An understanding of the systemic nature of innovation and entrepreneurship demands a multi-dimensional methodological approach. The diversity of actors, organizations, and institutions involved in generating and disseminating new knowledge in a line of research has led to a series of theoretical and empirical challenges. To respond to these challenges, academics from two Chilean universities—Universidad de Concepción and Universidad del Desarrollo—have established the Center of Innovation System Studies (CIS2) with the purpose of develop multidisciplinary research that contributes to the identification of factors of success and failure in innovation and entrepreneurship.
The objective of CIS2 is to contribute to the understanding and the improvement of the dynamics of success and failure in innovation systems through the generation and the dissemination of scientifically based knowledge that will facilitate the design and the implementation of public policy in the area.
Decision making on successful public policies related to innovation and entrepreneurship relies on relevant and scientifically validated knowledge acquired from a real national context. A particularly important step in this process is to identify factors of success and failure present in innovation systems, mainly in developing countries. Despite academic efforts toward this goal, a knowledge gap in the field still persists at the national level, which is present in three areas:
While theory developed at international level has been empirically validated in light of the reality of developed countries, real-world dynamics in developing countries has not been thoroughly explored. Therefore, the application of that theory faces several limitations in the scenario of lower wealth economies, impairing decision making performed by policymakers.
Currently, Chile, has no critical mass of either the capacity or the number of innovation activities that promote the empirical analysis, construction, and application of the theory that adds value to decision-making in this area. Disciplines such as economics, sociology, and political science, which are normally required in the decision-making process for public policy, do not consider innovation and entrepreneurship or science and technology as priority matters.
Despite the acknowledged progress in relation to the different and even periodic survey applications at the national level, several gaps need to be addressed regard to the availability and access to information related to the subject. Thus, we advise the construction of new databases that more accurately reflect the reality of the national ecosystem of innovation and entrepreneurship.