The Expansion of Qualitative Research Methods in Innovation Policy Studies

Eristian Wibisono

doi:10.14203/STIPM.2022.322

The Expansion of Qualitative Research Methods in Innovation Policy Studies

Eristian Wibisono

Abstract

Abstract

This paper intends to provide a general description of the position of a qualitative approach in the study of innovation policy and its possible expansion based on the experiences of experts from other disciplines. There is an important and urgent matter about improving young researchers' methodological skills in understanding complex innovation studies. By understanding and mastering various methodological skills, individual researchers, groups, or innovation study communities can provide comprehensive interpretations and insights from unit analysis to draw accurate conclusions in response to phenomena and planned research questions. Some of the research approaches suggested in this paper, namely ethnographic research and action research, require additional research skills in the field. The ethnographic approach and the participant approach allow young researchers to influence the research design by involving participants in the research in a planned manner. Therefore, it is appropriate to use a participatory approach as methodological enrichment in innovation studies. An ethnographic approach will benefit from the perspective of the innovation policy group. The qualitative approach described in this paper can be used in mixed methods, along with quantitative methods.

Keywords: qualitative methods, mixed-methods, innovation, policy studies

Full Text:

PDF

References

Asheim, B. T., & Coenen, L. (2005). Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: Comparing Nordic clusters. Research Policy, 34(8), 1173–1190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.013

Aula, P., & Harmaakorpi, V. (2008). An innovative milieu–a view on regional reputation building: case study of the Lahti urban region. Regional Studies, 42(4), 523–538.

Bansal, P., & Corley, K. (2012). Publishing in AMJ—Part 7: What’s different about qualitative research? American Society of Nephrology Briarcliff Manor, NY.

Baur, N. (2009). Problems of linking theory and data in historical sociology and longitudinal research. Historical Social Research, 34(1), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.12759/hsr.34.2009.1.7-21

Benneworth, P., & Hospers, G.-J. (2007). The new economic geography of old industrial regions: Universities as global—local pipelines. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 25(6), 779–802.

Coleman, J., Katz, E., & Menzel, H. (1957). The diffusion of an innovation among physicians. Sociometry, 20(4), 253–270.

Cooke, P., Uranga, M. G., & Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions. Research Policy, 26(4–5), 475–491.

Crang, M. (2002). Qualitative methods: the new orthodoxy? Progress in Human Geography, 26(5), 647–655.

Crang, M. (2003). Qualitative methods: touchy, feely, look-see? Progress in Human Geography, 27(4), 494–504.

De Massis, A., & Kotlar, J. (2014). The case study method in family business research: Guidelines for qualitative scholarship. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(1), 15–29.

DeLyser, D., & Sui, D. (2014). Crossing the qualitative-quantitative chasm III: Enduring methods, open geography, participatory research, and the fourth paradigm. Progress in Human Geography, 38(2), 294–307.

Eisenhardt, K. M., Furr, N. R., & ... (2010). CROSSROADS—Microfoundations of performance: Balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organization Science. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/orsc.1100.0564

Estensoro, M., Larrea, M., & Alcalde Heras, H. (2020). Organizational ambidexterity in policy networks. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 30(2), 219–242. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-02-2018-0013

Fiedler, J., & Posch, C. (2009). Yes, they can! Children researching their lives.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2(6), 645–672.

Freeman, R. B. (1995). The large welfare state as a system. The American Economic Review, 85(2), 16–21.

Garnett, M., & Dorey, P. (2016). Exploring British Politics. Routledge.

Gezelter, D. (2009). What, exactly, is open science. The OpenScience Project.

Gummesson, E. (2000). Qualitative methods in management research. Sage.

Harvey, W. S. (2011). Strategies for conducting elite interviews. Qualitative Research, 11(4), 431–441.

Hoholm, T., & Araujo, L. (2011). Studying innovation processes in real-time: The promises and challenges of ethnography. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(6), 933–939.

Holliday, R. (2000). We’ve been framed: visualising methodology. The Sociological Review, 48(4), 503–521.

Jensen, K. B., & Glasmeier, A. K. (2010). Policy, research design and the socially situated researcher. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Geography, 82–93.

Jorgensen, D. L. (2015). Participant observation. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource, 1–15.

Jungmann, R., Baur, N., & Ametowobla, D. (2015). Grasping processes of innovation empirically. A call for expanding the methodological Toolkit. An introduction. Historical Social Research, 40(3), 7–29. https://doi.org/10.12759/hsr.40.2015.3.7-29

Knoblauch, H., Schnettler, B., Raab, J., Soeffner, H., & Luckmann, T. (2006). VIDEO-ANALYSIS Qualitative Audiovisual Data Analysis in Sociology Methodologies of Video Analysis. Assessment.

Ladkin, D. (2004). Action research. Qualitative Research Practice, 536–548.

Lundvall, B.-Å. (2016). The learning economy and the economics of hope. Anthem Press.

Lundvall, B.-Å., Johnson, B., Andersen, E. S., & Dalum, B. (2002). National systems of production, innovation and competence building. Research Policy, 31(2), 213–231.

Lyndon, R. C., & Schupp, P. E. (2015). Combinatorial group theory. Springer.

MacKinnon, D., Cumbers, A., Pike, A., Birch, K., & McMaster, R. (2009). Evolution in economic geography: institutions, political economy, and adaptation. Economic Geography, 85(2), 129–150.

Markham, A. N. (2004). Internet communication as a tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, 2, 95124.

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.

Nordling, N., & Pugh, R. (2019). Beyond the ‘usual suspects’–Alternative qualitative methods for innovation policy studies. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 11(4), 513–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2018.1537106

OECD. (1997). National Innovation Systems: Organisation For Economic Co-Operation and Development. 49. http://www.oecd.org/science/inno/2101733.pdf%0Ahttps://www.oecd.org/science/inno/2101733.pdf%0Ahttp://www.oecd.org/science/inno/2101733.pdf

Pink, S. (2007). Video in ethnographic research. Teoksessa: Doing Visual Ethnography Pink Sarah.(2007, 96-116) Saatavilla: DOI: Http://Dx. Doi. Org/10.4135/9780857025029. SAGE Publications.

Pugh, R., Hamilton, E., Jack, S., & Gibbons, A. (2016). A step into the unknown: Universities and the governance of regional economic development. European Planning Studies, 24(7), 1357–1373.

Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers. Wiley-Blackwell.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. sage.

Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20–24.

Simons, H. (2009). Evolution and concept of case study research. Case Study Research in Practice, 12–28.

Storper, M. (2011). Why do regions develop and change? The challenge for geography and economics. Journal of Economic Geography, 11(2), 333–346.

Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2005). One size fits all?: Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy, 34(8), 1203–1219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.018

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications. Sage.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14203/STIPM.2022.322