A new approach in science policy making named the innovation system (IS) approach has been developed during the past three decades. Its primary goal is to better understand the processes through which scientific knowledge is produced and transferred to businesses to improve their competitiveness and develop national and/or regional economies. This approach has been adopted as an analytical framework and guideline for science policy making by numerous public sector organizations around the world. Using a case study of the Canadian and Québec public sectors, our research seeks to understand why the IS approach has gained the adherence of government employees and how it has been disseminated from international organizations down to regional civil servants. Findings show that adherence to the IS approach stems from the prestige of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and its associated epistemic community, and from the cultural authority science exerts on government employees; these two factors bestow cultural authority onto the IS approach. The perceived scientific validity of the IS approach also leads government employees to consider its underlying economistic worldview as an unquestionable reality.
Adler, E.1992. The emergence of cooperation: National epistemic communities and the international evolution of the idea of nuclear arms control. International Organization46 (1): 101-145.
2.
Adler, E., and P. H. Haas. 1992. Conclusion: Epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a reflective research program. International Organization46 (1): 367-390.
3.
Albert, M.2000. Stratégies d’adaptation des organismes subventionnaires en sciences humaines et sociales au Canada et au Québec face aux compressions budgétaires gouvernementales. Canadian Journal of Higher Education30 (3): 1-32.
4.
Albert, M.. 2003. Universities and the market economy: The differential impact on knowledge production in sociology and economics. Higher Education45 (2): 147-182.
5.
Atkinson-Grosjean, J.2002. Science policy and university research: Comparing Canada and the United States, 1979-1999. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management2 (2): 102-124.
6.
Beauchemin, J., G. Bourque, and J. Duchastel. 1995. Du providentialisme au néolibéralisme: de Marsh à Axworthy. Un nouveau discours de légitimation de la régulation sociale. Cahiers de recherche sociologique24: 15-47.
7.
Bourdieu, P. [1979] 1984. Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste, translated by R. Nice. London: Routledge.
8.
Bourdieu, P.. [1982] 1991. Language and symbolic power, translated by G. Raymond and M. Adamson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
Bourque, G., and J. Beauchemin. 1994. La société à valeur ajoutée ou la religion pragmatique. Sociologie et sociétés26 (2): 33-56.
10.
Bovone, L.1990. Cultural intermediaries: A new role for intellectuals in the postmodern age. Innovation3 (1): 61-79.
11.
Cambrosio, A., C. Limoges, and D. Pronovost. 1990. Representing biotechnology: An ethnography of Quebec science policy. Social Studies of Science20 (2): 195-227.
12.
Campbell, J. L.2002. Ideas, politics, and public policy. Annual Review of Sociology28: 21-38.
13.
Cohen, L., J. McAuley, and J. Duberly. 2001. Continuity in discontinuity: Changing discourses of science in a market economy. Science, Technology, & Human Values26 (2): 145-166.
14.
Conseil de la science et de la technologie. 1994. Urgence Technologie. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec.
15.
Conseil de la science et de la technologie. 1998. Pour une politique de l’innovation. Rapport de conjoncture 1998. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec.
16.
Conseil de la science et de la technologie. 1999. Intensifier l’innovation: les orientations prioritaires. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec.
17.
Conseil de la science et de la technologie. 2000. Des catalyseurs de l’innovation. Les centres de transfert et leur financement. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec.
18.
Conseil de la science et de la technologie. 2001. Pour des régions innovantes. Rapport de conjoncture 2001. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec.
19.
Conseil de la science et de la technologie. 2003. L’innovation dans les services. Pour une stratégie de l’immatérielle. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec.
20.
Conseil supérieur de l’éducation. 2002. Les universités à l’heure du partenariat. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec.
21.
Council on Competitiveness. 2004. Innovate America: National innovation initiative report. Washington, DC: Council on Competitiveness.
22.
Creswell, J. W.1997. Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
de la Mothe, J., and G. Paquet. 1998. Local and regional systems of innovation as learning socio-economies. In Local and regional systems of innovation, edited by J. de la Mothe and G. Paquet, 1-16. Boston: Kluwer.
24.
Drori, G. S., J. W. Meyer, F. O. Ramirez, and E. Schofer. 2003. Science in the modern world polity: Institutionalization and globalization. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
25.
Edler, J.2003. Change in European R&D policy as a complex consensus-building process. In Changing governance of research and technology policy: The European research area, edited by J. Edler, S. Kuhlmann, and M. Behrens, 98-132. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
26.
Edquist, C.1997. Systems of innovation approaches: Their emergence and characteristics. In Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations, edited by C. Edquist, 1-35. London: Pinter.
27.
Elzinga, A.2004. The new production of reductionism in models relating to research policy. In The science industry nexus: History, policy, implication, edited by K. Grandin, N. Wormbs, A. Lundgren, and S. Widmalm. Sagamore Beach, MA: Watson Publishing.
28.
Estrie Regional Innovation System. 2006. Estrie Regional Innovation System report card. http://www.innovation-estrie.qc.ca/observatoire (accessed December 10, 2006).
29.
Etzkowitz, H., and L. Leydesdorff. 1997. Universities and the global knowledge economy: A triple helix of university-industry-government relations. London: Cassell Academic.
30.
Etzkowitz, H., and L. Leydesdorff. 1998. The endless transition: A “triple helix” of university-industry-government. Minerva36 (3): 203-208.
31.
Etzkowitz, H., and L. Leydesdorff. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy29 (2): 109-123.
32.
European Commission. 1994. White paper on growth, competitiveness and employment. Luxembourg: European Commission.
33.
European Commission. 1995. Green paper on innovation. Luxembourg: European Commission.
34.
European Commission. 1996. First action plan for innovation in Europe. Luxembourg: European Commission.
35.
European Commission. 2002. Innovation policy in Europe. Luxembourg: European Commission.
36.
Finnemore, M.1993. International organizations as teachers of norms: The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organizations and science policy. International Organization47 (4): 565-597.
37.
Finnemore, M.. 1996. National interests in international society. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
38.
Fisher, D., J. Atkinson-Grosjean, and D. House. 2001. Change in academic/industry/state relations in Canada: The creation and development of the networks of centres of excellence. Minerva39 (3): 299-325.
39.
Flick, U.2004. Triangulation in qualitative research. In A companion to qualitative research, edited by U. Flick, E. von Kardoff, and I. Steinke, 178-183. London: Sage.
40.
Forrest, J. E.1991. Models of the process of technological innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management4: 439-453.
41.
Fourcade-Gourinchas, M., and S. L. Babb. 2002. The rebirth of the liberal creed: Paths to neoliberalism in four countries. American Journal of Sociology108 (3): 533-579.
42.
Frickel, S., and K. Moore. 2006. Prospects and challenges for a new political sociology of science. In The new political sociology of science, edited by S. Frickel and K. Moore, 3-31. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
43.
Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
Gieryn, T. F.1999. Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
45.
Goldstein, J., and R. O. Keohane. 1993. Ideas and foreign policy: An analytical framework. In Ideas and foreign policy: Beliefs, institutions, and political change, edited by J. Goldstein and R. O. Keohane, 3-30. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
46.
Government of Australia. 2002. Mapping Australian science and innovation: Main report. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
47.
Government of Canada. 2002. National summit on innovation and learning: Canada’s innovation strategy. Ottawa: Government of Canada.
48.
Government of Flanders. 2002. Science, technology and innovation. Brussels: Government of Flanders.
49.
Government of New Zealand. 2002. Growing an innovative New Zealand. Auckland: Government of New Zealand.
50.
Gulbrandsen, M., and L. Langfeldt. 2004. In search of “Mode 2”: The nature of knowledge production in Norway. Minerva42 (3): 237-250.
51.
Haas, P. M.1992. Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization46 (1): 1-35.
52.
Hakala, J., and O.-H. Ylijoki. 2001. Research for whom? Research orientations in three academic cultures. Organization8 (2): 373-380.
53.
Hall, P. A.1989. Conclusion: The politics of Keynesian ideas. In The political power of economic ideas: Keynesianism across nations, edited by P. A. Hall, 362-391. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
54.
Häyrinen-Alestalo, M.1999. The university under the pressure of innovation policy: Reflecting on European and Finnish experiences. Science Studies12 (1): 44-69.
55.
Heelas, P., and P. Morris. 1992. Enterprise culture: Its values and value. In The values of the enterprise culture: The moral debate, edited by P. Heelas and P. Morris, 1-26. London: Routledge.
56.
Hicks, D., and J. S. Katz. 1996. Where is science going? Science, Technology, & Human Values21 (4): 379-406.
57.
Jang, Y. S.2003. The global diffusion of ministries of science and technology. In Science in the modern world polity: Institutionalization and globalization, edited by G. S. Drori, J. W. Meyer, F. O. Ramirez, and E. Schofer, 120-135. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
58.
Jansen, J.2002. Mode 2 knowledge and institutional life: Taking Gibbons on a walk through a South African university. Higher Education43 (4): 507-521.
59.
Kayrooz, C., and P. Preston. 2002. Academic freedom: Impression of Australian social scientists. Minerva40 (4): 341-358.
60.
Kleinman, D. L.1991. Conceptualizing the politics of science: A response to Cambrosio, Limoges and Pronovost. Social Studies of Science21 (4): 769-774.
61.
Kleinman, D. L., and S. Vallas. 2001. Science, capitalism, and the rise of the “knowledge worker”: The changing structure of knowledge production in the United States. Theory and Society30 (4): 451-492.
62.
Kuhlmann, S.2001. Future governance of innovation policy in Europe: Three scenarios. Research Policy30 (6): 953-976.
63.
Lundvall, B.1992. National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter.
64.
Lundvall, B., and P. Maskell. 2000. Nation states and economic development: From national systems of production to national systems of knowledge creation and learning. In The Oxford handbook of economic geography, edited by G. L. Clark, M. P. Feldman, and M. S. Gertler, 353-372. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
65.
Meyer, J. W., J. Boli, G. M. Thomas, and F. O. Ramirez. 1997. World society and the nationstate. American Journal of Sociology103 (1): 144-181.
66.
Miettinen, R.2002. National innovation system: Scientific concept or political rhetoric. Helsinki: Edita, Finnish National Fund for Research and Development.
67.
Milot, P.2003. La reconfiguration des universités selon l’OCDE. Économie du savoir et politique de l’innovation. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales148: 68-73.
68.
Mowery, D. C.1994. The U.S. innovation system: Origins and prospect for change. In Science and technology policy in interdependent economies, edited by D. C. Mowery, 79-106. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
69.
Mytelka, L. K., and K. Smith. 2002. Policy learning and innovation theory: An interactive and co-evolving process. Research Policy31 (8-9): 1467-1479.
70.
National Technology Agency of Finland. 2002. Benchmarking innovation systems: Government funding for R&D. Helsinki: National Technology Agency of Finland.
71.
Nelson, R.1993. National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
72.
Nixon, S., and P. du Gay. 2002. Who needs cultural intermediaries? Cultural Studies16 (4): 495-500.
73.
Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity.
74.
Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons. 2003. Introduction. “Mode 2” revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva41 (3): 179-194.
75.
Observatoire du système régional d’innovation de la Mauricie. 2004. Tableau de bord du système régional d’innovation de la Mauricie. Trois-Rivières, QC: Observatoire du système régional d’innovation de la Mauricie. http://www.technopolevsm.com/portail/index.aspx?page=1 (accessed July 29, 2006).
76.
Observatoire sur le système régional d’innovation de l’Estrie. 2003. Tableau de bord du système régional d’innovation de l’Estrie. Sherbrooke, QC: Observatoire sur le système régional d’innovation de l’Estrie. http://www.innovation-estrie.qc.ca/observatoire (accessed July 29, 2006).
77.
Office of Science and Technology. 2002. Investing in innovation: A strategy for science, engineering and technology. London: Office of Science and Technology.
78.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 1992. Technology and the economy: The key relationships. Paris: OECD.
79.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 1996. The knowledge-based economy. Paris: OECD.
80.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 1997. Oslo manual. Paris: OECD.
81.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 1999a. Managing national innovation systems. Paris: OECD.
82.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 1999b. Boosting innovation: The cluster approach. Paris: OECD.
83.
Pestre, D.2003. Regimes of knowledge production in society: Toward a more political and social reading. Minerva41: 245-261.
84.
Science and Innovation Advisory Council. 2002. New Zealanders, innovators to the world. Turning great ideas into great ventures: An innovation framework for New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: Science and Innovation Advisory Council.
85.
Sharif, N.2006. Emergence and development of the national innovation system concept. Research Policy35 (5): 745-766.
86.
Shinn, T.1999. Change or mutation? Reflections on the foundations of contemporary science. Social Science Information38 (1): 149-176.
87.
Shinn, T.. 2002. The triple helix and new production of knowledge. Social Studies of Science32 (4): 599-614.
88.
Strauss, A. L., and J. M. Corbin. 1990. Introduction to qualitative research, grounded theory procedures and techniques. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
89.
Walsh, V. M.2004. Global institutions and social knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
90.
Weingart, P.1997. From “finalization” to “Mode 2”: Old wine in new bottles? Social Science Information36 (4): 591-613.
91.
Yee, A. Y.1996. The causal effects of ideas on policies. International Organization50 (1): 69-108.
92.
Ziman, J.2000. Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
