BACKGROUND:

​

Innovation originated in Ancient Greece, around the Fifth Century BCE, it was called
kainotomia (Godin, 2015). Deriving from kainos, meaning “doing something new”, it could
refer to something tangible like “opening a new mine”, or more abstractly, “making new
concepts”. It had a negative connotation and was used derogatorily. After all, influential
thinkers like Plato thought there was no benefit in introducing new cultural elements, such as
governmental systems, dances or toys, as all the best had been discovered. In the 20th
century, the perspectives of the concept of innovation changed significantly with Schumpeter framing it as a positive and crucial element of technological change and capitalism (1934). More recently innovation has also been discussed as the complex and novel tool use and sensorimotor intelligence displayed by animals like corvids (Jønsson et al., 2012).

So, in the middle of all these perspectives, what is innovation, really?

​

​

METHODOLOGY:

​

Our first exploration was an extensive multidisciplinary literature review. Then, having
noticed a lack of a lay perspective, we undertook a prototype analysis, which has been used to explore lay perspectives of concepts with “fuzzy collections” of features, such as "love." It’s a mixed-methods approach based on prototype theory, which suggests that for
conceptual categories, e.g. “pets”, members, e.g. “dogs” or “fish”, have varying levels of
belonging (Rosch, 1973).
Afterwards, we ran a method that I developed based on elements of prototype analysis and Delphi studies (used for research towards forecasting or reaching consensus). I developed it to provide a tool to help the conceptualisation of complex cognitive/psychological constructs. For my research, we brought together the major perspectives of innovation, providing them
to experts from relevant fields and guiding them through a process towards developing the
consensus conceptualisation.

​

RESULTS: 

​

Our review found several key elements across perspectives, from which we developed a
multidisciplinary conceptualisation and model of innovation.
 (1) creation or alteration: regards novelty and recognises blurry distinction of what is
truly new
 (2) tool or knowledge: regards the central object of innovation - technical inventions,
ideas, concepts and behaviours
 (3) significant influence on (4) domain or system: regards how an innovation comes
to be - through having an impact in a specific context
 (5) by one or more agents, (6) intentionally or attentionally: regards the need of a
person being involved in the development of an innovation, with their participation
being intentionally working towards it or realising the potential of something

​

Thus, our conceptualisation and model (figure 1) were: Innovation is a creation or
alteration of a tool or knowledge, which has significant influence on its relevant
domain(s) or system(s), by one or more agents, either intentionally or attentionally.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

Figure 1 - Theoretical Multidisciplinary Model of Innovation

​

Our empirical studies also supported these findings, but added three crucial elements   (figure 2):

​

• (7) discovery variables – innovation comes from varying levels of serendipity, intentional iterative work, and curious exploration

• there are external (8) controllable and (9) uncontrollable factors relating to the agents and varying contexts. 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Figure 2 - Conceptual Model of Innovation (current version)

Note: CEF = Controllable External Factors. UEF = Uncontrollable External Factors.

​

FUTURE WORK:

I’m wrapping up the other side of my PhD, the conceptualisation of the skills of innovation. Afterwards I’m hoping to research development of spontaneous and higher-order cognition, and skills.

​

FUNDED BY:

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

CONTACT: