policies to promote mobility.
The prospects offered by research are also limited by the relative absence of diversity in the
modes of financing, which is primarily by the public sector. Even if the intrinsically risky
nature of research activities argues for a large proportion of public funding, it is worth noting
the emergence of different layers in this public funding – regional, national, European – with
more relative weight at regional level. Since private and industrial funding remain stable at a
low level, one of the questions for the future is the development of funding via private
foundations, non-profit associations and NGOs, which seem to be one of the most promising
ways of boosting research, considering the increasing involvement of 'civil society' in
research activities in general.
TRANSFORMATIONS IN KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION
From a general point of view, scientific knowledge is knowledge produced in accordance with
accepted protocols (experimental rules, controls) and subject to inter-subjective scrutiny and
criticism. As noted in the introduction, this characterization accounts for the specificity of
science in a context marked by the emergence of forms of research other than academic,
and the emergence of actors (think tanks, patient organizations, consultancy firms,
environmental pressure groups, etc.) other than researchers in the research world. It does
not imply – as some analysts seem to fear – that all kinds of “research” will be put on an
equal footing, or that certification of scientific knowledge will escape from academic actors’
prerogatives. Although, once again, the issue of trust and the legitimacy of both the sources
and outcomes of research are now open to greater contest and potentially diversification.
This does not, as pointed out earlier, erase the crucial distinction between research activities
– which are likely to develop beyond the frontiers of the academic world – and science, which
is the output of academic activities, still submitted to rigorous certification processes
controlled by academic actors. These distinctions will be considered further in the next
section of this paper.
Three attributes of the present may play a role in shaping the context for research actors in
the future:
The development of the Web and electronic communication tools facilitates not only the
circulation and sharing of knowledge, but also its production. This process can be far more
Akrich and Miller The Future of Research Actors in the European Research Area
8
flexible than it used to be in traditional research settings and involve non-professionals in
research, leading to new forms of collective innovation. Yet the way in which intellectual
property rights (including contracts and transaction/payment systems) are defined and
managed is going to play a crucial part in these developments. Various options (Creative
Commons, Open Source model, patent pooling, etc.) are worth assessing and discussing.
For some time now, knowledge production has been described as increasingly
multidisciplinary and application-driven. This sometimes leads to confusion. The fact that a
project started with certain possible uses being taken into consideration does not necessarily
mean that it is a matter of applied, short-term research. In fact, even today a growing part of
research is both motivated by applications and involves investigation of fundamental
questions. Certain experts have proposed to call the studies that fit this dual characterization
'Frontier Research'
4
, in so far as it is set in a fast-growing space at the intersection between
basic and applied research. In a way that converges with this development, multidisciplinarity
has become possible through the creation of concepts which allow different sets of
knowledge to be articulated at deep explanatory levels and not only for applied purposes.
New research domains are developing around information and communication technologies,
biotechnologies, materials and nanotechnologies, which are no longer based on access to
large physical facilities but on decentralized facilities (e.g. genomic databases, networks of
molecular biology laboratories, etc.) or an institutional complementarity (e.g. between
hospitals, medical schools and laboratories; between software developers, electronic
designers, and communities of users). With this development the question of equipment and
devices likely to encourage scientific and technical creativity is set in new terms. Two forms
warrant careful examination: the first is based on networking that makes it possible to pool
data, tools, models, etc.; the second relates to the platform model which has been put
forward by some analysts. The notion of a platform
5
attempts to formalise the attributes of a
network insofar as it connects a set of devices, tools, instruments, technologies and
discourses which are used by a heterogeneous group of people, ranging from basic
scientists to engineers and users, to pursue a specific goal. The heterogeneity of this
grouping may lead to the production of new research 'entities', new technologies and new
practices, in short, trans-disciplinary built-in innovation.
Having noted these disparate developments does not answer the question of the capacity of
the research system, as currently constituted or through its institutional and organizational
innovations, to support or anticipate the reconfigurations that might arise from changes in the
conduct of researchers' day-to-day work and their interactions with one another and with
other actors.
RELATIONS BETWEEN RESEARCHERS AND SOCIETY
Relations between researchers and 'society' have intensified in the past few years. The
development of a number of controversies in the public sphere has undermined the illusion,
harboured by many, that science is able to do away with all uncertainties. It has
consequently encouraged the intervention of lay persons on problems that have scientific
dimensions, thus leading to a democratization of scientific and technological choices and a
demand for accountability. Moreover as will be discussed in more detail in the part on civil
4
European Commission- DG Research, (2005). Frontier research. The European challenge. High
level expert group.
5
Keating, P., & Cambrosio, A. (2003). Biomedical Platforms. Realigning the Normal and the
Pathological in Late-Twentieth-Century Medicine Cambridge MA: MIT Press
Akrich and Miller The Future of Research Actors in the European Research Area
9
society, many actors in civil society believe that their specific problems are inadequately
addressed by researchers and have therefore sought the means to pursue their own
research agendas through associations, pressure groups, foundations, and so on.
As a result new forms of expertise are emerging, facilitated by the development of ICT that
allows both access to content and contact amongst actors. In many cases this expertise, that
in some cases can be considered quasi-professional, is mobilized by researchers in the
definition of research activities and innovation. This tendency is expected to intensify in the
near future and, in certain cases, it may give rise to collaboration between researcher-
innovators and users that go beyond current categories and frameworks.
This strengthening of ties between research and society attests to new and emerging ways
of articulating complementary forms of knowledge. It also poses a challenge, related to the
potential for confusion as new players and concepts develop, which is how to make sense of
these different contributions and ensure that they are integrated in stimulating and creative
ways, both in terms of how research is defined and conducted.
The above-mentioned developments all contribute to shaping a context for research that is
slightly out of line with classical representations. Researchers can no longer be treated as a
population subject to homogeneous organization, structured according to disciplinary
divisions, with ties to the social world mediated by administrative and political authorities. On
the contrary, there are now a multitude of groups that interact in varied ways, re-arranging or
even partially erasing boundaries between disciplines and between different forms of
knowledge, science being only one of these forms. The question here, to be addressed in the
following parts on institutional forms, is how are organizations adapting to the new types of
knowledge creation, diffusion and use?
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS: RECONFIGURING RESEARCH
NETWORKS, BETWEEN BASIC AND APPLIED RESEARCH (BASED ON THE CONTRIBUTION
BY JOS LEYTEN)
Research and technology organizations (RTOs) are generally non-profit organizations that
provide innovation, technology and R&D services to a variety of clients (firms, public
services, administrations). This makes them 'in-between' organizations: their financing is
comprised of both private resources (via contracts, patents and licenses) and public funds;
they increasingly straddle applied and basic research, and are thereby engaged in 'frontier
research'; and their work has a distinct multidisciplinary dimension that includes the
economic and social sciences. This particular positioning is a source of tension, so that the
specificity of RTOs depends on a balance being maintained between their diverse
components.
RTOs, sensitive to changes in the environments in which they are set, already have a history
rich in reconfigurations. Invested with a mission to support industry following the Great
Depression in 1929, they turned towards Big Science (nuclear research, mainframe
computing, large chemical laboratories and test facilities, etc.) in the post-WWII years and
developed generic support activities for scientific and technical research. This was followed
by a period (roughly 1970-1985) of research driven by public issues: environmental research,
human factors research, public health, and research for industries considered to be of
national strategic importance. More recently, reduced public funding has prompted RTOs to
increase their share of contract research and, in order to do so, to expand the sphere of their
competencies. The following section looks at current developments that may play a role in
once again reconfiguring RTOs.
Akrich and Miller The Future of Research Actors in the European Research Area
10
RTOS AT THE CROSSROADS
Historically and by construction RTOs have tended to encourage multidisciplinarity and have
been less constrained by the boundaries between basic and applied research. Consequently
RTOs have many assets conducive to playing a strategically important role in the current
context. With links to Big Science RTOs have expertise in the development of tools and
concepts (mathematical modelling, complex systems theory, etc.) that allow them to
articulate and blend the sets of heterogeneous knowledge and technology that are
considered to be major sources of innovation today.
RTOs are also well configured to take advantage of the increasing number of actors involved
in research and the intensified relations between the scientific community and its
environment, as mentioned in the preceding section. Research related controversies and
public debates have brought the ties between techno-scientific choices and socio-economic
organization into sharp focus. For example in the case of nanotechnologies efforts have
been made to incorporate the analysis of socio-economic or ‘political’ factors very early on in
the research process. In addition, firms are increasingly aware of the fact that the end-user
plays a decisive part in innovation. Information and communication technologies, in
particular, involve active users who often adapt, alter and invent ‘tools’ to put to expected and
unexpected uses. This partly explains the need for much closer collaboration amongst the
technology, production, marketing and strategy divisions in companies. Such developments
also favour RTOs, even more so than universities, because it corresponds well to the
structure and functioning of these ‘hybrid’ institutions.
RTO AND NETWORK ORGANIZATION
Innovation that relies on the mobilization of skills, knowledge and widely diverse approaches
is part of the development of networked innovation systems and networked R&D. It is
becoming difficult for any one actor (company, research institution) to have all of the required
resources. Consequently, the various actors focus on certain core competencies or core-
products, while engaging in extensive networking with other players in the innovation system.
This nevertheless supposes an open innovation regime and a definition of intellectual
property rights that allow for the sharing, circulation and collective re-elaboration of
knowledge at every point in the network. At the same time, the existence of specific research
fields with strong externalities leads certain actors to adopt closed strategies relying on
maximum intellectual property rights protection in order to secure the potentially huge profits
that can accrue. For RTOs it is likely that the former, open networking approach, is more in
keeping with their mission than the narrower proprietary approach.
Another set of reasons for adopting an open networking rather than a property rights strategy
is related to the emergence of both highly versatile enabling technologies and mass-
customization. As already noted, users are no longer constrained to the selection and
adaptation of specific technologies for their own direct use since in the process of using they
also 'invent' and develop new technologies or at least new applications that, in turn, define
and structure the pursuit of new research agendas. Such developments are already apparent
as ICTs advance and as the tools for easy and cheap manipulation of the basic building
blocks in bio- and nano-technologies become available to a wider public. If the ICT model is
anything to go by, these developments should soon take the shape of a proliferation of
innovation in the peripheral and cross-cutting zones of these fields. This implies steady
cooperation between different actors (companies, research organizations) to set standards
and to be able to cover the service chain linked to any product and maybe also to users or
user-representatives. This shifts the nature of research contracts away from binary
cooperation to produce clearly delimited objects towards plural links that share a common
but often ambiguous objective. Such practices also mean that it is increasingly difficult to
dissociate the service provision which constitutes the object of research contracts from the
Akrich and Miller The Future of Research Actors in the European Research Area
11
acquisition of competencies that, up until now, have largely been funded by basic research
grants.
In large measure RTOs are well suited at both an operational level and in terms of underlying
legal and economic models to take part in these networks and emerging practices. However,
the networking imperative is not enough to unambiguously define RTOs' strategies. The
weakening of public financing and the internationalization of R&D confront RTOs with many
possibilities and choices, not all of which can satisfy the constraints imposed by statutory
and/or partnership arrangements. Given the pressure to achieve levels of excellence in
keeping with the standards of international competition RTOs are being driven to seek out
very specific niches or even engage in an active policy of participation in similar foreign
organizations that have competencies in the targeted sectors. This entrepreneurial strategy,
partly necessitated by the reduction of public financing, entails a risk for RTOs should they
pick the wrong niche or end up withdrawing, to some extent, from the local, regional or
national economy. Such moves can undermine both the justification for public support of the
RTO and the RTO’s traditional sources of competencies, markets and relations. Explicitly or
implicitly certain public policies may be encouraging this type of behaviour, pushing RTOs
towards either a detachment from or withdrawal into the local economy. Neither of which are
considered, by many analysts, as viable strategy in the long term.
Such observations lead to a series of questions regarding RTOs. First, as RTOs reconfigure,
what is their place in Europe? Is there a way of combining internationalization and territorial
anchorage so that RTOs' provide research excellence on a European scale? Second, which
markets should be targeted as priorities? Emergent markets which, from a quantitative point
of view, seem highly promising in the short term? Or mature markets that seem far richer
qualitatively in terms of learning and possible diversification? The answer to this question can
obviously not be the same for all RTOs, RTO projects and RTO partnerships with
enterprises, civil society, etc.. However, should value creation in the future depend on
incorporating more 'intelligence' into products and services in highly specific markets, then
the latter, qualitative approach may be the most appropriate.
RTOS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONVERGENCE
The changes discussed above are putting the RTO model to the test in several respects.
First, the ascendance of entrepreneurial activity, linked to the decline of public support and
the necessity of conducting more client determined research, has meant that the distinction
between RTOs and completely private research centres is less clear-cut. One extrapolation
of this line of development might lead to a situation where long-term scientific and
technological research is left entirely to the private sector. This could lead to the
fragmentation of RTOs into small units that could either be bought out by private firms or else
function much like independent private consultancies.
Second, numerous pressures are causing the traditional actors of fundamental research
(universities, large research organizations) to turn towards partnerships and contractual
research, which brings them closer to RTOs. This could lead to the disappearance of RTOs
as an institutional form, but to their maintenance and generalization as a specific research
practice, defined by the application/research mix and the role of the client, in other
institutions like universities.
Third, RTOs may retain some degree of institutional specificity by finding revenue models
that leverage their current competencies. By systematizing mixed forms of research, oriented
towards both the public – itself defined as a holder of knowledge and expertise, and possibly
forming different types of collective or community – and technical and scientific communities.
The in-between positioning of RTOs and their multidisciplinary culture could constitute a
decisive advantage.
Akrich and Miller The Future of Research Actors in the European Research Area
12
UNIVERSITIES: RELATIONS BETWEEN RESEARCH AND HIGHER EDUCATION (BASED ON
THE CONTRIBUTION BY ATTILA HAVAS)
The preceding sub-sections on researchers and RTOs considered a number of issues that
concern universities: the challenges of demography and recruitment apply directly to these
institutions, as do transformations in the production of knowledge like the contractual
approach to research practiced by RTOs and now adopted by university labs. The focus in
this subsection is on the institutional constraints that universities impose on research in an
effort to balance the different missions entrusted to them – teaching and research – and the
way in which these missions are defined and articulated to one another.
Universities across Europe reflect a multitude of different realities. In certain countries they
constitute the preponderant share of the research and higher education system; in others
they coexist with large research organizations and even, as in France, with other types of
higher education institutions (Grandes Ecoles) which are also increasingly engaged in
research. On the whole, there is less investment in higher education in Europe than in other
countries such as the US or Japan, funding is primarily from the public sector, and students
pay a relatively low share of the costs of their education. However, it must be noted that the
funding of university-based research has increased substantially over the last 15 years.
There has also been a diversification of the sources of funding for research institutions to
include: national governments, supranational bodies such as the European Commission,
regional governments, business enterprises, and civil society.
The respective weight of teaching and research, and the mechanisms through which
research activities can be financed and encouraged vary considerably, depending on the
country and the university. In general, however, universities in Europe currently face the
same challenges: offering courses to young adults; meeting the demand for on-going
education and training; and participating in knowledge production in increasingly diverse
contexts and with an ever-greater variety of partners.
How to effectively pursue these three missions simultaneously is not self-evident. Indeed the
juxtaposition of these different tasks currently weighs on universities, generating strong
tensions, in part due to limited resources. A situation exacerbated by the fact that the main
missions of universities are not always defined in unambiguous ways nor do key
stakeholders, such as the managers of universities or governments, always agree on the
same priorities. Still there is a widespread assumption, resting on more than thirty years of
official rhetoric, that public authorities will introduce policies to enable all the citizens to
acquire the skills necessary for lifelong learning. An almost equally longstanding policy goal
is also expected to persist, that is to encourage the professions involved in the production,
distribution and certification of knowledge to accord greater recognition to the informal
knowledge of users and practitioners. What role universities will play remains to be
determined. Should they differentiate and specialize or standardise and universalise? Will
other institutions take up the teaching-learning challenge? All these questions remain open.
The link between research and higher education is often seen as self-evident. As is the link
between high-level, high-quality research and the best teaching. The significance of these
assumptions has grown with globalization and the idea that universities now function in their
own global market. Symptomatic of this point of view is the classification of higher education
institutions, proposed by Shanghai University, that only takes into account research-related
indicators. Thus, the best universities are those with the greatest concentration of
internationally recognized researchers. This approach seems somewhat limited, at a
minimum because it:
Akrich and Miller The Future of Research Actors in the European Research Area
13
• reduces the 'higher education market' to only those universities that, on the basis of
academic excellence, occupy a place in the international arena for training elites
(economic, social and scientific);
• excludes many forms of knowledge other than purely academic knowledge;
• oversimplifies the link between academic excellence and learning;
• weakens the diversity and specificity of the criteria for evaluating the quality of
research by excluding a range of less strictly academic activities such as research
done through training, applied industrial research, knowledge diffusion through
popularization and participation in public debate, and support for public policies and
services;
6
• uses the spectre of competition in the higher education market to favour a restrictive
definition of research that is out of phase with both research practices and policies,
such as spinning off start-up enterprises as a way to encourage knowledge and
technology transfer;
• encourages universities, as the official certifiers of diplomas (especially PhDs), to
favour entrenched disciplines rather than emerging transgressive
7
fields for both
students and the careers of teacher-researchers.
All told, the standard account of excellence in higher education runs a high risk of
exacerbating the mismatch between the educational mission, that remains profoundly
marked by the disciplinary stamp, and the emerging reality of research practices that display
ever greater multi-disciplinarity.
RESEARCH ACTORS SUMMARY PART B: FIRMS IN INNOVATION NETWORKS
This part presents the synthesis of two monographs, one on multinationals and the other on
small- and medium-sized enterprises. In both these studies the subject was approached from
a particular angle, that is, the development of technological innovation in sectors where
technologies are central. Thus, the aim was not an exhaustive presentation of the role and
place of firms in research and innovation. The financial sector, to cite but one example, could
in itself be the subject of an entire study focused on research and the funding of research.
These two monographs nevertheless outline a common, key theme: the networks in which
innovation is constructed and the role of intellectual property rights in the way these networks
are configured.
MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES: DEFINITION OF MULTINATIONALS AND INNOVATION
MODELS (BASED ON THE CONTRIBUTION BY GUIDO REGER)
Today's multinationals see innovation as a strategic element in economic competition. The
life cycles of products are increasingly short and firms are encouraged to produce returns on
investments more and more quickly. This has resulted in the development of an R&D race in
6
Larédo, P., & Mustar, P. (2000). Laboratory activity profiles : An exploratory approach.
Scientometrics, 47/3, 515-539.
7
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Rethinking Science: Knowledge and the Public
Cambridge: Polity Press
Akrich and Miller The Future of Research Actors in the European Research Area
14
which firms strive to outstrip their rivals. A significant proportion of all R&D is consequently
concentrated in multinationals although, proportionally-speaking, SMEs seem to produce the
most innovation. R&D activities enable firms to build-up knowledge about the technologies at
the heart of their activities. R&D also plays a crucial role, essential to the firm's long-term
competitiveness, by enabling firms to identify, acquire and apply knowledge that has been
developed by others.
The organisation of R&D by multinationals generally falls into one of two typical strategies.
THE MULTINATIONAL AS A STRUCTURE: THE CLOSED INNOVATION MODEL
The first strategy is historically the oldest. It is based on a multinationals appropriability
advantage. If they are able to maintain a temporary monopoly over certain knowledge or
technologies, they can derive huge profits owing to the size of the markets to which they
have access. Companies that adopt this strategy have put R&D at the heart of what gives the
firm its strength. In this schema the multinational appears to be a closed space, with a high
density of strategic activities concentrated around the head-office. The linearity of the model
in which innovation more or less defines the firm has generally translated into a spatial
distribution of activities. 'Downstream' activities, that is, commercialization, marketing and
adjustments to local conditions are exported towards 'peripheral' branches, distant from the
head-office. With this strategy protecting knowledge through intellectual property rights is
essential since without this control it becomes difficult to reap the benefits of innovation.
THE MULTINATIONAL AS A NETWORK: THE OPEN INNOVATION MODEL
More recently different strategies have developed. In the one elaborated here innovation
results from the interactions of diverse actors including, from the multinational’s point of view,
suppliers, customers, users, public research organizations, universities, consultants,
producers of complementary products, etc. In this scheme innovation can emerge in any of
the places in which the firm is active; hence, the importance of having R&D units spread
throughout the firm's different branches and agencies. This decentralization of activities is
accompanied by a decentralization of budgets and decision making towards the divisions
and business units. The idea is to increase the capacity to react to the market and to
customers' needs, and to facilitate the integration of changes into the firm's organization and
production. Unlike the centralised and proprietary model, this strategy takes advantage of
innovation wherever it occurs and in a wider range of forms, including new products outside
the existing range.
This strategy depends on networking and flexible investments in R&D projects close to
promising sources of innovation, where ever they may be. Networking is also the main
channel for gaining access to potentially important resources and is based on various forms
of association, including: arrangements between firms for joint R&D or technology transfer,
links with start-ups, spin-offs and the public R&D system, licenses, minority holding,
subcontracting, etc. It is set in a context of either a weakening intellectual property rights, due
to such difficulties as legal enforcement, prohibitive costs of excluding others from the
research process, or the uncertain nature of both the products and viable business models
associated with cutting-edge innovation. This collective production of knowledge depends on
being able to construct lasting and functional relations for the open sharking of knowledge
amongst research actors.
Multinational firms that adopt this strategy derive competitive advantage from the capacity to
integrate heterogeneous elements, by constantly adjusting the borders of the firm in relation
to the networks to which it belongs and which it helps to create. In-house R&D is then
understood as the production of competencies which constantly allow the firm to analyse the
knowledge contributions of other actors, to understand possible articulations with its own
Akrich and Miller The Future of Research Actors in the European Research Area
15
activities, to enter – where relevant – into partnerships with those actors, and to build
operational arrangements into which these different contributions will be embedded.
TOWARDS A NEW MODEL?
Today the models used to understand the strategic choices of the past breakdown into three
periods. The first strategic period was developed and applied in the 1950s to 1970s. The
second strategy started to appear in the 1970s with wider implementation in the 1980s or in
some cases even later. Both strategies reflected the understanding of the time about the
relationship between the functioning of market economies and corporate success. In the
third, current period, multinationals are seeking ways of distributing decision making across
different levels and of coordinating different activities in an economic context where the old
rules no longer provide clear guidance.
The emerging new conceptions of innovation highlight the role of a multiplicity of actors and
the plurality of the knowledge that needs to be mobilized for commercial success. The old
linear model that separated basic research from applied research and innovation along a
temporal axis is gradually being replaced by a 'whirlwind' model in which different forms of
research activity overlap and interact. Still, even these new approaches generally take the
invention of goods (physical products) as the starting point for thinking about innovation. The
legacy of past successes in goods production, from the telephone to the transistor, tends to
dominate thinking about innovation despite the fact that the preponderant share of industrial
activity in developed countries has been, for some time now, in the field of services. In
particular there is often a fixation with technological innovation. As a result models of
innovation built on the experiences of tangible production are often applied to the service
sector’s intangible outputs. In certain cases this may be appropriate, in others not.
Service sector innovation has an interesting set of characteristics
8
. In most cases it appears
to be inseparably linked to technical and organizational development. Therefore it has a
marked multidisciplinary character, often incorporating the contributions of economic and
social sciences. The sources of service sector innovation are situated all along the chain of
service production, from manager to customer to user. Most innovation in services demands
a rich definition of knowledge that includes practically all the categories now considered as
relevant. In many cases, fine adjustment of the service to the customer is at the heart of the
innovation process. The tension between local and global, between centralized and
decentralized, is thus resolved in practice. In short, many properties attributed to the new
aspects of knowledge production can be found in service sector innovation. The assessment
of the role of research actors might usefully explore the case of innovation in the service
sector and how it might be applied to the consideration of innovations for which the
technological input is assumed to be crucial.
SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES: DIVERSITY OF INNOVATION NETWORKS (BASED ON
THE CONTRIBUTION BY BART CLARYSSE)
SMEs are obviously an extremely heterogeneous group, ranging from high-tech start-ups to
small building contractors to the local pizzeria to sub-contractors in the car industry to
computer service firms. However the sectoral coverage tends to narrow considerably when
the focus is on research related issues. And despite the fact that technology based SMEs
only account for around 10% of all SMEs most analytical work on innovation for firms of this
8
For a synthesis: Gallouj, C., & Gallouj, F. (1996). L'innovation dans les services Paris: Economica
Akrich and Miller The Future of Research Actors in the European Research Area
16
size has, as with MNEs, been strongly biased towards technology and technology-based
enterprises.
TECHNOLOGY-BASED SMES
Technology-based SMEs that engage in knowledge and technology transfer from the
research world to the economic world are seen as playing a mediating role amongst various
research actors. Such activities involve joint exploration of technologies and the networks in
which they are used. In the current context there appears to be a growing number of these
kinds of firms, encouraged partly by strong incentive policies and partly by an increasing
number of mobile researchers seeking growth opportunities.
These high-tech growth pursuing SMEs can be sub-divided according to differences in the
institutional linkages: no link with a particular entity (start-up); link with another firm
(corporate spin-off); link with a university or research centre (academic spin-off); and the
nature of their financial resources (venture capital or not). SMEs which set up without any
previous formal link with another organizations are sometimes called independent research-
based start-ups (RBSU). These latter firms can be differentiated, not on the shared
characteristic of engaging in R&D, but on the basis of distinctive configurations of resources
(financial, human, technological) .
Corporate spin-offs emerge on the basis of knowledge acquired from the parent company.
The spin-off may happen when the parent company restructures in order to re-focus on core
competencies and consequently externalizes potential developments that fall outside that
field. Or the spin-off may be created by employees who are unable to develop a project
within the parent company. In the past few years there has been an upsurge of academic
spin-offs due, in part, to pressure from government on universities and research centres to
transfer their research results to commercial applications. These firms often start off with only
a few customers identified while work was still underway at the university laboratory. Long-
term growth for these firms depends on two factors. First, the capacity to broaden demand to
include other potential customers. Second, maintaining effective relations with research
institutions. There are cases where these SMEs become so absorbed by their initial or
primary customer that the link to research languishes or dies, reducing its ability to evolve. In
other cases it is the university that is unable to provide the research effort required to nourish
interactions and partnerships with the firm.
Many high-technology SMEs also suffer from internal managerial and commercial
weaknesses. This is to be expected in the case of academic spin-outs whose promoters lack
a business culture. But similar problems can be found in many of the independent RBSUs.
Only corporate spin-outs defy the rule since the parent company usually provides key
technical and operational knowledge regarding ongoing innovation and business
development. Access to the parent company's networks can also make a decisive difference.
SMEs in the European context must also contend with the historically less developed, when
compared to the United States, venture capital market. Research based SMEs in Europe
face a venture capital market that is reluctant to invest in areas in which there are high
asymmetries of information. In Europe only 10% of venture capital is invested in technology-
based SMEs. Moreover, the infusion of VC financing and expertise usually takes place later
on in the firm's life, when the technologies and managers have already matured a little.
SMEs therefore lack the financial means to grow during their start-up phase. The more their
project is based on innovative, developing technologies, the more difficult it is for them to
finance it. The bursting of the Internet bubble reinforced these tendencies.
All these high-tech SMEs have been the subject of considerable and positive expectations on
the part of governments. Spurred on by a few success stories public policies have supported
Akrich and Miller The Future of Research Actors in the European Research Area
17
these firms in the hope that they would grow into the leading enterprises of tomorrow. Many
observers have lamented the inability of Europe to take commercial advantage of shining
innovations like the web browser invented at CERN, a public research lab in Switzerland by
Tim Berners Lee, but brought to market by Netscape (even if ultimately beaten by Microsoft’s
Explorer) in the United States. Concern has been expressed that if Europe is unable to
nurture these technology start-ups and spin-offs then the prospects for long-term growth will
be diminished. However, as noted above, this view is based on a technology centric
approach to innovation and overlooks the other ingredients required for the success of such
firms. Be it in Europe or elsewhere only a handful of these SMEs can be expected to evolve
into larger companies and cannot be treated as the future saviours of Europe wide economic
growth.
Still, even if SMEs remain small they often have the potential to develop internationally,
becoming mini-multinationals based on highly specific competencies. Others SMEs can
contribute to the diffusion of research, in particular firms that have close relations with the
work going on in RTOs. Some high-tech SMEs are also able to act as intermediaries
between the research world other, more traditional types of SMEs that are unable to develop
their own R&D capacities. However the research undertaken and used by SMEs as a whole
is certainly greater than just the contributions made by high-tech SMEs.
'TRADITIONAL' SMES
Despite the huge contribution to the economy and employment of traditional SMEs, the role
of this type of firm with respect to research and innovation is generally underrated and
understudied. In part this is because traditional SMEs are more closed to the outside world,
often controlled by families and are less open to venture capital or other sources of external
financing. There is evidence, however, that many of these firms are experiencing significant
growth and international development that is, in part, related to R&D and innovation
strategies. Traditional SMEs engage in research for a variety of purposes, including the
development of new business models, new products or services as well as improving
existing products or services. Pursuing this path helps to cultivate commercial networks and
extend the often deeply rooted experience based knowledge of firms of this scale.
Traditional SMEs operating in local markets that are open to either new entrants or imports
are often faced by product market competition from both within and outside Europe. To cope
with such competition, particularly when either the nature of the output or of the local market
limit the competitive advantages that can arise from pursuing economies of scale, such firms
must innovate to survive. In order to innovate these firms must attempt to be in contact with a
broader range of clients, use outside expertise and in general try to leverage the density and
diversity of networking to spur innovation.
9
Evidence that this approach works can be seen in
cases where small traditional firms have started exporting and by connecting to the wider
world have subsequently experienced higher rates of growth.
The capacity to change and to innovate in traditional SMEs, as with other types of SMEs, is
related both to the network to which the firm belongs and to its internal organisational
capacities. Executives face the challenge of managing not only product innovation but also
organisational change with its emphasis on training and retaining staff. All innovative SMEs,
once again including research based SMEs, also face difficulties raising the necessary funds.
Thus, irrespective of the category of the particular SME, its position vis-à-vis knowledge-
production is directly related to the form of network to which it belongs and especially to the
way in which it dynamically reconfigures that network as it evolves. An evolution that is
9
See Mustar, P. (2002). Les PME à forte croissance et l'emploi. Paris: OCDE.
Akrich and Miller The Future of Research Actors in the European Research Area
18
certainly influenced, when it comes to research, by the nature of the intellectual property
rights regime that applies to the firms particular products and processes.
RESEARCH ACTORS SUMMARY PART C: POLICY AND SOCIETY
This part covers three monographs on the role of research actors who represent the interests
and aspirations of society in diverse forms: national governments, regional governments, and
actors from civil society. When considering these actors it is particularly important to take into
account the inter-relationships amongst the various actors, without ignoring that each actor’s
role in research is based on distinct objectives and motivations. However, it is necessary to
note, since the place of European institutions was not treated directly by any of the
monographs, that the role of the EC as a distinct actor is not dealt with in this sub-section.
NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS (BASED ON THE CONTRIBUTION BY JARI ROMANAINEN)
A variety of actors are involved in making and implementing national science, technology and
innovation policies: advisory bodies, national agencies, ministries and specialized institutes.
These actors engage in a wide range of activities, including planning, forecasting, strategic
intelligence, and consultation with stakeholders. The national level actors are involved
throughout the process, which covers identification of needs, agenda-setting, implementation
of policies, monitoring and evaluating the effects of policies, and benchmarking.
Three broad areas of analysis are pertinent to possible trends in STI national policies: the
paradigm adopted by government decision makers for conceptualising both R&D/innovation
processes and how public sector policies might intervene effectively in such processes;
changing market conditions including so called globalization; and the growing role of users,
individuals or citizens, in the processes of research and innovation.
CHANGING R&D MODELS
Turning to the first set of factors shaping STI policies at a national level, there have been
important changes over time in the models used to understand both public policy and the
processes of research and innovation. In the 1960s the basic model, in both spheres, was
direct and linear. A firm’s market success rested on innovations arising directly from R&D. A
government’s success in assisting firms rested on direct financing of basic science to
underpin R&D. Later, with a greater recognition of the role of customers and the market as
key drivers of innovation, government policy shifted to encouraging closer relations between
research and industry on the grounds that this would bring the scientific agenda and
enterprise needs into closer congruence. Subsequently the models became even more
multi-dimensional. The links connecting R&D, innovation and market success were viewed
as more complex. Direct government sponsored R&D could no longer claim to be the driving
force behind winning innovations in the marketplace, rather public policies aimed to stimulate
successful innovation by facilitating and encouraging actors to interact. Linearity was
replaced by a focus on the importance of interactions amongst all the actors potentially
involved in research and innovation.
Most recently there has been a proliferation of models and means for government
intervention as well as the multiplication of the levels of those interventions, from local to
global, via the regional, national and European levels. Arising out of this complexity has been
a growing preoccupation with coherence and coordination, both horizontal (between different
ministries, agencies, etc.) and vertical (between the different levels of intervention). Such
efforts have also attempted to take into account the importance attached to promoting
national interests in supra-national European and International arenas.
Akrich and Miller The Future of Research Actors in the European Research Area
19
OPEN MARKETS, NETWORKING AND KEY NODES
With the increase in the knowledge intensity of products and services, firms have had to
develop strategic partnerships and cooperation. Networking and clustering within and across
industries have appeared as a way of developing and gaining access to knowledge and
necessary competencies, while allowing a re-centring of firms on core business activities,
often characterised by product differentiation and specialization. In this general context the
question of “local conditions” takes on new salience. Particularly in those local markets
where openness may unsettle both the underlying factor costs (in production) for output
going to local or external markets and the actual supply conditions in the market for the given
product. Spurred by such changing conditions of business many firms seek to include an
assessment of the implications of local economic conditions (with respect to both supply and
demand) in strategic decision-making. One part of the strategic assessment with implications
for a firm’s ultimate decision regarding investment or market positioning is the extent to which
a specific place is conducive to innovation. And one aspect of the assessment of whether or
not a particular place is more or less ‘favourable’ than another place for innovation are
government research policies and the relations, encouraged or discouraged by research
policies, that exist amongst research actors in a particular place.
However defining a ‘favourable’ environment is not self-evident and can be different
depending on the specific sector, product or even the firm's 'ethical' choices. In certain cases
the proximity of dynamic markets seems to be a key criterion; for others, the price of labour
and/or other inputs is decisive; and still in others it is access to competencies and knowledge
that predominates in shaping decisions. What then becomes central are the underlying
conditions for networking and adaptation, as a means for redistributing competencies and
tasks in ways that enhance innovative capacity. The level of education, the quality of
infrastructures and political stability can all be important. As a result the nature and alteration
of underlying conditions comes to involve many different elements. Policies need to be
multifaceted and multidisciplinary, including: partnerships between the public and private
sectors, and a diverse range of service such as mediation services (e.g. brokering,
networking), expert support services (e.g. mentoring, training, consulting) and some financial
services (e.g. venture capital, loans, guarantees).
Considering the range of issues that need to be addressed brings to the forefront the
question of coordination between the different actors of research policy at the national level,
but also between the different levels of policy intervention, from the European to the sub-
national region. As the next section on the role of regional governments as research actors
observes, there is an increasing role for the "sub-national" level in most countries, even in
centralised ones such as France and UK. Some analysts attribute this to the hypothesis of
increasing differentiation between regions and that this differentiation will be more often,
intra-national than international. From this perspective, science and technology policies
needs to be conceived and implemented at several levels involving not only coordination and
complementarity, but also attention to the ways in which policies might compete or be
redundant. One approach deemed particularly effective in addressing these complex
challenges is the creation of centres of excellence for research and innovation in target
areas.
WHAT ROLE FOR NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS FACED WITH CUSTOMERS, USERS AND
CITIZENS?
As noted earlier in this report, many factors such as improved education, the ageing of the
population and changes in lifestyle can all generate a demand for products that are
increasingly sophisticated and personalized. At the same time many markets are becoming
at once more global and more local, with changing cost structures, more segmentation, and
Akrich and Miller The Future of Research Actors in the European Research Area
20
new intermediaries which allow for finer adjustments to customer demands. Product
differentiation is thus based more and more on design and ability to tailor to specific contexts
of use (branding) rather than on unique technological features. Firms are increasingly
customer-oriented and strive to form richer and more lasting relationships, primarily through
consultative design and implementation processes. In this context, national governments are
turning to new forms of action that favour experimentation and the creation of pilot
environments and test-beds that can be used to simulate product demand. These policies
facilitate and support the development of various physical or virtual platforms for
experimentation and co-development.
Finally, the involvement of civil society in science, technology and innovation policies,
especially through NGOs, is increasingly marked and is leading to the integration of many
social and environmental issues. There are now more mechanisms of self-regulation
(guidelines, standards) implemented through interactive processes and consultation involving
public- and private-sector actors and representatives of civil society. Governments have a
role in promoting these processes of interaction and to assist with organize the debates
amongst the different actors. Overall then, national policies constitute an important
component of a more ‘favourable’ business environment and can play a key role in helping
firms to adapt and, in certain cases, maintain existing production and distribution
relationships with the national economy.
REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS (BASED ON THE CONTRIBUTION BY LUIS SANZ)
As made clear in the preceding sub-section national research and innovation policies often
operate and have an impact in terms that can be regionally specific. This underscores the
potential for public bodies that are exclusively regional in focus to play a distinctive and
potentially even more locally tailored role. Taking as given the fact that there is considerable
diversity in the organisational forms of public authority at the regional level, often enshrined
in specific constitutional and legal formulations, there has been a general reinforcement of
the power and role of regionally anchored institutions. This trend towards ‘decentralisation’
can be observed in both nations that have evolved towards federalism and in those states
that have remained more unitary. This strengthening of the regions also reflects the
intersection of national and European policy which, in a number of ways (structural funds,
Committee of Regions), contribute towards regional growth.
Despite recent trends, it would be a mistake to assert that the ascendance of regional
authority and of policies crafted to regional specificity are irreversible trends. History is filled
with cycles alternating between greater centralization and decentralization of power and
policy. That said, current forces towards greater 'regionalization' has been particularly
evident in the field of research and technology policy. Initially regions' were motivated to
become active in this area because of the belief that innovation develops 'naturally' close to
research centres producing basic knowledge, provided there are adequate means for
facilitating communication between the research and business worlds. Supporting basic
research and technology transfer in a given territory and providing subsidies for the local
industries that engage in R&D benefit local economic development. After a series of
changes, regional policies now have slightly different rationales. Considering that knowledge
is only partially codified and that interactions between diverse actors therefore play a crucial
role in the dynamics of collective learning, the 'territory' seems to be a relevant entity in these
processes. Regional governments can try to create the appropriate conditions to facilitate
these interactions.
The forms of intervention of regional powers in research and technology policies vary widely.
Considerable emphasis has been put on supporting research in universities which have
become more and more regionalized. In certain countries such as Spain regional policies
Akrich and Miller The Future of Research Actors in the European Research Area
21
have created public research and technology centres and RTOs. Regional authorities have
also introduced policies for attracting and developing a qualified local workforce by providing
incentives for doctoral students in a specific subjects to locate at research centres within the
region or by financing the training of students from the region at external international
research centres. Regional authorities have also spurred the creation of two types of
research vehicle: technology clusters and technology parks. Clusters are concentrations of
local industries which support one another in a particular sector, with a view to generating a
competitive advantage for the regional market in that sector. Science and technology parks
are based on the idea that bringing together, in the same area, researchers from universities,
RTOs, SMEs and/or large firms, helps to facilitate the transfer of knowledge and cooperation,
and thus to promote intrinsic innovation potential.
The distribution of prerogatives between regional, national and European government
remains fluid. National level authorities generally retain the leading role in policy formulation
and implementation, but there are likely to be very wide differences in the extent and nature
of this leadership, depending on the country. The reality of ongoing changes in the allocation
of responsibility across different levels of public initiative means that regions face an unstable
policy context when attempting to define a specifically regional role in local research. Certain
regions do take the initiative by creating, for instance, trans-border research coalitions.
However even these efforts remain limited because in most cases the regions' ability to
define policy remains subject to the national government’s discretion, particularly when the
main tools – especially financial – critical for policy implementation are kept by central
governments. The open question remains how far regionalisation in Europe, strongly present
in current trends, will go. Taken too far it might create excessive competition between
regions and, in the absence of coordination at European level, lead to a fragmentation of
efforts and the absence of a coherent strategic vision. Alternatively, if current policy trends
are reversed there could be a weakening of regions and a strengthening of large-scale
European level projects that concentrate and integrate research without taking into account
the concerns of local authorities and local context.
CIVIL SOCIETY (BASED ON THE CONTRIBUTION BY HENNING BANTHIEN)
The term civil society refers to all inter-individual relations and all social, economic, cultural
and religious agencies which exist and operate in a particular society outside the public
sector. In concrete terms it consists of a range of non-profit associations and organizations of
individuals, which act as mediators between government authorities and individuals. The
European Commission lists the following types of organisations as making up civil society:
‘trade unions and employers' organisations ('social partners'); non-governmental
organizations; professional associations; charities; grass-roots organizations; organizations
that involve citizens in local and municipal life; churches and religious communities' (EU-
Commission, Science and Society Action Plan, 2001). The organizations that make up civil
society occupy a variety of positions and strive primarily to ensure that the political world and
government take into account certain problems or interests, or fulfil certain functions for
which neither the state nor the private sector take full responsibility.
Civil society is thus an aggregate, encompassing a wide variety of organisations and
relationships. The attributes of specific civil society actors must be described on a case by
case basis. In some cases, civil society organisations act as consumers’ representatives, in
other cases, they act as citizens’ representatives, or users’ representative, patients’
representatives etc. The role of a civil society organisation needs to be understood with
reference to its specificity: who it represents and to what end. The following sub-sections
adopt this specificity of identity and purpose to organise the discussion. Today the idea of
civil society has a number of positive connotations. It is readily associated with values such
as autonomy, responsibility and solidarity. Increases in the political and economic weight of
Akrich and Miller The Future of Research Actors in the European Research Area
22
civil society organisations is generating greater political recognition, in part a sign of a
healthy democracy. But also a risk since these organizations often defend entrenched and
possibly conflicting interests resulting in stalemates.
CIVIL SOCIETY'S INVOLVEMENT IN RESEARCH AND KNOWLEDGE-PRODUCTION
Traditionally, the production of research has not been a major preoccupation of civil society
organizations. When it came to science these organisations tended to confine activity to
informing the public through publications or events such as science fairs. Gradually, this role
has changed as civil society organisations have begun to represent the views of specific
constituencies on issues like the acceptability of the risks associated with certain
technologies. Some civil society organisations have been asked to participate in the
preparation of research policies (participatory technology foresight). Finally, specialized
associations, working in the health or environmental fields, for example, have begun to
engage in research as a way to improve the effectiveness of lobbying efforts and as a way to
influence policies.
However, the impact of civil society organisations has usually be considered rather marginal.
Citizens and the organisations that claim to give them a voice are often been treated by the
scientific community and policy makers as victims of irrational fear, who need to be trained
and informed, rather than as contributors to defining and advancing research policies and
processes. Nevertheless, in recent years, as the role of a wider range of research actors has
become increasingly apparent, there has been a growing respect for the views and
involvement of civil society organisations.
CITIZENS' INVOLVEMENT IN SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL CHOICES
One of the factors that has enabled civil society organisations to play a more prominent role
has been the erosion of the exclusivity of scientific information, not only in terms of access to
specialised sources but also in terms of claims to know “the truth”. People concerned by a
problem and especially those engaged in various movements or associations can talk on an
equal footing to experts. This more overt contesting of “scientific authority” has often served
to highlight uncertainties, questions for which science has no, or only partial, answers. Once
these controversies are brought into the public spotlight it becomes apparent that science is
not an avenue to absolute certainty and that often experts are divided. In this way civil
society plays a key role in enriching the debate surrounding important research topics.
These developments, among others, have created a context favourable for citizens'
involvement in scientific and technical decision making, particularly as a way to ensure that
the political and ethical dimensions are made more explicit. A range of democratic processes
– conferences, citizen juries, parliamentary hearings, public debates – are being used and
tested throughout Europe in order to address the uncertainty surrounding the directions and
priorities for research. In some areas such as health, the authorities in charge of scientific
policy include representatives of patient organizations on scientific committees. These
representatives can put forward proposals on certain research protocols, directly concerning
the content of science. These consultative approaches, that reflect a more 'plural', culturally
diversified European society, are part of the finding the balance between the different points
of view regarding research agendas.
INTEGRATION OF CONSUMERS AND USERS INTO INNOVATION
For some time now civil society stakeholders, such as consumer unions, have played an
important part in the evaluation of products and thus in the selection R&D agendas. Now this
type of engagement is spreading, driven by people’s interest in the quality of life (ecology,
health, etc.) and facilitated by easier access to the debates. Full-blown communities of users
Akrich and Miller The Future of Research Actors in the European Research Area
23
or consumers are using the internet to engage in research. The internet has made it easier to
pool information and to collectively produce knowledge regarding expected and unexpected
uses and modifications of products. The pharmaceutical and the ICT sector offer striking
examples of relations between users and researchers, more or less explicit depending on the
case. For instance internet sites that collect medical stories written by patients or friends and
family of people who are ill can become sources of useful data and innovation for
pharmaceutical companies. So far most of these relationships remain informal. However
users, like many civil society organisations such as consumer unions, are beginning to enter
into professional relations and even contractual partnerships with researchers and industry.
This brings questions of power and the negotiation of property rights to R&D results to the
forefront.
CIVIL SOCIETY AS A 'SCIENTIFIC ENTREPRENEUR'
In several key areas, including health, citizens organized in various collectives have shifted
from a 'consultative' position to an active one. Non-profit associations are playing an
increasing part in the direct funding of research, alongside other financiers such as
government or industry. In some cases this funding is substantial and involves the creation of
research policy. Some of these groups are able to collect large sums of money. As a result
they can enter into or even create research 'markets'. The capacity to finance research
brings with it the power to explore new fields and to reopen research on subjects that had
been disregarded by research actors in both the public and private sectors. This can lead to
competition amongst actors in civil society both for the financial resources required to
implement research policies and for consideration by the scientific community.
3. IDENTIFYING COMMON DISRUPTIVE TRENDS FOR POSSIBLE FUTURE
CONTEXTS
This part identifies and describes a number of disruptive factors emerging from an analysis of
the relationships amongst different research actors. Five main topics are addressed: A) How
can knowledge be described and characterized today? B) What changes can be identified in
the definition of knowledge producers? C) What are the consequences on the organization of
research likely to be and what role will the rules of access to knowledge play? D) How can
the localization of the production of knowledge be conceptualized? E) How can the greater
public scrutiny to which science and technology are subjected be understood and integrated?
A) WHAT KNOWLEDGE?
The assessments of the attributes of the different research actors, as synthesized above,
provides a rich base for analysing the hypothesis, formulated in the introduction, regarding
the enlargement of the field and categories of knowledge production and use. Throughout
these accounts knowledge plays a key role as both input and output. As such it is clearly a
pivotal resource for development and welfare in Europe as well as in other parts of the world.
Knowledge as a resource takes on various forms, from highly implicit to explicit and codified.
And knowledge is a distributed resource, not restricted to what is produced through R&D
activities, but diffused throughout society across boundaries between scientists and non-
scientists that are now more permeable.
Even in the realm of industry oriented R&D and innovation activities, the closed and linear
model of knowledge creation and use is definitively outdated. The old model no longer
corresponds either to the conceptualization of research activities or the way in which most
research activities are actually organized. Many analyses have demonstrated that, first there
is no one-way move from fundamental research to application but continuous movements
Akrich and Miller The Future of Research Actors in the European Research Area
24
back and forth, and second, that there is (or at least there should be) a strong integration
between basic research, applied research, development and marketing. Innovation thus
appears as a process that integrates various forms of research, and the knowledge it
creates, in a wide range of patterns.
One strand of evidence of this transformation is emerging, according to all of the research
actor reports, be it for multinational companies and RTOs to universities and regional
governments, from the real pressure to develop market-oriented, customer-oriented R&D
activities. As noted above, it is important to not confuse the specific practices that constitute
and differentiate market-oriented R&D and applied research. These two forms of research
remain distinct but the inter-weaving and inter-dependence of the processes has changed
the conditions of ‘relative autonomy’. Indeed, it is such changed conditions that help to
explain why and to what end the concept of frontier research
10
was invented. This term
denotes a form of user-oriented research on possible applications that entails investigation at
a fundamental scientific level. The expert group that devised this concept proposed that one
of the main tasks of the European Research Council should be to identify and support the
development of teams or laboratories working on frontier research. The hypothesis
underlying this recommendation is that this type of research is also at the frontiers of
disciplines and institutions, and that it is therefore necessary to have a vigorous policy that
enables audacious researchers to dare to make creative breaks.
The changing nature of research is also evident in the recent proposals to develop use a
platform model
11
for advancing research. A research platform is a set of devices, tools,
instruments, technologies and discourses which are used by a heterogeneous group of
people, ranging from basic scientists to engineers and users. The heterogeneity of this
grouping may lead to the production of new research 'entities', new technologies and new
practices, in short, trans-disciplinary built-in innovations. For example, an experimental stock
market trading room that can simulate the ways in which traders, economists, sociologists
and engineers collaborate may produce new kinds of economic knowledge, new tools for
trading and new trading practices.
The tendency, when research and innovation processes appeared stable and predictable,
often reduced to fabricating technology, was to take the insights of the social sciences' into
understanding these processes for granted. Now, as it is becoming more evident that
research and innovation processes encompasses not only the elaboration of technology but
also the reconfiguration of socio-technical links
12
, more effort is being made to include the
insights of social studies. The aim is to root the understanding of knowledge creation and use
in an analysis of the changing social and economic fabric. Furthermore, from this point of
view the social sciences are not just another analytical tool for improving the design of
otherwise ‘scientific’ processes and policies but have become an integral part of the
instruments, methods and concepts used to advance and conduct research. Integrating the
research insights of widely dispersed scientific, consumer, marketing and investment
decision makers, within a firm or a community, calls for both techniques and knowledge from
the social sciences. This point was also underscored by the findings of the Key
10
European Commission - DG Research, (2005), op.cit.
11
Keating & Cambrosio, 2003, op.cit.
12
Akrich, M. (1992). The De-scription of Technical Objects. In W. Bijker, & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping
Technology/Building Society. Studies in Sociotechnical Change (pp. 205-224). Cambridge Mass.: MIT
Press.
Akrich and Miller The Future of Research Actors in the European Research Area
25
Technologies Report
13
regarding the importance of the social sciences for the new models of
research and innovation. Taken as a whole, the evidence and arguments presented here
drive to the conclusion that research and innovation must be defined in ways that go
significantly beyond restrictive technological and industrial conceptualisations. Not only is it
important to incorporate organizational and social innovation, reflecting the socio-
technological changes in what and how knowledge is produced and used, but also the
(re)emergence of know-how and know-why as potentially dominant spheres of value-creation
and exchange.
B) PRODUCING KNOWLEDGE: TOWARDS A LEARNING SOCIETY?
Reviewing the activities of research actors in the European Research Area reveals that both
the range of knowledge producers and the definitions of the knowledge being produced are
far more diversified than was previously thought. Consultants, administrative experts,
consumers, non-governmental organizations, media-specialists, commercial intermediaries,
'citizen groups', patient organizations, and even spontaneous and 'fluid' assemblies of
individuals brought together by common interests using the Internet, are all now knowledge
producers. These heterogeneous mix of actors, inputs, outputs and processes also reveals
that creativity emerges from configurations which, in part, not only ignore disciplinary and
institutional boundaries but oppose them. The emphasis is constantly on the fecundity of
networking, on open innovation, on new forms of collaboration and on the mix of genres and
competencies; that is, on the elements that favour learning processes.
Moreover, institutional boundaries seem far fuzzier. In a context of growing integration of
various forms of research, the differences measured in terms of knowledge production
between RTOs, multinational companies, NGOs, universities etc. seems to shrink.
Consequently, it is worth raising questions regarding both the convergence of certain actors
and the dissolution of others as new participants and relationships emerge. This, in turn calls
for less pre-fabricated, less institutionally based perspectives that can begin to situate policy
debates using concepts, that may be more adaptable and appropriate to more dynamic and
networked research systems, like 'community of practice' and 'epistemic community'.
THE USER’S MULTIPLE INVOLVEMENTS
A central question raised by the research actor analyses, from the point of view of research
and innovation, is: who is the ‘user’ and what do they do? Three initial answers can be
teased from the preceding synthesis.
First, users conduct research and engage in innovation through their use of ideas, gizmos,
spaces, raw material, etc.
14
Everyone does this, although certainly not in ways that are
always codified or even explicit. A currently commonplace example is how young people’s
use of short-text-messaging via the telephone or internet chat has started to give rise to a
whole range of new inventions and research initiatives, not to mention new fields for
constructing social and commercial relations. Such examples, demonstrate once again the
familiar conclusion that inventors (particularly of the most ultimately pervasive inventions)
often have little idea of how their tool will really come to be used.
13
European Commission - DG Research, (2005), Creative system disruption. Towards a research
strategy beyond Lisbonn. Synthesis report, Key technologies Expert Group
14
Akrich, M. (1998). Les utilisateurs, acteurs de l'innovation. Education permanente, 1(134), 79-90.
Akrich and Miller The Future of Research Actors in the European Research Area
26
More importantly, as part of an effort to understand the range and nature of research actors
in the early 21
st
century, is the conclusion that the end-use innovator’s innovation is not
simply about technology or tool fabrication but, as stated previously, about the social context.
This is why all actors, involved at one point or another in the creation of output, including the
typical case of a technological device, are potential innovators: they are in position to re-
define both the output and its corresponding environment. This is increasingly the case for
more familiar forms of industrial goods and services production where participants, from the
sales people and advertising agencies to journalists and customer services agents, now take
on user roles at one stage or another and thereby take part in knowledge deepening and
discovery. Even more striking when it comes to shifting to participatory use-driven research
are a number of emerging areas of social and economic life where the production of unique
creations breaks away entirely from the industrial era’s separation of conception and
execution, production and consumption.
15
Second, some papers mention the emergence of a 'professional user'. These are people
who acquire broad expertise in being a user in certain specific contexts that might be defined
by technology or by social factors or a particular combination of both. Such users might
belong to communities (like Internet forums for example) or more formal associations like
NGOs, and they might also act as intermediaries between designer-producers of devices and
'lay' users. They provide the latter with advice, suggestions and solutions to problems (which
are sometimes real innovations), and give producers indications on what should be altered or
improved. As such, they are clearly participating in knowledge production linking technical
features and uses in context.
Third, the 'user' 'citizen' or 'consumer' can act as a research policy-maker. Uncertainties,
lasting conflicts of interest or values, and ethical problems are some of the factors that push
forward the so-called democratization of public decisions regarding science and technology
issues. Increasingly, users or citizens' representatives are integrated into research policy
debates and decisions through a broad set of procedures.
COMMUNITIES!OR THE SOCIAL EMBEDDEDNESS OF LEARNING ACTIVITIES
For the past twenty years 'science in action' has been the subject of in-depth investigations
which have provided much insight into scientists' work and its links with the world outside
science. Recently Amin and Cohendet
16
produced a remarkable synthesis of three sets of
work: management literature, the evolutionary approach in economic literature, and the
anthropology of learning. They developed the concept of a community, that is particularly
useful for developing a coherent analysis of the various tendencies that have appeared in the
research actor monographs. The key hypothesis, largely supported by the anthropology of
learning, is that knowledge is created out of a dialogue between people and the combination
of their tacit and explicit knowledge. This approach insists on the embodied, distributed,
trans-human and pragmatic nature of knowledge generation. Knowledge is produced within
relatively autonomous informal groups, 'communities of practice' consisting of individuals
engaged in similar activities, who regularly communicate about those activities. Individual
and collective learning is thus embedded in a constantly reactivated sharing of practices,
organizational resources and a common culture, all of which is continuously reconstructed
during interaction. This conceptualization of knowledge as living knowledge has three
advantages for the analysis being conducted here.
15
Green, J. (2005). Sense Making and Making Sense, Key Technologies for Europe. Brussels, 19th
and 20th September 2005.
16
Amin & Cohendet, 2004, op.cit.
Akrich and Miller The Future of Research Actors in the European Research Area
27
First, it allows knowledge-production in diverse environments to be described in similar
terms. We have seen that the corollary of the broadening of knowledge as a category is the
expansion of the range of actors potentially involved in its production. The idea is
nevertheless not to erase the differences that distinguish 'science' from other forms of
knowledge-production. Epistemic communities, engaged in the deliberate production of
knowledge, are part of communities of practice. They are distinguished as epistemic
communities only by the nature of their explicit objective – knowledge-production – and a
number of organizational features related to that objective (nature of the mechanisms that
allow for conflict-resolution and for the validity of the knowledge produced to be established).
The second advantage of this conceptualization is that it serves to describe the emergence
and functioning of groups which transcend the boundaries of institutions or organizations. In
the preceding sections we saw the emergence of such agencements that associate RTOs,
universities, firms and actors from civil society, constantly challenging the boundaries of
institutions and the specificity of organizations. Communities of research practice may be
long-lasting or short-lived, may or may not imply institutional convergence or the emergence
or disappearance of certain organizations. For instance Linux communities have emerged in
many different, highly active groups that run through firms and other organisations without
necessarily jeopardising the integrity of the existing institutions.
The third advantage of using an active, contextualised conception of knowledge is that it
emphasizes the collective practices underlying knowledge production. Knowing is something
people do. As a result firms have not choice, if the aim is to gain recognition of a form of
organisational knowledge, but to address the interplay between knowing and knowledge.
This means that a research actors’ constant engagement in learning processes becomes a
key element. From this point of view the term 'knowledge-based society and economy' can
be misleading. It conjures up the image of a static source of knowledge, sitting in an ever
growing pile, as the basis for economic and social development. The term 'learning society
and economy' seems far more appropriate, for the dynamic is situated in the relationship
between learning and knowledge. In a learning society people still invest-in and accumulate
knowledge but it is learning that is the activity that creates the knowledge, maintains it or lets
it vanish through forgetting. Using learning as the conceptual foundation provides a more
open approach to encompassing all research actors, especially users, within an analytical
framework capable of generating new policy insights.
And, as will become apparent in the following section this conceptualization of knowledge
has a number of consequences for thinking about the organization of research and questions
of localization.
C) KNOWLEDGE ACCESS AND RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS
All the monographs stress the link between forms of knowledge access (including intellectual
property rules) and the organisation of research activities. An examination of this link reveals
two idealised models of configuring access and organisation.
The first configuration involves an intensive circulation and transformation of knowledge,
particularly using the access and networking facilitated by the internet, travel, etc.. This
phenomenon is associated with a relaxation of intellectual property rules. It is also assumed
that the 'complexification' of products, services, etc. makes it very difficult for a single actor to
concentrate all the knowledge and competencies it needs. Big companies, SMEs, RTOs etc.
therefore tend to focus on core competencies and markets, defined of course in a dynamic
way, while at the same time engaging in extensive networking in order to secure access to
the knowledge and competencies they need. Exchanges of knowledge can take various
forms and be performed in a variety of institutional/financial arrangements. This model is
Akrich and Miller The Future of Research Actors in the European Research Area
28
described as a 'new open innovation model': it stresses the fact that innovation derives its
strength not from technology alone but rather from a creative mix of various elements
incorporated into a good business model.
The second configuration refers to the 'traditional closed innovation model' based on the
privatization of knowledge, which appears as a strategic resource, especially for companies
positioned in markets where externalities play an important role. It leads to a concentration
within the company of all research activities necessary to its business model.
In practice things are considerably less clear-cut than the contrast between these polarised
models might suggest. First, because knowledge, as already pointed out, does not fall into
neat categories and spans a broad range of different forms and processes. This means that
at a fundamental level it is not so simple to sever the link between tacit and codified
knowledge or, for that matter, to easily convert tacit into explicit. Any appropriation of
knowledge requires learning and the mobilization of tacit knowledge. New knowledge, in
particular, can circulate and be appropriated only in confined spaces which correspond more
or less to the communities in which it has been developed. As a result the idea of knowledge
as a pure public good needs to be seen in more relative terms.
17
Second because in practice actors adopt not only mixed strategies but also strategies that
are dynamically reconfigured over time as a function of changes in the type of knowledge,
the evolution of its appropriation, and market dynamics. Those who produce knowledge are
often able to determine the communities that will have access to it and those that will be
excluded, using a variety of strategies ranging from the selection of specific organisational
forms to tools for intellectual property rights management like disclosure and secrecy rules.
The way in which intellectual property rights are used is increasingly important, both
quantitatively and qualitatively. New objects are patented, including software, instruments,
basic materials and databases, even business practices. These rights are being used by
both new and old research actors. As already discussed many universities and researchers
in public research organizations are taking more aggressive approaches to gaining revenue
from their intellectual property by protecting the results of their work. But the use of IPR
management is also taking on new meanings, not all contrary to the aims of knowledge
sharing. Patents have an increasingly important strategic role as part of the negotiating
process for constructing networks, establishing boundaries between those who will have
access and those who will be excluded, and signalling the competencies of a community that
is going to be involved in joint projects with other communities.
18
From a policy perspective the challenge is to create an environment where the emergence of
new forms of knowledge is facilitated by the appropriate fluidity and sophistication of the
system of property rights. In the current context this is not an easy task. As new and old
research actors define and contest new forms of knowledge as well as new relationships
within the processes of knowledge creation, it is difficult for public authorities to assess the
conflicting interests and appropriate range of mechanisms needed to calibrate and assign
rents from intellectual property. This is currently very unsettled territory. For instance should
policy makers be intervening directly to extend the field of research in certain areas through
policies like: compulsory licensing, the purchase by public institutions of patents in order to
make them available to those who want to develop new knowledge, user- and use-
17
Callon, M. (2002). Is Science a Public Good ? In P. Stephan, & D.B. Audretsch (Eds.), The
Economics of Science and Innovation. London: Edward Elgar.
18
On all these points see: Foray, 2000, op.cit.; Amin & Cohendet, 2004, op.cit
Akrich and Miller The Future of Research Actors in the European Research Area
29
differentiated price policies (for researchers/multinationals), or the creation of a link between
the degree of exclusivity of a license and the obligation to exploit it?
These questions and policy responses take on considerable salience given the explicit goal
of achieving a knowledge society. So far, however, the debate over the extent to which
diversified and creative networks are essential for the knowledge society has not been
resolved. Hence there has been no resolution of the question of the importance of open
sharing of knowledge. There can be little doubt that entrenched interests are protecting
status and business models. As a result the forms of the networks and the knowledge that a
society is capable of developing are shaped on the basis of past models. How severely this
will limit the diversification of forms and networks of knowledge remains an open question.
D) LOCALIZATION OF KNOWLEDGE
Place matters, but the question is how? On the basis of the research actor monographs the
only generalisation that can be made is that location does play a central role in knowledge
production. However the nature of this role does not appear to be uniform across all actors or
forms of knowledge. First of all, in the context of networking-based innovation, the research
actors have different ways of 'being present'. Some research actors are local through a direct
physical presence, others through cooperative relationships with other companies, RTOs,
universities or a wide diversity of partners who happen to be in a specific place.
Choosing a specific form of local presence is often determined by a variety of familiar factors
like access to local markets and/or access to expertise in these markets. Firms may have a
strategy of development based upon emergent mass-markets (abroad) versus one based
upon mature and sophisticated markets ('home'). The strategies of some firms call for access
to unique centres of excellence and even to be part of the setting up of such centres. Or
choices about where to locate may simply be the outcome of assessing which place offers
better access to needed resources at lower price and risk than elsewhere. However a less
familiar calculus may be introduced into the picture, not only as new forms of knowledge and
new actors or actor relations emerge, but also as the underlying economic and social logic of
the industrial era begins to be replaced.
All this raises questions regarding the scope and nature of research policy at the level of
each actor (within multinational firms, RTOs, etc.), and for the role of national, regional and
European governments. What is the optimal balance between centralization/decentralization
of R&D activities, management and policy-making? Or between direct support activities for
R&D and activities aimed at improving the coordination between different levels of
intervention and action? What about the potential