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

Year 2015, Volume: 3 Issue: 2, 143 - 164, 01.04.2015

Sümeyra Alpaslan Danışman

Abstract

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

Keywords

Yenilik, İcat, Metafor

Relationship between Innovation and Invention: An Explorative Investigation Though Metaphors

Abstract

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

Keywords

Innovation, Invention, Metaphor

References

• Ahuja, G.& Katila, R. (2004). Where do resources come from? the role of idiosyncratic situations, Strategic Management Journal, 25(8-9), 887-907.
• Altunışık, Remzi, Recai Coşkun, Serkan Bayraktaroğlu ve Engin Yıldırım, (2005), Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri: SPSS Uygulamalı. 4. bs. Sakarya.
• Alves, J., Marques, M.J., Saur, I. & Marques,P. (2007). Creativity and innovation through multidisciplinary and multisectoral cooperation, Creativity and Innovation Management, 16 (1), 27-34.
• Bell, G. (2005). Research Notes and commentaries, Clusters, Networks and Firm Innovativeness, Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 287-295.
• Branscomb, L. M. & Auerswald, P.E. (2002)
• http://www.atp.nist.gov/eao/gcr02-841/contents.htm
• Callahan, R.H. (2006). http://ideaflow.corante.com/archives/2006/10/
• Casper, S. & Waarden, F. (2005). Innovations and institutions, Edward Elgar Publishing, USA.
• Christensen, C.M. (1997). The innovators dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts.
• Chen, Peter and S.M. Hilton (1999), Realtime Interviewing Using The World Wide Web, Sociological Research Online, 4(3)
• Cho, H. & Pucik, V. (2005). Relationship between innovativeness, quality, growth, profitability and market value, Strategic Management Journal, 26(6), 555- 575.
• Cohen, A. (2006). Follow the other hand: a remarkable fable that will energize your business, profits, and life, St. Martin's Press; First Edition edition.
• Cooke, P., Roper, S. & Wylie, P. (2001).
• www.innovation.lv/ino2/publications/url4.pdf
• Cowan, R. & Jonard, N. (2000. The dynamics of collective invention, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 52, 513-532.
• Damanpour F. (1988). Innovation type, radicalness, and the adoption process, Communication Res. 15(5), 545-567.
• Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational ınnovation: a meta- analysis of effects of determinants and moderators, The Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555-590.
• Damanpour, F. (1996). Organizational complexity and ınnovation: developing and testing multiple contingency models, Management Science, 42(5), 693- 716.
• Dasgupta, P., Gilbert, R.J. & Stiglitz, J.E. (1982). ınvention and ınnovation under alternative market structures: the case of natural resources, The Review of Economic Studies, 29(4), 567-582.
• Devarajan, T.P., Ramachandran, K. & Ramnarayan, S. (2003). Entrepreneurial leadership and thriving ınnovation activity, 7th International Conference on Global Business & Economic Development, Bangkok, 8-11 January.
• Erdem, F. & Sarvan, F. (2001). Akademik örgütlerde rehberlik ilişkilerinin metaforlarla analizi, Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Ekim 1/1.
• Evan, W.M. & Black, G. (1967). Innovation in business organizations: some factors associated with success or failure of staff proposals, The Journal of Business, 40(4), 519-530.
• Fiol, C. M. (1996). Squeezing harder doesn’t always work: continuing the search for consistency in innovation research, Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1012-1021.
• Göker, A. (2001). http://www.focusinnovation.net/what.html
• Holstı, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities, Menlo Park, Addison-Wesley, CA.
• Hornby P. & Symon, G. (1994). Tracer studies, in Cassell, C., Symon, G. (Eds), Qualitative Methods in Organisational Research: A Practical Guide, Sage.
• Janssen, O., Veliert, E.V. & West, M. (2004). The bright and dark sides of ındividual and group ınnovation: a special ıssue ıntroduction, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 25(2), 129-145.
• Johannessen, J., Olsen, B. & Lumpkin, G.T. (2001). Innovation as newness: what is new, how new and new to whom?, European Journal of Innovation Management, 4(1), 20-31.
• Lakoff , G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Luborsky, M. (1994). Qualitative research in ageing research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Khan, A. M. & Manopichetwattana, V. (1989). Innovative and noninnovative small firms: type and characteristics, Management Science, 35(5), 597-606.
• Kortelainen, Sami (2005), Innovating at the interface: a comparative case study of innovation process dynamics and outcomes in the public-private context
• http://hsepubl.lib.hse.fi/FI/diss/?cmd=show&dissid=290.
• Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2001). Metaphors as a way to explore qualitative data, Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(3), 367–379
• Maclaurin, W. R. (1953). The sequence from ınvention to ınnovation and ıts relation to economic growth, The Quartery Journal of Economic, 67(1), 97- 111.
• McAdam, R. (2000). Knowledge management as a catalyst for ınnovation within organizations: a qualitative study, Knowledge and Process Management, 7(4), 233-241.
• Morgan, Stephanie and Gillian Symon (2006), Eletronic Interviews in Organizational Research, in Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research edited by Catherine Cassell and Gillian Symon, Sage Publication.
• Moultrie J., Nilsson M., Haner M.D., Janssen, S. & Lugt, R.V. (2007). Innovation spaces: towards a framework for understanding the role of the physical environment in ınnovation, Creativity and Innovation Management, 16(1), 53-65.
• Osborne, S. P. (1996). The hitch-hiker’s guide to innovation? managing innovation – and other organizational processes – in an inter-agency context, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 9(7), 72–81.
• Roberts, E.B. (1988). Managing ınvention and ınnovation, Research technology Management, 31(1), 11-29.
• Sarup, M. (2004). Postyapısalcılık ve postmodernizm, Çev. Abdülbaki Güçlü, Bilim ve Sanat Yayınları, Ankara.
• Schmitt, R. (2000). Systematic metaphor analysis as a method of qualitative research, Qualitative Report, 10(2), 358–394.
• SchriftT, A. D. (2002). Dil, metafor ve retorik, derleme ve çeviri, Hüsamettin Arslan, İnsan Bilimlerine Prolegomena, Paradigma Yayınları, İstanbul.
• Schumpeter, J. A. (1961). The theory of economic development, Oxford University Press, New York.
• Utterback, J.M. (1971). The process of technological ınnovation within the firm, The Academy of Management Journal, 14(1), 75-88.
• Van de Van, A.(1986). Central problems in the management of innovations, Management Science, 32(5), 590-607.
• Wang, Z. (2005). Organizational effectiveness through technology innovation and hrm strategies, International Journal of Manpower, 26(6), 481-487.Baltagi
• B. H. (2005), Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, 3rd edition, John
• Wiley&Sons Ltd., West Sussex, England.