Changing the view of wind power development: More than "bricolage"
Understanding innovation depends at root on good qualitative descriptions. This paper re-assesses the role of "bricolage", and the extent of science-based R&D and experience-based learning, in the development of the Danish wind turbine system. It argues that the competition between these two opposed frames of reference was never conclusively settled, but involved a reassertion of science-based R&D, which was ultimately decisive for long-term success. This adds a dimension to the received account by showing the persistence of contested collective frames of reference as a driving force across the technology life cycle. At the same time, a more nuanced account of these two learning processes enhances theorisation of the innovation process by showing a learning sequence and interplay of modes that is diametrically at odds with the conventional stylised model of the experience curve.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- McDonald, Alan & Schrattenholzer, Leo, 2001. "Learning rates for energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 255-261, March.
- Kaplan, Sarah & Tripsas, Mary, 2008. "Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 790-805, June.
- Santamara, Llus & Nieto, Mara Jess & Barge-Gil, Andrs, 2009. "Beyond formal R&D: Taking advantage of other sources of innovation in low- and medium-technology industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 507-517, April.
- Brown, James & Hendry, Chris, 2009. "Public demonstration projects and field trials: Accelerating commercialisation of sustainable technology in solar photovoltaics," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 2560-2573, July.
- Sagar, Ambuj D. & van der Zwaan, Bob, 2006. "Technological innovation in the energy sector: R&D, deployment, and learning-by-doing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(17), pages 2601-2608, November.
- Kirner, Eva & Kinkel, Steffen & Jaeger, Angela, 2009. "Innovation paths and the innovation performance of low-technology firms--An empirical analysis of German industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 447-458, April.
- Nemet, Gregory F., 2006. "Beyond the learning curve: factors influencing cost reductions in photovoltaics," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(17), pages 3218-3232, November.
- Robertson, Paul L. & Patel, Parimal R., 2007. "New wine in old bottles: Technological diffusion in developed economies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 708-721, June.
- Kamp, Linda M. & Smits, Ruud E. H. M. & Andriesse, Cornelis D., 2004. "Notions on learning applied to wind turbine development in the Netherlands and Denmark," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(14), pages 1625-1637, September.
- Staffan Jacobsson & Anna Bergek, 2004. "Transforming the energy sector: the evolution of technological systems in renewable energy technology," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(5), pages 815-849, October.
- Jensen, Morten Berg & Johnson, Bjorn & Lorenz, Edward & Lundvall, Bengt Ake, 2007.
"Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation,"
Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 680-693, June.
- Harborne, Paul & Hendry, Chris, 2009. "Pathways to commercial wind power in the US, Europe and Japan: The role of demonstration projects and field trials in the innovation process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 3580-3595, September.
- Baker, Ted & Miner, Anne S. & Eesley, Dale T., 2003. "Improvising firms: bricolage, account giving and improvisational competencies in the founding process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 255-276, February.
- Nemet, Gregory F., 2009. "Demand-pull, technology-push, and government-led incentives for non-incremental technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 700-709, June.
- Bergek, Anna & Jacobsson, Staffan & Carlsson, Bo & Lindmark, Sven & Rickne, Annika, 2008. "Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 407-429, April.
- Garud, Raghu & Karnoe, Peter, 2003. "Bricolage versus breakthrough: distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 277-300, February.
- Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Klaassen, Ger & Miketa, Asami & Larsen, Katarina & Sundqvist, Thomas, 2005. "The impact of R&D on innovation for wind energy in Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 227-240, August.
- Hendry, Chris & Harborne, Paul & Brown, James, 2010. "So what do innovating companies really get from publicly funded demonstration projects and trials? innovation lessons from solar photovoltaics and wind," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4507-4519, August.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:40:y:2011:i:5:p:778-789. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.