Freedom, Visibility of Consequences, and Scientific Innovation

Abstract

Wolfle, among others, has reasoned that the free academic environment is conducive to scientific innovation, while Ben-David and Gilfillan reason that the academically marginal settings provide greater impetus for innovation. Experts' evaluations of the innovativeness of 245 projects indicated that research conducted in academic social-science departments clearly was less innovative than similar research in marginal institutions. The question remains: How and in what manner do academically marginal settings stimulate innovation? It is hypothesized that the ease with which the consequences of research can be assessed in the marginal institutions accounts for the greater innovation found in the marginal setting. The hypotesis is also advanced that the effect of freedom is reduced when the consequences of research are not visible. These hypotheses were tested by an intra-organizational comparison of visibility of consequences and the extent of administrative influence on research activities. Three times more projects in ideal condition than non-ideal condition were evaluated as highly innovative.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 47 citations exist upstream.