The Meaning of Digitalization for Research Skills: Challenges for STI Policy
Approaches to innovation have been thoroughly studied in the last decades. It’s well understood that an organizations’ culture is among the crucial factors for success and renewal of organizations. Yet culture is made by people and their attitudes. Innovation culture requires skills and competence by employees which are presumably beyond the traditional basic knowledge taught at undergraduate, graduate and post graduate level. This is even more evident for university graduates who’re mainly finding professional careers in the private sector who has special requirements to employees. Graduates’ skills are strongly influenced by curricula and the cultural values and norms outside curricula transferred by universities to students. But frequently these skills are designed by universities without profound knowledge of the actual skills required. At the same time organizations acting as potential graduates employers value researcher skills and competencies differently from how these are perceived. The paper suggests that understanding the professional and universal skills of researchers perceived and needed is one element of innovation culture. Thereby the skills in discussion go beyond purely academic skills only; instead it is proposed that skills which increase the absorptive capacity of companies are crucial for implementing effective productive innovation management.
Foresight has gained much attention as a tool for developing and informing science, technology and innovation policy and company strategies. It is frequently used for detecting not only potential development paths of technologies but also possible economic and societal changes; and for identifying challenges that nations, societies and companies might face in the future. Raising awareness within the respective communities of trends and challenges is critically important—and the biggest challenge is how we can develop measures to meet these anticipated challenges. Paradoxically, perhaps, it may be more helpful for creating and implementing successful measures if these are elaborated by thinking about grasping opportunities, rather than framing them in terms of threats that have to be responded to. Accordingly there is a need to change the mindsets in science, technology and innovation policy making—and to engender solution and opportunity orientation among scientists and engineers.
The article presents the guidelines of the competency modeling methodology invariant to subject domain, type of activities and psycho-pedagogical platform. The core of this methodology is systematics of the expandable metamodels adaptable to application conditions by profiling mechanism. The methodology is aimed at creating conditions for interoperability of systems and services that make up a digital education, dealing with competency description due to possibility of flexible selection of such interaction level, good information structuring and formalization, selection of competency description units repeatedly used in various contexts, as well as ontological approach. One more purpose of the methodology is preparation of grounds for realization of smart features of digital education technologies: adaptation, inferring, self-learning, anticipation.
Science, technology and innovation (STI) involves numerous policy fields which are championed by different government ministries or agencies. A consistent and coherent anticipatory policy mix is understood to be one that ensures a timely development and implementation of various forward-looking policy instruments. Such timely implementation is crucial for the eventual impact of the policy measures. This also requires that foresight for STI policies looks beyond the potential development paths and challenges but includes the time dimension and the outline of necessary policy responses including a relevant implementation framework. In addition the institutions which are part of the National Innovation Systems (NIS) should to be considered thoroughly for a well-balanced and comprehensive policy mix. Not only national but also regional and local actors need to be involved—and they need to be involved not only in the implementation of policy but at much earlier stages in the foresight and subsequent design procedures of the policy mix. One practical approach for convincing and engaging NIS actors at different levels is to stress opportunities which offer advantages to each of them, instead of just focusing on challenges and problems.
This paper reviews the most central analytical and methodological issues that arise in developing national STI strategies. First, an outline of the relationship between national innovation systems and the strategic dimension is presented. The paper shows that science, technology and innovation strategy are often used in different forms and that there is no common understanding yet of the actual meaning and coverage of these strategies. The paper develops the terminology from a discussion of different approaches towards company innovation processes analyzing their evolution in different socioeconomic environments and the role and impact of science, technology and innovation policy on company innovation processes. Based on this conceptual understanding the paper defines national science, technology, innovation, and STI strategy and explains the basic terminology. From these definitions, the strategic dimension including the impact on the stakeholders is discussed. It is shown that a major success factor for STI strategy development is the involvement of stakeholders to vary and extend their use of their portfolio of instruments. Moreover it becomes evident that stakeholders follow their own interests which aren’t necessarily in the interest of the national STI strategies. The analysis shows advantages and disadvantages as well as potentials and limitations of different approaches to develop STI strategies in their ability to describe the reality of innovation processes and to allow conclusions about the relationship between innovation policy and the innovation processes implemented by companies. It is shown that knowledge of these limitations is an important factor to consider in designing consistent and coherent national STI policy which aims at supporting innovation eventually. Finally the paper concludes that the STI policy mix concept needs a more systemic development approach which is integrated in the national STI strategy development and implementation.
The book gives practical guidance for policy makers, analysts and researchers on how to make the most of the potential of Foresight studies. Based on the concept of evidence-based policy-making, Foresight studies are common practice in many countries and are commonly understood as a supportive tool in designing future-oriented strategies. The book outlines approaches and experiences of integrating such Foresight studies in the making and implementation of science, technology and innovation (STI) policies at different national levels. It delivers insights into practical approaches of developing STI policy measures oriented towards future societal and technological challenges based on evidence drawn from comparable policy measures worldwide. Authors from leading academic institutions, international organizations and national governments provide a sound theoretical foundation and framework as well as checklists and guidelines for leveraging the potential impact of STI policies.
The Russian Federation faces a variety of challenges in securing adequate investment in new knowledge and technologies and deriving socio-economic benefit from them. The global financial crisis of 2008 and the ensuing stagnation were exacerbating domestic weaknesses, such as the limited market competition and persistent barriers to entrepreneurship, which were hampering the growth of the Russian economy. Despite some reforms since, these challenges have intensified since mid-2014.