ABSTRACT

Over the last few decades, two domains have undergone seemingly similar transformations: Closed innovation turned into open innovation, closed science into open science. In this essay we engage critically with recent calls for a close coupling of the two domains based on their apparent commonality: openness. Comparing the historically-specific ways in which openness has been defined and mobilised, we find substantial differences between open innovation and open science. While openness in innovation was developed as an analytic concept and redefined quite flexibly over time, openness in science was created as a programmatic concept and its initial definition has been preserved rather rigidly. Contrasting openness in innovation and science helps anticipate some of the unintended consequences that a close coupling of these domains might yield. A close coupling might alienate advocates for change within the academic community, marginalise maintenance-oriented collaborations between science and practice, and increase the dependence of science on profit-oriented platforms. Reflecting upon these unintended consequences can help policy-makers and researchers to fine-tune their concepts for new forms of engagement across the science-practice divide.

摘要

在过去的几十年里，两个领域经历了看似相似的转变：封闭式创新变成了开放式创新，封闭式科学变成了开放式科学。在这篇文章中，我们批判性地讨论了最近基于两个领域明显的共性：开放性而将这两个领域紧密结合的呼吁。比较定义和动员开放的历史特定方式，我们发现开放创新和开放科学之间存在重大差异。虽然创新的开放性是作为一个分析概念发展起来的，并且随着时间的推移非常灵活地重新定义，但科学的开放性是作为一个程序性概念而创建的，其最初的定义被相当严格地保留下来。对比创新和科学的开放性，有助于预测这些领域的紧密结合可能产生的一些意想不到的后果。紧密耦合可能会疏远学术界内部的变革倡导者，边缘化科学与实践之间以维护为导向的合作，并增加科学对以利润为导向的平台的依赖。反思这些意想不到的后果可以帮助政策制定者和研究人员调整他们的概念，以跨越科学实践鸿沟的新参与形式。