Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The National Science Board and the US Congress want more federal research to be transformative research . Until now, discussion of what this really means has mostly focused on research, per se , and has not addressed innovation as a complex system. ‘Transformation’ describes changes in society and the economy, not merely changes in science and technology. It entails connections among individuals, institutions, and between research, development, and nascent applications. Serious efforts to transform are totally radical: they span the totality of the innovative process to produce actually radical outcomes, rather than maintain potentially radical activities. Transformative innovation is specifically organized to realize concrete visions of change beyond the research community. Programs that seek to do this cannot rely upon faith in serendipity, but must be strategic. They cannot avoid politics, but must embrace it. Being totally radical about innovation means creating the social conditions within which new technologies can thrive.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Avery Sen (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: