1
Innovation Biographies
Introduction
As a qualitative methodology, innovation biographies, which are also referred to as knowledge
biographies, originated in the research Rammert conducted on innovation networks and the role of
culture in technological development (2000). In this case, Rammert used the methodology to
compare different emerging innovations but little explanation is given on the actual phases of the
methodology or the innovations that were being assessed. The basic explanation is that the
methodology takes an existing innovation and works backwards to gather information on the actors
involved in the innovation process (ie. the innovation network), as well as the policy and other major
events occurring during the span of innovation creation. Since 2000, several academics have utilised
the methodology, each time making it slightly different but, more importantly, adding structure to it
taking it from an abstract way of conducting research to a tangible guide for fieldwork. This
transition from abstract to tangible, along with the types of innovation that were assessed through
these projects will be assessed in this paper. Using this assessment, the purpose of this working
paper is to highlight the best method of analysis for our two case study regions that focus on
regional economic resilience as part of the TRes project.
The two case study regions vary significantly in regards to the industries present in them and
potentially in regards to the number of innovations they have created. The North Wales region is
highly diversified with several industries present including, but not limited to, photonics, aerospace,
and solar energy. The variety of industries would make innovations achieved through path
interdependence and the adjacent possible more likely in this region. Alternatively, the East England
region is highly specialised, exhibiting features of smart specialisation, in the field of
telecommunications. In both cases, the industries present contribute significantly to the regional
economy and as a result are being assessed for their regional economic resilience capacity following
the macroeconomic downturn (recession) that started in 2008. While this assessment is the overall
aim of the TRes project, the innovation biographies will be used to identify the connectivity of the
industries, government and other regional innovation system actors highlighting their capacity to
adapt to shocks of this nature.
The paper will continue as follows. The next section will review the existing literature regarding the
innovation biography methodology. This will outline the types of innovations used in the research as
well as the actual qualitative methods assigned to the wider methodology. The following section will
discuss any shortfalls of the actual methods used such as replicability of the fieldwork. The section
after this will be more project specific focusing on the study of regional economic resilience in the
case study regions identifying the best way to proceed.
Review of Innovation Biographies
Beyond Rammert’s original work, innovation biographies have been used to research both macrolevel innovations such as electricity generation from renewable energy sources in Germany as well
as micro-level innovations such as the Global Positioning System (GPS). While both innovations may
be radical in their respective fields, the extent of the research varies greatly when considering an
entire industry versus a set of specialised firms. For example, wind energy development may
indicate a shift in the socio-technical paradigm established at the national level thereby making the
2
actors in the network broad in scope and changing considerably over time. Alternatively, the GPS
innovation, while radical to the market, will have a narrower network that still includes a variety of
actors but is considerably less dense than the aforementioned example. Based on this extreme
difference, which was identified in the literature, the use of innovation biographies for the study of
both macro-level innovations as well as micro-level innovations will be discussed in this section.
Innovation Biographies & Macro-level Innovations
The main example of innovation biography use for macro-level innovation research is the case of
Germany’s renewable energy market. This research was completed as part of a larger project on
the potential for renewable energy integration in Germany’s electricity market by Bruns et al (2011)
and followed up by Bruns & Olhorst’s (2011) specifically relating to the capacity for wind power as a
source of that electricity in Germany. As a whole, the research analysed the individual forms of
renewable energy using a combination of methodologies, including the innovation biographies,
which will be discussed here.
For the wider project, which also informed the journal article, the innovation biographies (Rammert,
2000) were used alongside a constellation analysis (Schon et al 2007). Each of the renewable energy
types, ranging from solar to wind, were analysed in this manner. Within each form of energy lies a
significant history which, given the macro-level of the innovation, was outlined in the constellation
analysis. After the secondary source analysis, the constellation analysis was the first phase of the
methodology which assembled the complex actors –firms, institutions and people, technical
elements, policy, and natural elements into a timeline for chronological referencing (Schon et al,
2007). By dividing the innovation timeline into phases, specific points in time were created when
the innovation actors and process were examined. This allowed a thorough review of the innovation
over time but also only allowed a ‘snapshot’ of potentially constantly shifting actors. To further
embed the timeline, the constellation analysis provided ‘context’ for the phase of the innovation is
was explaining. Context was defined as ‘cross-sectoral framework conditions and processes that
affect all aspects of society and influence both individuals in the constellation as well as the
constellation as a whole’ which would definitely include system shocks such as a recession or
competition (Bruns et al, 2011, pg. 11).
The next stage of the methodology was the construction of the innovation biographies using the
actors identified in the constellation analysis as the sample. The researchers in the project
understood innovations to emerge through networks, absent of a central controller or inventor. The
aim in using this type of methodology was to identify the role of the actors and their networking
capacity while paying particular attention to any setbacks to learn from any problems that arose.
The researchers do not provide any further detail as to how the information that informs their
innovation biographies was received or analysed. From a brief review of the book (Bruns et al, 2011)
that was created as a result of the research, the innovation biographies, while attached to a timeline
developed through the constellation analysis, do not contain any primary source data. Although
constellation analysis and innovation biographies are separate methodologies, their nature is
intrinsically complimentary in that, particularly for a macro-level innovation analysis, information is
needed to understand the interactions between the actors as well as the interaction between the
innovation and the political/economic sphere it is operating in; however, further understanding of
3
the innovation biography as an actual qualitative methodology, instead of a structure for the
compilation of secondary source material, is needed.
Innovation Biographies & Micro-level Innovations
Similar to the last section on macro-level innovations, this section will be devoted to reviewing the
use of innovation biographies as a methodology for micro-level innovation. The main research that
informs this section is from the EURODITE project including the accompanying publications that
arose from the study. The drive to use this methodology in the project, and the accompanying
publications, is largely attributed to Cooke et al (2011) who has also published other research on
biotechnology using a similar methodological framework (Cooke & Kaiser, 2011). While there is no
complimentary constellation analysis to use with this methodology, it does assess the innovation
over the entire process from creation onwards and provides network analysis of the actors involved.
Actual fieldwork phases for the methodology, which have yet to be assigned even at the macrolevel, will be discussed here alongside the output from the project as an example of the data at
work.
According to Larsson & Widmaier (2007) in their review of the project methodology, the ‘innovation
biography’ methodology used here included three tools for carrying out this qualitative research
which are each distinct phases of the methodology. It should be noted that before the fieldwork
(based on the methodology) started, the innovations that would be the centre of the biographies
were selected by the project partners largely based on their cross-sector nature as demonstrated in
figure 1.
Figure 1: Cross-sector ‘platform’ candidate innovation biographies in firms and regional
Revitalise FoodRiver Tourism
(e.g. Douro)
Bioengineering
Functional
Foods
Vehicle Processing
Systems
Biofuels
Food Biocluster
Knowledge
Intermediaries
Bio-imaging
Food
Biotechnology
ICT
New Media
KIBS
Automotive
Tourism
Wine
Tourism
Culinary
Tourism
DANFORS
Guidance Systems
Oenotechnology
Branding
4
Within these cross-sector candidates, more specific innovations were chosen for the innovation
biographies research. After selecting the innovations to focus on, the methodology started with the
narrative interviews which were completed with key actors in the field. Second, there was an
egocentric network analysis to identify the linkages between the actors. Third, there was a semistructured interview with those participants that were a part of the first phase of the fieldwork.
From this account, it would seem that the participants would be contacted on two occasions;
however, Larsson & Widmaier go on to discuss their interpretation of the fieldwork, despite the
three phases identified. This interpretation includes at least two visits with the participants if not
more during the course of the study. The first visit is to determine if the firm can be included in the
case study by gathering information on the knowledge process of the innovation including the firm
history. The second visit would be the narrative interview with a key actor in the firm that would be
able to discuss both the firm’s involvement in any wider networks as well as the technical side of the
innovation development. The other potential visits would be for the follow- up, semi-structured
interview. The data from the interviews, particularly the networks that are utilised to create and
develop the innovation, would be used for the network analysis.
The project partners for EURODITE were also interested in the ‘global’ nature of the output from the
project as regional case studies can be difficult to compare. In this sense, the methodology was
agreed upon by the entire partnership and analysis was completed using N6 software for coding.
Equally, to support the global comparison as well as the geographic aims of the project, the partners
plotted the actors using GIS software. The use of GIS was separate from the network analysis
completed. There are extracts of the EURODITE innovation biographies in the Annex to review for
comparative purposes.
Methodological Limitations
General Issues
Beyond the traditional qualitative issues such as generalisability of case studies and simple sampling
techniques which can apply here, lies the major methodological issue when using innovation
biographies: replicability or the ability for another researcher to replicate the study. The area where
this is most problematic is in choosing the innovations which would be the basis for the biography.
Choosing the innovations for the biographies can be a highly subjective undertaking which will need
further clarification as part of the study. To make the methodology as transparent and easy to
replicate as possible, the first phase of the innovation biography should be the general secondary
source analysis that points to which innovation will be used. While this is only one part of a much
larger process, it is essential to understand how the choice was made, particularly if other radical
innovations also present themselves in the industry that is being focussed on in the study.
Specific Issues
A specific concern with the innovation biography explanation provided by the EURODITE project is
the amount of interviews or contact with the participants that was mentioned. This included the
initial meeting, the narrative interview and any follow-up, semi-structured interviews. In a separate
project, where interviews were conducted with firms in 2008 and trying to contact them again in
2011, due to the recession, it is often difficult to get the same level of access as now (2011+), more
than ever, ‘time is money’. In addition, as demonstrated in Figure 1, there were significant
5
variations between the industries that were analysed using the innovation biography methodology
as well as the innovation output. In starting the methodology with the initial meetings with the
firms, substantial secondary source analysis to identify the key actors, and substantial review of the
partners in agreeing on the innovation and the methodology was needed. By considering the
‘global’ nature of the project, more work was done at the beginning of the methodology which
allows for less hassle and less work at the end of the project to tie the individual cases together.
Equally, there are issues with the German work as, beyond providing a context for the text with the
constellation analysis, there are no specific guidelines for conducting the research.
TRes Project Methodology
Both the macro-level and micro-level innovation biography methodology examples can contribute to
the TRes methodology; however, it should be highlighted that the innovations that will be assessed
in the partner regions will be at the micro-level. In combining these innovation biography
approaches, the aim is two-fold: (1) overcome the methodological limitations identified above and
(2) provide one methodology that can be used in two, very different, case study regions. Due to the
potentially radical, yet non macro-level innovations that are expected to arise from the two case
study regions, the following methodology will be broken down into the following five phases:
1.) Broad secondary source analysis for case study regions focusing on industries identified for
analysis in the study with the aim of identifying key innovations in the field.
a. At least two innovations should be chosen for analysis from each case study location
at this point in the event one has a short history or to overcome potential
accessibility issues with participants in the future.
2.) Once the innovations that will be used for the biographies are identified, do a more in-depth
secondary source analysis, similar to the constellation analysis, of the key actors involved in
the innovation process as well as the context of the innovation development.
a. Although described as a constellation analysis, the context part can be considered
the historic background of the innovation. It does not focus on the innovation itself;
rather, it frames the development of the innovation by focusing on the policies,
system changes, and framework that are the backdrop to the actual innovation.
3.) Through the identification of the key actors and the context, preliminary contact should be
made via phone with the key firms to assess whether they would be interested in being a
part of the study and, if so, who the main contact person will be.
a. In working backwards from the current innovation, the ‘key actors’ could also be
contacted backwards, making the first contact the most recently involved firm.
b. The contact person should be the highest ranking person within the organisation
that has dealt with the innovation.
c. If the firm is not interested in partaking in the study, this should not mean that this
innovation is disregarded; rather, contact with other key actors in the innovation
process should be made. The firm that is not interested in partaking could become
interested if colleagues are participating or, a general overview of the nonparticipating firm’s involvement can be formed from interviewing the other actors.
4.) Interview schedules should be created.
6
a. As the ‘key actors’ in the innovation biography may vary, the interview schedules
will also vary. The same core questions will be used but the framing may be
different.
5.) Using the contacts acquired through the cold calls, a narrative interview should be set up at
the firm’s location.
a. By meeting at the firm, the participant will explain the firms’ inter-linkages while the
interviewer can assess and intra-office linkages at the site.
b. Narrative interviews offer substantially less control to the researchers. Nonetheless,
certain themes should be discussed that will be identified in the interview schedule
ie. impact of system shocks?.
c. Ensure that the interviewee provides several referrals for other interviews.
d. Get an idea of the network of actors that created/developed the innovation to form
a network analysis.
6.) Based on the referrals from step 5c, make contact to initiate narrative interviews with other
actors involved in the innovation process.
a. Due to the potential close-knit network of those involved creating the innovation,
the sample for the interviews will be acquired through snowball sampling.
7.) Complete between 12-20 interviews for each innovation and have interviews transcribed.
a. Transcribing them will allow for easier analysis using NVIVO or another qualitative
software. This can be important if, in the EURODITE sense, TRes would like the
results to be ‘global’.
8.) Using the interview data and the secondary source analysis, write out the innovation
biography, starting with the most recent event and working backwards.
a. Use the NVIVO coding to pull out interview text to import into the document.
9.) Using the interview data and the secondary source analysis, complete a social network
analysis, if possible.
10.) If there are any discrepancies between the literature and the interview data, or to verify the
social network analysis, contact the participants for a follow-up, semi-structured interview.
a. This interview would be done on an as needed basis.
b. It would be completed using Skype or other remote conferencing software.
c. The information would not need to be transcribed.
d. The interview schedule from the narrative interviews can be used but questions will
mainly focus on verifying the documents conceived in points 8 & 9.
7
Annex
See examples which cover industries ranging from renewable energy in Wales to GPS in France
(Cooke et al, 2011).
References
Bruns, E., Ohlhorst, D., Wenzel, B. & Koppel, J. (2011), Renewable Energies in Germany’s Electricity
Market: A biography of the innovation process, Springer: London.
Bruns, E. & Ohlhorst, D. (2011), ‘Wind Power Generation in Germany: A transdisciplinary view on the
innovation biography’, The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies, vol. 10(1), pps.45-67.
Cooke, P., De Laurentis, C. Macneil, S. & Collinge, C. (2011), Platforms of Innovation: Dynamics of
new industrial knowledge flows, Edward Elgar: London.
Cooke, P. & Kaiser, R. (2011), Innovation Biographies: Biotechnology
Larsson, A. & Widmaier, B. (2007), ‘Constructing Knowledge Biographies’, EURODITE – WP5/WP6
Report.
Rammert, W. (2000), ‘National Systems of Innovation, Idea Innovation Networks and Comparative
Innovation Biographies’, Technical University Berlin Technology Studies Working Paper.
Schon, S., Kuse, S., Nolting, B., Meister, M. & Ohlhorst, D. (2007), Constellation Analysis (German),
Munich.