Serendipity and the Limits of Output-Based Research Evaluation

This letter responds to Park and Suh article, published in the journal Technological Forecasting and Social Change, which investigates the emergence of use-inspired researchers within a South Korean public research institute using Stokes’ Pasteur’s Quadrant framework. While the study provides valuable empirical insights into the institutional dynamics of use-inspired research, two key issues warrant further discussion. First, the article does not consider the role of serendipity in scientific discovery. A growing body of literature in the sociology and philosophy of science emphasizes that many major breakthroughs arise from unexpected observations and exploratory inquiry rather than from narrowly defined research objectives. Contemporary research governance systems that prioritize predictable impact and measurable outputs may therefore overlook important mechanisms of scientific creativity. Second, the study relies heavily on patent counts as indicators of technological contribution. However, existing research suggests that patent statistics often provide an incomplete and potentially misleading representation of innovation.