Info: Zenodo’s user support line is staffed on regular business days between Dec 23 and Jan 5. Response times may be slightly longer than normal.

Proceedings of the Institutes for Advanced Studies
Published May 16, 2022 | Version v1
Conference paper Open

Philosophie et Innovation culturelle

Creators

  • 1. Université de Rome Tor Vergata, Italy

Description

This paper is about innovation, reflection, and inclusion. The argument starts with a general thesis on philosophy and innovation. The pages on communities of practice continue the argument by embodying the reflective stance in consideration of societal readiness and cultural innovation. The argument includes a comprehensive presentation of key performance indicators for research infrastructures dealing with content and processes of cultural innovation. A few words on the role of the reflective society wrap up the paper. Evaluation of Social Sciences and Humanities in Europe. Hcéres Colloquium Proceedings - Paris IAS, 16-17 May 2022. Session 2 "Multilingualism" - The specific impact of multilingual publications

Files

2-1-4_Pozzo.pdf

Files (327.4 kB)

Name Size Download all
md5:17e4a6e770882da1d6326048d17b0bb9
327.4 kB Preview Download

Additional details

References

  • ALLEA, HERA, ELI, ESA, EuroScience, & EuroScience. (n.d.). Living together: Missions for Shaping the Future. An Agenda for the next European Research and Innovation Programme | News [Techreport]. Retrieved June 30, 2022, from https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/135939-living-together-missions-for-shaping-the-future-an-agenda-for-the-next-european-research-and-
  • Archer, M. (2003). Structure, Agency and the Internal Conversation. Cambridge University Press.
  • Archibugi, D., & Mario/Filippetti, A. (2009). The technological capabilities of nations : The state of art of synthetic indicators. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(7), 917–931.
  • Bacon, F. (1908). Of Innovations. In Essays of Francis Bacon, éd. Mary Scott. Scribner's.
  • Battistoni, F., & Sabrina. (2014). Indicatori per la valutazione degli istituti culturali. Paradoxa, 8(4), 24–161.
  • Betti, A. den B., Hein/Ortwijn, Y., & Caspar. (2019). History of Philosophy in Ones and Zeros. In Methodological Advances in Experimental Philosophy, éd. Eugen Fischer/Mark Curtis (pp. 295–332). Bloomsbury.
  • Blair, A., Paul/Goeing, A.-S., & Anthony. (2011). Information : A Historical Companion. Princeton University Press.
  • Bonaccorsi, A. (2018). Towards an epistemic approach to evaluation in SSH." The evaluation of research in the Social Sciences and Humanities : Lessons from the Italian experience, éd. Andrea Bonaccorsi, 1–29.
  • Bontems, V. K. (2014). What does innovation stand for? Review of a watchword in research policies. Journal of Innovation Economics and Management, 15(3), 39–57.
  • Borgman, C. L. /Edwards, Jackson, S. J., Chalmers, M. K. S., Bowker, G. C. M., & Edwards, P. N. (2013). Knowledge infrastructures : Intellectual frameworks and research challenges [Techreport]. Ann Arbor.
  • Confucius. (2017). Understanding the Analects of Confucius : A New Translation of Lunyu with Annotations (N. Peimin, Trans.). State University of New York Press.
  • Dias, J., & Maria. (2019). Mind the Gap : The Potential Transformative Capacity of Social Innivation. Sustainability, 11, 4465. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11165565
  • Dilthey, W. (1942). Introduction à l'étude des sciences humaines : Essai sur le fondement qu'on pourrait donner à l'étude de la société et de l'histoire, éd. Louis Sauzin. PUF.
  • Eleta, I., & Golbeck, J. (2012). A study of multilingual social tagging of art images : Cultural bridges and diversity. Proc. ACM 2012 Conf. Comput. Support. Coop. Work CSCW, 12, 695–704. https://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145310
  • E.S.F.R.I. (2021). Strategy Report Research Infrastructures : Roadmap 2021 [Techreport]. Science. https://roadmap2021.esfri.eu/strategy-report/
  • Commission, E. (2014). Report on the role of public arts and cultural institutions in the promotion of cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue (p. 112) [Techreport]. Directorate-General Education. https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/culture/library/reports/201405-omc-diversity-dialogue_en.pdf
  • European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Krzysztof, K., Lemaire, C., & Swinnen, L. (2014). Integration of social sciences and humanities in Horizon 2020 : participants, budget and disciplines : 4th monitoring report on SSH flagged projects funded in 2017 under the societal challenges and industrial leadership priorities [Techreport]. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research. https://doi.org/10.2777/756427.
  • European Commission, D.-G. for R. and I., Moulaert, F., Mehmood, A., & MacCallum, D. (2017). Social innovation as a trigger for transformations - The Role of Research [Techreport]. Publication Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/68949
  • European Commission. Directorate General for Research and Innovation. (2021). Horizon Europe: strategic plan 2021 2024. [Techreport]. Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/083753
  • Floridi, L. (2019). The Logic of Information. Oxford University Press.
  • Foray, D. (2012). The Fragility of Experiential Knowledge. In R. Arena, N. Lazaric, & A. Festré (Eds.), Handbook of Knowledge and Economics (pp. 267–284). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/gbp/handbook-of-knowledge-and-economics-9781843764045.html
  • Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice : Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford University Press.
  • Gingras, Y. (2017). Science and Religion : An Impossible Dialogue. Politi.
  • Godin, B. (2007). National innovation systems : The system approach in historical perspective. Centre Urbanisation Culture Société.
  • Godin, B. (2009). The making of science, technology and innovation policy : Conceptual frameworks and narratives, 1945-2005. Centre Urbanisation Culture Société.
  • Godin, B. (2015). Innovation Contested : The Idea of Innovation over the Centuries. Routledge.
  • Holt, D., & Douglas, C. (2012). Cultural Innovation : Triumph of a Better Ideology. Market Leader, Quarter 1, 24–27. https://www.marketingsociety.com/sites/default/files/thelibrary/January-2012_17.pdf
  • Jöstingmeier, B., & Hans-Jürgen. (2005). Cross-cultural Innovation : Results of the 8th European Conference on Creativity and Innovation. Springer.
  • Kaase, M. (2013). Research infrastructures in the social sciences : The long and winding road. In B. Kleiner, I. Renschler, B. Wernli, & D. Joye (Eds.), Understanding research infrastructures in the social sciences (pp. 19–30). Seismo.
  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning : Legitimate Periphereal Participation. Cambridge University Press.
  • Maegaard, B., & Pozzo, R. (2019). Stay Tuned to the Future : Impact of Research Infrastructures for Social Sciences and Humanities. Olschki.
  • Maynard, D., & Lepori, B. (2017). Ontologies as bridges between data sources and user queries : The KNOWMAK project experience. Open Indicators : Innovation, Participation and Actor-Based STI Indicators.
  • Merton, R. K. (1936). The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review, 1(6), 894–904. https://doi.org/10.2307/2084615
  • Moretti, F. (2013). Distant Reading. Verso.
  • Morozov, E., & Bria, F. (2018). Rethinking the Smart City : Democratizing urban technology [Techreport]. Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung. https://www.urenio.org/2018/10/04/rethinking-smart-city-democratizing-technology/
  • National Endowment for the Arts. (2014). Measuring Cultural Engagement : A Quest for New Terms, Tools, and Techniques [Techreport]. National Endowment for the Arts. https://www.arts.gov/impact/research/publications/measuring-cultural-engagement-quest-new-terms-tools-and-techniques
  • O.E.C.D. (2018). Oslo Manual 2018 : Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation, 4th Edition (4th ed.). Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques. https://www.oecd.org/science/oslo-manual-2018-9789264304604-en.htm
  • Pozzo, R. (2021). History of Philosophy and the Reflective Society (open access. De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110709292
  • Pozzo, R., Filippetti, A., Paolucci, M., & Virgili, V. (2020). What Does Cultural Innovation Stand for? Dimensions, Processes, Outcomes of a New Innovation Category. Science and Public Policy, 47(3), 425–433. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scaa023
  • Pozzo, R., & Virgili, V. (2017). Social and Cultural Innovation: Research Infrastructures tackling Migration. Diogenes : International Journal of Human Sciences, 64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0392192117739822
  • Pozzo, R., & Virgili, V. (2021). Editoria digitale e gestione dei diritti digitali: tecnologie abilitanti fondamentali per l'innovazione culturale. In E. Ranfa (Ed.), Mercanti di cultura : Modelli editoriali in transizione (pp. 75–83). il Poligrafo.
  • Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation Experiences : The Next Practices in Value Creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20015
  • Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-opting Customer Competence. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2000/01/co-opting-customer-competence
  • Reale, E., Avramov, D., Canhial, K., Donovan, C., Flecha, R., Holm, P., Larkin, C., Lepori, B., Mosoni-Fried, J., Oliver, E., Primeri, E., Puigvert, L., Scharnhorst, A., Schubert, A., Soler, M., Soòs, S., Sordé, T., Travis, C., & Van Horik, R. (2018). A review of literature on evaluating the scientific, social and political impact of social sciences and humanities research. Research Evaluation, 27(4), 298–308. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx025
  • Ridge, M. (2014). Crowdsourcing our Cultural Heritage. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Crowdsourcing-our-Cultural-Heritage/Ridge/p/book/9781138706170
  • Romele, A. (2020). Digital Hermeneutics: Philosophical Investigations in New Media and Technologies. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Digital-Hermeneutics-Philosophical-Investigations-in-New-Media-and-Technologies/Romele/p/book/9781032088174
  • Schäfer, V., & Serres, A. (2016). Histories of the Internet and the Web. Infoclio. https://doi.org/10.13098/infoclio.ch-lb-0006
  • Sen, A. (2014). Totally Radical : From Transformative Research to Transformative Innovation. Science and Public Policy, 41(3), 344–358. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/sct065
  • Tonner, P. (2016). Museums, ethics and truth : Why museums' collecting policies must face up to the problem of testimony. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 79, 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1358246116000126
  • Towse, R. (Ed.). (2011). A Handbook of Cultural Economics. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • Wyatt, S. (2003). Non-users also matter : The construction of users and non-users of the Internet. In N. Oudshoorn & T. Pinch (Eds.), How Users Matter : The Co-construction of users and technology (Vols. 67–79). https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3592.003.0006
  • Žic-Fuchs, M. (2014). Research infrastructures in the humanities: The challenges of 'visibility' and 'impact. In A. Duşa, D. Nelle, & G. S. Gert G. Wagner (Eds.), Facing the Future : European research infrastructures for the Humanities and Social Sciences (pp. 121–133). Scivero. https://allea.org/portfolio-item/facing-the-future-european-research-infrastructures-for-the-humanities-and-social-sciences/
  • Žic-Fuchs, M. (2019). ESFRI in Future Contexts of Impact : Research Infrastructures in SSH. In B. Maegaard & R. Pozzo (Eds.), Stay Tuned to the Future : Impact of Research Infrastructures for Social Sciences and Humanities (pp. 3–11). Olschki. https://www.clarin.eu/sites/default/files/STAY_TUNED_TO_THE_FUTURE.pdf