204 L. M. Dybdahl and E. J. Iversen
The categorisation system is not perfect. For instance, the HEI and the
PRO sectors employ different rankings which, in the latter case, may depend
on the given institute. In addition, the rankings are skewed towards the more
advanced due to how CVs are included in project proposals. The table does,
however, provide a good indication of which parts of the organisations are
involved in this activity. Again, we see a balance between the most senior
positions (200 professors, lead researchers and administrative leaders) and the
younger researchers (275 from the low- and middle- rank positions). In the
PRO sector especially, we also find a range of ancillary positions in
the unclassified category that do not correspond to generic positions but are
more involved in the running of projects, etc.
10.6 Concluding discussion
The chapter provided an empirical look at how knowledge production is
organised in the bioeconomy and which knowledge bases are involved. Its
purpose has been to improve our understanding of the ‘knowledge base’
which will hopefully comprise the knowledge necessary to identify and
exploit new and sustainable value propositions in organic waste streams. We
noted a general need to solidify what is known about this dimension of the
formative meta- sector. One dimension involves public policy, which, as we
observed, is dedicated to increasing the allocation of resources to this area.
In this light, it is useful for public policymakers to know what fields of
science are involved in innovation and how they are organised, as this will
help to appreciate the strengths and challenges present in this changing
context.
To do so, the chapter has drawn on literature about the role of knowledge
in emerging areas. Our starting point was the tradition of sectoral systems of
innovation. The relevant literature pioneered analysis of the role of knowledge in order to understand the integral role of innovation in industrial
change and, in turn, in the changing sectoral composition of the economy. A
second strand of literature that we followed in our empirical strategy is from
the STI literature. Here we have used the work of Bozeman and colleagues,
who integrated the concepts of human capital and organisational capital into
the STI tradition and, in doing so, have pioneered the use of CVs as data in
their studies.
This strand of the literature has especially inspired our empirical work. Not
least, this is due to its focus on human capital and the way that it is organised,
and to the fact that this approach has previously explored the role of scientific
and technological knowledge in emerging meta- sectors such as biotech
(Corolleur, Carrere & Mangematin, 2004) and nanotech (e.g. Bozeman,
Larédo & Mangematin, 2007). These are themes that lend themselves well to
our study on the emerging bioeconomy.
The chapter has furthermore followed their pioneering work by using CVs
to study human capital and how it is organised. Taking our cue from this
The categorisation system is not perfect. For instance, the HEI and the
PRO sectors employ different rankings which, in the latter case, may depend
on the given institute. In addition, the rankings are skewed towards the more
advanced due to how CVs are included in project proposals. The table does,
however, provide a good indication of which parts of the organisations are
involved in this activity. Again, we see a balance between the most senior
positions (200 professors, lead researchers and administrative leaders) and the
younger researchers (275 from the low- and middle- rank positions). In the
PRO sector especially, we also find a range of ancillary positions in
the unclassified category that do not correspond to generic positions but are
more involved in the running of projects, etc.
10.6 Concluding discussion
The chapter provided an empirical look at how knowledge production is
organised in the bioeconomy and which knowledge bases are involved. Its
purpose has been to improve our understanding of the ‘knowledge base’
which will hopefully comprise the knowledge necessary to identify and
exploit new and sustainable value propositions in organic waste streams. We
noted a general need to solidify what is known about this dimension of the
formative meta- sector. One dimension involves public policy, which, as we
observed, is dedicated to increasing the allocation of resources to this area.
In this light, it is useful for public policymakers to know what fields of
science are involved in innovation and how they are organised, as this will
help to appreciate the strengths and challenges present in this changing
context.
To do so, the chapter has drawn on literature about the role of knowledge
in emerging areas. Our starting point was the tradition of sectoral systems of
innovation. The relevant literature pioneered analysis of the role of knowledge in order to understand the integral role of innovation in industrial
change and, in turn, in the changing sectoral composition of the economy. A
second strand of literature that we followed in our empirical strategy is from
the STI literature. Here we have used the work of Bozeman and colleagues,
who integrated the concepts of human capital and organisational capital into
the STI tradition and, in doing so, have pioneered the use of CVs as data in
their studies.
This strand of the literature has especially inspired our empirical work. Not
least, this is due to its focus on human capital and the way that it is organised,
and to the fact that this approach has previously explored the role of scientific
and technological knowledge in emerging meta- sectors such as biotech
(Corolleur, Carrere & Mangematin, 2004) and nanotech (e.g. Bozeman,
Larédo & Mangematin, 2007). These are themes that lend themselves well to
our study on the emerging bioeconomy.
The chapter has furthermore followed their pioneering work by using CVs
to study human capital and how it is organised. Taking our cue from this