Beyond spillovers: interrogating innovation and creativity in the peripheries: Andrey N. Petrov
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction In the last few decades the idea of innovation as a regional, geographically specific phenomenon inspired the interest of scholars all across economic geography and regional science. Placelessness of knowledge production has since been boldly rejected and replaced by the notions of embeddedness (Grabher 1993), regionality (Lundvall 1992), institutional ‘fertility’ (Amin 1999), regional ‘learning’ (Morgan 1997), knowledge ‘spillovers,’ personal and regional interconnectedness (Gertler 1995; Bathelt and Boggs 2005), innovator’s agency (Feldman 2000; Florida 2002; Schienstock 2007), local synergies and innovative milieus (Gradus and Lithwick 1996), and other spatial (meta)theories of knowledge economy (Tremblay 2005; see also chapters in this book). It has certainly become conventional to cite innovation and innovativeness among major drivers of regional development and key elements of regional competitiveness. Theability of place to induce and/or ad(a)opt innovations is widely perceived as a condition, determining success in knowledge-driven economic growth (for example, Feldman 2000; Florida 2002; Cooke and Leydesdorff 2006). However, the knowledge economy research has had an apparent geographical bias, heavily focusing on core areas, especially urban metropolises. Although the preoccupation with large urban regions reflects the objective concentration of innovation (Florida 2005; Polese and Tremblay 2005), this tradition unjustly marginalizes peripheries, and especially remote areas as study sites. Meanwhile, as argued below (pp. 00-00), the importance of innovation in economic development is not an exclusive prerogative of large conurbations, but is the property of all regions, including the deepest peripheries. Moreover, there is growing evidence that local innovation and creativity (both broadly defined) can be even more critical for reviving economies in middle-sized and small towns, as well as rural and remote areas (Polese et al. 2002; Aarsaether 2004; Lagendijk and Lorentzen 2007; McGranahan and Wojan 2007; O’Hagan and Cecil 2007; Petrov 2007; Virkkala 2007; Hall and Donald 2009). Whereas ‘less favored’ areas received considerable attention in the European context (Gradus and Lithwick 1996; Morgan 1997; Leimgruber 2004; Lagendijk and Lorentzen 2007), the scope of general inquiry into innovative capacities and creative capital is usually confined by the limits of innovation spillovers incoming from an urban ‘core.’ Even though those, mostly European, peripheries have been involved or even have become prominent building blocks of the regional innovation systems theory, they had been rarely marginalized enough (either geographically or otherwise) to remain ‘beyond spillovers.’ To the contrary, knowledge creation in extremely remote areas, such as Canada’s northern frontier, appears to lie outside the major theoretical debates and empirical generalizations. This chapter interrogates conceptual foundations and emerging empirical evidence pertaining to creative capacities and regional varieties of innovation systems in the deep peripheries, and specifically in the Canadian North. I contemplate three arguments. First, creativity and innovation (both broadly defined) in remote areas are vital for economic viability no less than in industrial-innovative cores and that the role of individual innovators is no less profound. Second, some Canadian peripheral regions have accumulated creative capacities to become innovative hotspots and, thus, engines of regional innovation. Third, emerging innovation systems in the periphery rely on social capital and community efforts as much as on other (traditional) factors of successful innovation. Finally, I suggest that peripheral areas have a degree of innovation autonomy, particularly in respect to entrepreneurial, public and civic innovations, when the transformative events for regional ‘reinvention’ can come from within the remote region itself.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».