Thanks for sharing  your research question. I do recommend the following resource that threars such issue: Cycles of Invention and Discovery by Venkatesh Narayanamurti and Toluwalogo Odumosu.

Narayanamurti and co-author Tolu Odumosu, a former postdoctoral fellow in the Belfer Center’s Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program who is now an assistant professor at the University of Virginia’s engineering school, present their argument in a recent book, “Cycles of Invention and Discovery.” In it, they say that the traditional model segregating basic or “pure” research from applied research is flawed because it assumes a linear relationship between the two that doesn’t always exist.

Under the traditional model, scientific discovery arising from basic research comes first, then the engineers and applied scientists go to work, eventually devising inventions that apply that new knowledge in useful ways.

The problem, Narayanamurti said, is that discovery goes both ways. Inventions draw on scientific knowledge and scientists gain insight from new devices and applications.

“It’s highly nonlinear, because they must feed on each other,” he said.

Narayanamurti said history is on his side. Some of the world’s most important inventions were made not by basic scientists and applied scientists working sequentially in isolation, but by scientists who teamed up, sharing ideas and insights and even sometimes switching roles.

This results-oriented, collaborative approach is needed today in many fields, but especially in energy and life science research, where the need for innovation is high and the basic/applied division remains strong, influencing not only funding but how work is organized, Narayanamurti said...

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674967960

https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2017/01/false-choice-of-basic-vs-applied-research

Dear Mohamed,

Two elements might help you at least 'frame' these relationships. The first is the chained model of innovation (Kline and Rosenberg, 1986) where they dispute the linear model of innovation (from invention to production) and present an alternative where research is present in all phases with feedback mechanisms. The second element that might be useful it the 'triple or quadruple helix' where the government the private sector and universities (and users) interact and form (regional, national etc) innovation systems.

Hope this helps

Best

Areti

Dear Areti,

The second model you mention relates to the seminal work of Chesborough (2006) where he proposes a model for open innovation. While the proposed models (1st and 2nd) attend to some of the questioning, I wonder whether they have actually been empirically tested using either cases in fundamental research or applied research. I guess it would be very difficult to speculate about any outcome in the absence of evidence.

I would be very keen to know your thoughts, and thanks again.

I am also trying to model this.

Mohamed,

These papers may help

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260638458_Strategies_for_enhancing_Jamaican_competitiveness_in_the_global_knowledge_economy

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301341427_Reforming_Jamaica%27s_National_Systems_of_Innovation

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305684096_The_development_of_a_creative_class_A_national_imperative

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305687139_Priority_policy_recommendations_for_transforming_individual_productivity_and_SME_competitiveness_in_Jamaica

Conference Paper Strategies for enhancing Jamaican competitiveness in the glo...

Technical Report Reforming Jamaica's National Systems of Innovation

Presentation The development of a creative class: A national imperative

Technical Report Priority policy recommendations for transforming individual ...

Hi there,

Thanks for the great references.

Regards

Research studies are based on basic and applied sciences, each complementing the other. The results and conclusions are the end of the research application, that is, you have reached a new result, in the sense that you have achieved innovation. So you have made a connection between everyone

Thanks for sharing  your research question. I do recommend the following resource that threars such issue: Cycles of Invention and Discovery by Venkatesh Narayanamurti and Toluwalogo Odumosu.

Narayanamurti and co-author Tolu Odumosu, a former postdoctoral fellow in the Belfer Center’s Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program who is now an assistant professor at the University of Virginia’s engineering school, present their argument in a recent book, “Cycles of Invention and Discovery.” In it, they say that the traditional model segregating basic or “pure” research from applied research is flawed because it assumes a linear relationship between the two that doesn’t always exist.

Under the traditional model, scientific discovery arising from basic research comes first, then the engineers and applied scientists go to work, eventually devising inventions that apply that new knowledge in useful ways.

The problem, Narayanamurti said, is that discovery goes both ways. Inventions draw on scientific knowledge and scientists gain insight from new devices and applications.

“It’s highly nonlinear, because they must feed on each other,” he said.

Narayanamurti said history is on his side. Some of the world’s most important inventions were made not by basic scientists and applied scientists working sequentially in isolation, but by scientists who teamed up, sharing ideas and insights and even sometimes switching roles.

This results-oriented, collaborative approach is needed today in many fields, but especially in energy and life science research, where the need for innovation is high and the basic/applied division remains strong, influencing not only funding but how work is organized, Narayanamurti said...

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674967960

https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2017/01/false-choice-of-basic-vs-applied-research

There is no direct connection, at least between innovation and fundamental science. This is confirmed by the history of many great fundamental discoveries. Take, for example, the fate of Galileo or Faraday. We can name more recent examples. "A genius must be hungry." This is the mean nature of mankind, which then uses his discoveries.

I agree with all RG colleagues.

I think there's a linear relationship between the three. Fundamental research leads to applied research, which in turn leads to innovation. If you remove either of the first two links of the chain, innovation will not transpire.

Dear @Kirk, there is no linearity between fundamental, applied research and inovation. That was the old school's opinion. See my answer at the previous page.

Interesting discussions. Indeed, all the three works in a collaborative fashion sometimes top-down or down-top or intermixed in the development processes. You may think innovation is the last step not knowing it is the basic research that leads to other applied research leading to another innovation!

Dickson Adom

Basic research, also called pure research or fundamental research, is scientificr esearch aimed to improve scientific theories for improved understanding or prediction of natural or other phenomena. ... Though often driven by curiosity, basic research fuels applied science's innovations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_research

It must be "a tangle of everything" and this tangle behaves somewhat chaotically :-)

• Fundamental research lays the foundation. But it may not result in anything realizable for decades (and beyond). Examples are many.
• Application research is targeting the application of fundamental principles, be it the first application at all, the first application in a new field or the optimization of something already applied.
• Innovation is on the one hand well-defined: something novel is created. But it doesn't say anything about what's making this "something" novel.

These days (things are really changing due to the way we communicate now as well as due to the world-wide competition for research funding), the results of fundamental research are often published prior their applicability. Thus an economy may or may not invest into fundamental research.

Results from application research are not always published widely - depending mainly on whether it was funded from public funding or from some company or institution. The latter may put on some restrictions regarding the publishing of results.

What make economies (as well as individual companies) considered innovative is mostly the invest into applications research. If this is combined with a sound industrial sector, the economy related tends to be considered innovative as it will be a constant source of novel and/or improved devices and services.

Innovation is required for both Fundamental and applied research. In fundamental research as rightly observed by Dreher, results may NOT be visible for long time. Some times there may not be ANY tangible outcome. The applied research is NEED driven. The results are immediately visible. Applied research may be a societal need .. Fundamental research could be highly ABSTRACT !

Prof. Deshmukh has very rightly pointed out that in modern times we can clearly understand the innovation through two different scenarios i.e. fundamental and application based research. In today's time when consumer wants to have the feeling of each advancement happening across the globe so it's very right to say that yes there is a vivid relationship among innovations, fundamental research, and applied research. It is very right that fundamental research drives the innovations to satisfy the advanced needs of the people which is called applied research. For example: Imbibing the face reading technology for unlocking the mobile phone and making driver less cars are one of the best applications of innovations which are outcomes of fundamental research.

Academia-industry Innovation Interaction: Paradigm Shifts and Avenues for the Future

Innovation is the application of an idea/invention, technology or process to a product/service that will satisfy a specific need and can be replicated at economical cost. Innovation creates value, playing a vital role in growth and social well-being. Mounting economic pressure, environmental challenges, diminishing resources, the exponentially accelerating pace of science and knowledge development, open innovation proliferation call for a deep assessment of academia-industry relationships. Fundamental research as the sole thrust of academia is no longer a sustainable approach. Instead, innovation must focus on the integration of fundamental and applied research, technology development, new business models and processes, and enhanced social responsibility. Innovation novel blueprint mandates paradigm shifts in mindsets, strategy, research focus, academia-industry relationships, IP policies and government involvement. Key elements include: academia's participation in industrial development teams and technology networks, enhanced support for fundamental and applied research, advanced thesis research conducted in the industry, creation of joint-value programs and resource-sharing, new business models, and enhanced societal responsibility. Academia should also promote the participation of industry representatives in their teaching staff and advisory boards...

https://ac.els-cdn.com/S2211601X11002768/1-s2.0-S2211601X11002768-main.pdf?_tid=daf85842-b10b-11e7-b0dc-00000aab0f27&acdnat=1508005194_8158702b4394f6062b37a535b1e2df21