Paper to be presented at the

35th DRUID Celebration Conference 2013, Barcelona, Spain, June 17-19

RICHARD SENNETT: ADOPTING A MORE HUMAN APPROACH TO

SYSTEMS OF INNOVATIONAnna GlaserESCP EuropeManagement

anna.glaser@gmail.com

AbstractThe plenary debate of the 2013 DRUID conference raises the polemic question if the systems of innovation (SI)approach is still a promising line of research. We argue that the SI approach is more than ever a promising line ofresearch but has lost track of its most basic elements: the human beings constituting the systems, be it the researcher,policy maker or network manager. By focusing again on the human being in SIs, and by understanding the humanbeings? complex nature (regarding for example motivation, political agenda, power, etc.) in relation to the existing SIsliterature, we think that the SI approach could break out of its current impasse and be brought to another level of utilityfor policy makers. We will do this by adopting an interdisciplinary approach and turn to a discipline that primarily focuseson human beings and their behaviours: Sociology. We will analyse the SI approach through the lenses of one particularcontemporary sociologist, Richard Sennett, as he explicitly focuses on urban questions. The analysis of RichardSennett?s work and the application of its theories to SIs, something that has not been done yet, will constitute thecentral line of argument presented in this article. In order to build a holistic ?Sennettdian? view of SIs, we not only usedour own lecture of his books but also conducted an in-depth analysis of the uses of his theories in academic articles. Weconclude by proposing new areas of research.

Jelcodes:O18,R58

! "!

RICHARD SENNETT:

ADOPTING A MORE HUMAN APPROACH TO SYSTEMS OF INNOVATION

ABSTRACT

The plenary debate of the 2013 DRUID conference raises the polemic question if the systems

of innovation (SI) approach is still a promising line of research. We argue that the SI

approach is more than ever a promising line of research but has lost track of its most basic

elements: the human beings constituting the systems, be it the researcher, policy maker or

network manager. By focusing again on the human being in SIs, and by understanding the

human beings’ complex nature (regarding for example motivation, political agenda, power,

etc.) in relation to the existing SIs literature, we think that the SI approach could break out of

its current impasse and be brought to another level of utility for policy makers. We will do

this by adopting an interdisciplinary approach and turn to a discipline that primarily focuses

on human beings and their behaviours: Sociology. We will analyse the SI approach through

the lenses of one particular contemporary sociologist, Richard Sennett, as he explicitly

focuses on urban questions. The analysis of Richard Sennett’s work and the application of its

theories to SIs, something that has not been done yet, will constitute the central line of

argument presented in this article. In order to build a holistic “Sennettdian” view of SIs, we

not only used our own lecture of his books but also conducted an in-depth analysis of the uses

of his theories in academic articles. We conclude by proposing new areas of research.

KEYWORDS

Systems of innovation, Policy driven clusters, Richard Sennett, Sociology, Interdisciplinarity

! #!

INTRODUCTION

The plenary debate of the 2013 DRUID conference raises the polemic question1 if the systems

of innovation (SI) approach is still a promising line of research. We argue that the SI

approach is more than ever a promising line of research but has lost track of its most basic

elements: the human beings constituting the system, be it the researcher, policy maker or

network manager. As we will discuss in this paper, scholars focusing on SIs, particularly on

the building of SIs (Niosi, 2011) through public policy interventions, have strongly neglected

the “human nature” (its motivations, anxieties, power plays etc.) in their reflections. They

omitted this element, probably due to the systemic complexity of the approach and thus the

necessity to strongly simplify the concept, with the risk in making it more and more hollow

and out of touch with reality. However, we argue that by focusing again on the human being

in the SIs and by understanding the human beings’ complex natures in relation to the existing

SIs literature, the SI approach could break out of its current impasse and be brought to another

level of utility for policy makers.

The research on SIs is thus more than ever a promising line of research, not only from an

academic point of view but also from a societal utilitarian point of view. In the light of

societal welfare, it is nearly an academic obligation to continue analysing SIs. The concept is

not only used among academics but also among regional authorities, national governments

and international organizations (Edquist, 2005). Based on academic researches of the 1990s

(see for example Asheim, 1996; Asheim & Isaksen, 1997; Cooke, 1996, 1997; Lundvall,

1992; Porter, 1990; Porter, 1998), and the stressed positive advantages of innovation for the

competitiveness of highly developed countries (WEF, 2011), governments heavily used and

still use the various SI approaches to frame their innovation policies (Edquist, 2005).

Abandoning the research on SIs would be like abandoning en route all the authorities and

governments that believed in these concepts and consequently invested a considerable amount

of public money.2

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Source (10/02/2013): http://druid8.sit.aau.dk/registrant/index/login/cid/13 2 For example, the French government invested 3 billion Euros in its competitiveness cluster policy

between 2005 and 2011 and the Walloon government plans to invest 618 million Euros in its cluster

policy between 2006 and 2014.

! $!

However,

- the enormous quantity of concepts hiding behind the approach: for example global,

national, regional, sectoral or ‘combined’3 innovation systems (Asheim, Smith, &

Oughton, 2011; Edquist, 2001; Niosi, 2011),

- the multitude of components constituting the system: organisations (i.e. the players or

actors as for example companies, universities, venture capital organisations and public

innovation policy agencies institutions) and institutions (i.e. the rules of the game as

for example the legal system, norms, routines standards) (Edquist, 2001, 2005),

- the endless range of activities that influence the development, the diffusion and use of

innovation: for example R&D, competence building, formation of new product

markets, incubating, financing (see Edquist, 2005, p. 191 for a complete list),

- the boundless quantity of observable relations among components and between

components and activities: for example between organisations (competition,

transaction, networking) or between organisations and institutions (the influence of

institutions on organisations, the organisational embeddedness in the institutional

environment) (Edquist, 2005),

make the SI approach look like a conceptual “monster” where one does not know which

element to prioritise. Instead of getting absorbed into this academic whirl of concepts and

relations, and thus developing ivory-tower theories that risk not helping policy makers at all,

we emphasise a return to the humans in the system and underline the importance of adding

their views to the existing concepts.

We will do this by adopting an interdisciplinary approach. Using concepts and theories form

other disciplines is considered as crucial to facilitate the production of new knowledge

(Greckhamer, Koro-Ljungberg, Cilesiz, & Hayes, 2008; Schmidt, 2007). Therefore, in this

article, we will turn to a discipline that primarily focuses on human beings and their

behaviour: Sociology. We will try to adopt a sociological view on SIs to help SI research

overcoming its impasse.

We will analyse the SI approach through the lenses of one particular contemporary

sociologist, Richard Sennett. The analysis of Richard Sennett’s work and the application of its

theories to SIs will constitute the central line of argument presented in this article. According

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!3 For Edquist (2001), a combined system corresponds for example to a sectoral and regional

innovation system, which according to him relates for example to the cluster concept of Porter (1998).

! %!

to Asheim et al (2011) the labour market is one of three important elements that constitutes a

regional innovation system. Several influential sociologists - as for example Ulrich Beck,

Anthony Giddens, André Gorz or Richard Sennett - wrote on contemporary labour markets,

but Richard Sennett is the “most explicitly urban in focus” (McDowell, 2003) and therefore

very useful for our research context. Even though some scholars critic Sennett for his

pessimistic world view (Fevre, 2007) or for his tendency to assertions instead of detailed

empirical evidence (Doogan, 2005), he is though considered as one of the leading critical

thinkers of our times drawing from “detailed interviews with workers…and qualitative

workplace studies…over almost 40 years” (Tweedie, 2013, p. 98).

In order to build a holistic “Sennettdian” view of SIs, we not only used our own lecture of the

books but also conducted an in-depth analysis of the uses of his theories in academic articles.

We analysed the articles citing Sennett with an open coding process (Corbin & Strauss, 1990)

until theoretical saturation (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003) was reached. We first attributed a

large range of conceptual labels to the “Sennett passages” found in the articles and then

grouped conceptually similar passages together in categories and subcategories. Finally, we

completed these categories by the lecture of a selection of Sennett’s books4. This step was

important in order to add concepts that are useful for the analysis of SIs but have not yet been

used in the articles under review that do not particularly focus on SIs concepts.

However, due to journal accessibility and search restrictions as well as the high amount of

articles citing Sennett’s work in general, we did not use all articles citing Sennett’s work but

limited our coding to articles (a total of app. 260) published in following journals: Urban

studies, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Work Employment and

Society, Sociology, Human Relations, and Organization. We chose these journals according

to three principles (see table 1): (1) covering the three main “Sennettdian” topics, (i.e. Urban

planning and public space; Identity, Globalization and Work; Humans, Respect and Social

Class); (2) representing app. 10% of the total articles (app. 2.800) citing Sennett’s books; (3)

potentially interesting for SI research. Finally we confronted the emerged “Sennettdian”

categories with well-established theories in SI research and with empirical examples of the

author’s field research experiences.5

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!4 We studied the books that are cited more than 100 times (see table 1) and Together (2012). 5 The author is currently conducting a PhD in management. The author’s PhD analyses and confronts

(using a qualitative case study approach) cluster members’, cluster organisations’ and government’s

! &!

The paper is structured as follows: We will first clarify certain theoretical considerations

regarding systems of innovation. Then, develop a “Sennettdian” view of SIs and confront this

view with existing SI literature and empirical examples. Finally, we will summarize the

theoretical gaps we have identified, particularly regarding the human elements within SI

research, and conclude by proposing new research areas for SIs by advocating a more

“Sennettdian” view.

THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Edquist (2005, p. 182) defines a system of innovation6 as “all important economic, social,

political, organizational, institutional, and other factors that influence the development,

diffusion, and use of innovations”. We consider the term “systems of innovation” to be a

generic term comprising national, regional, sectoral (Edquist, 2005), global (Asheim, et al.,

2011) and all forms of combined (Edquist, 2001) approaches, like for example clusters or

industrial districts. The highly generic nature of the term is it’s force but at the same time it’s

weakness. The term’s force (though not enough exploited on an institutional level) because it

allows combining all these different streams of research under one umbrella name (as partly

also argumented by Edquist, 2001, 2005), the term’s weakness because of it’s perceived

conceptual fuzziness (Doloreux & Parto, 2005; Markusen, 2003) and it’s affluent academic

discussions that try to conceptually delimit the different underlying terms (Asheim, et al.,

2011; Cooke, 2001; Malerba, 2002; Niosi, 2011). Even though these discussions are

important, particularly regarding a better understanding of the interplays of innovation

between various geographical levels, it also shows the fosse that is currently widening

between academics and policy makers.

For example, Asheim et al. (2011) stress that a difference exists between the cluster literature,

based on Porter’s work (1990), and territorial innovation models literature (as for example

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!perceptions regarding collaboration and innovation. Additionally, since 2009, the author participates

in the steering committee of a French competitiveness cluster observatory that organises monthly

seminars with practitioners. For published work, see for example Gallié, Glaser, Lefebvre, & Pallez

(2012) or Gallié, Glaser, Mérindol, & Weil (2012). 6 For an introduction to the “systems of innovation” approach see Edquist (2005), who summarizes

and critically reflects on the concept, or Niosi (2011), who recently introduced a special section on

“building innovation systems” in the Journal Industrial and Corporate Change.

! '!

industrial districts, innovative milieux, regional innovation systems). However, we believe

that this terminological distinction is solely of academically use and does not reflect the

practical or managerial reality. We agree with Asheim et al. (2011, p. 879) that the cluster

concept traditionally uses a more “comparative static approach” of analysis focussing mainly

on the competitiveness of the nation while the territorial innovation concept uses a more

“evolutionary framework” to analyse the interrelations between the different components

(organizations and institutions) of the system. However, practitioners and policy makers have

the tendency to primarily use the word cluster, as they are interested in both elements:

increasing competitiveness and setting up or supporting all the necessary components to

construct an efficient innovation environment.7

Instead of differentiating the various concepts hiding between the term SI regarding their

approach of analysis (Asheim, et al., 2011), their relation to innovation (Edquist, 2001), or

their geographical dimension (Chung, 2002), we think that a radical simplification is

necessary, by simply adopting a practitioners view. In this view, SIs (and all the underlying

variations) concentrate on finding the most efficient determinants to develop, to diffuse and to

use innovation in order to reach competitiveness and thus societal prosperity, be it on a local,

regional, national or global level. In the centre of this quest for innovation are human beings,

who need to be understood in order to optimize the policies and programmes around them.

These human beings though operate on various organisational levels (i.e. for example

government officials, cluster managers, researches, entrepreneurs or doctors) and have

different personal and professional agendas that might not always be concordant. Brunsson

(1989), who though only concentrates on an organisational context and not a SI context,

summarizes these differences between actors under the term “Organization of Hypocrisy”.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(! Practical examples of the advanced propositions are for example following OECD publications:

“Innovative clusters: drivers of national innovation systems” (Hertog & Remoe, 2001) or

“Competitive regional clusters: national policy approaches” (Maguire & Davies, 2007). But also the

European Commission hides its quest for innovation behind the term cluster, particularly through the

European Cluster Observatory (ECO) project (launched in 2007), and the European Cluster Excellence

Initiative (ECEI) project (launched in 2009). Each of these programmes focuses on one particular area

of measuring innovation policies. One of the ECO project’s objectives is to provide data on the

framework conditions that shape regional competitiveness while one of the ECEI project’s objectives

is to develop a modular set of indicators to measure the cluster management quality. The focus of the

ECO project thus lies on classical economic indicators (e.g. employment rates, FDI, exports, and

growth in numbers of firms), thus competitiveness, while the focus of the ECEI lies on management

indicators (e.g. cluster strategy, objectives, governance, service), thus the development and diffusion

of innovation.

! (!

Brunsson (1989) means by this statement, that talk, decisions and actions don’t always form a

coherent ensemble. On an organisational level the consequences could maybe be ignored as

long as the organisation continues to function. However, on a SI level these differences

between actors might have a higher impact, as tax money might get lost and the quest for

competitiveness vs. other nations not won.

We thus argue that the human beings within SIs are not enough taken into consideration in the

current literature. Researches focusing on SIs either do not focus on the individual micro-level

and thus solely stay on a more organisational macro-level, or consider that the quest for

innovation of the policy implementing hierarchy is in accordance with the motivations of the

individual actors. This consideration though ignores that individual actors might have

different underlying agendas.

In the discussion hereinafter we will particularly focus on policy driven clusters, as we think

that this is the SI approach where the different human beings are best distinguishable and

observable. By policy driven clusters we mean clusters that are “triggered by the strong

commitment of governmental actors whose willingness was to set the conditions for the

cluster creation” (Chiaroni & Chiesa, 2006, p. 1064) and which are different compared to

spontaneous clusters (for example: Silicon Valley and Route 128 (Saxenian, 1994)), which

“are the result of the spontaneous co-presence of key factors” (Chiaroni & Chiesa, 2006, p.

1064).

A “SENNETTDIAN” VIEW ON SYSTEMS OF INNOVATION

An introduction to Sennett’s work

Despite Richard Sennett’s prominence among sociologists, his concepts and theories are

barely mobilised among scholars analyzing SIs. In this article we argue that Richard Sennett’s

theories might yet be very useful to better understand certain malfunctions of SIs, and

particularly malfunctions related to policy driven clusters.

Richard Sennett is an American sociology scholar who “has explored how individuals and

groups make social and cultural sense of material facts - about the cities in which they live

! )!

and about the labour they do.”8 Using an ethnographical, historical and social theory

approach, he has written fourteen books in the field of sociology since the beginning of the

1970s. In order to gain an overview of the outreach of Sennett’s books in academic articles in

general and in cluster studies in particular, we started our research by conducting a literature

review on the use of Sennett’s books in academic articles.

The literature review, summarized in Table 1, revealed that Sennett has been cited app. 2.800

times. His two most cited books are The Corrosion of Character (1998) and The Fall of

Public Man (1992 (1977)). In the book The Corrosion of Character, Sennett questions the

terms of the new economy for individuals, regarding flexibility, loyalty, risk taking, etc. while

in the book The Fall of Public Man, Sennett develops a thesis about public and private realm,

regarding expression, exchange, politics, family, etc.

When looking at the journals, where the articles citing Sennett’s books are mainly published,

and at the keywords, which the articles citing Sennett’s books are mainly using, we can

establish three main categories where his concepts and thesis are used:

1. Urban planning and public space:

o Main Journals: Urban Studies, International Journal of Urban and Regional

Research, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space

o Books: The Fall of Public Man (1992 (1977)), Flesh and Stone (1994), The

Uses of Disorder (1992 (1970)), The Conscience of the Eye (1992 (1990))

2. Identity, Globalization and Work

o Main Journals: Environment and Planning A, Work Employment and Society,

Organization, Human Relations

o Books: The Corrosion of Character (1998), The Culture of the New Capitalism

(2006), The Craftsman (2008), Practicing Culture (2007)

3. Humans, Respect and Social Class

o Main Journal: Sociology

o Books: The Hidden Injuries of Class (1993 (1972)), Respect in a World of

Inequality (2003)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!8 Source: http://www.richardsennett.com/site/SENN/Templates/General.aspx?pageid=8 (25/02/2013)

! *!

-------------------------------------

Insert table 1 here

-------------------------------------

The first interesting observation is that Urban Studies and Environment and Planning A are

popular journals among scholars publishing cluster studies (respectively 3rd and 7th place,

see Cruz & Teixeira, 2009, p. 15 for a complete list of the most popular journals publishing

cluster studies) as well as among scholars citing Sennett. However when we add to our

literature search criteria “containing the word ‘cluster’ in ‘title, abstract or keyword’” only

four articles (Johannessen & Olsen, 2010; Karlsen, 2011; Scott, 2007; Silver, Clark, & Yanez,

2010) remain that treat the concept of industrial clusters and at the same time cite, though

only marginally, Sennett’s theories9.

The second interesting observation is that even though scholars analysing clusters don’t really

mobilise Sennett, scholars analysing similar concepts as clusters, as for example cities and

urban spaces, do. Scholars analysing cities, which according to the literature also heavily

relate to innovation (Feldman & Audretsch, 1999), use Sennett’s theories and thus take the

human being more into consideration (see for example Groth & Corijn, 2005; MacLeod,

Raco, & Ward, 2003).

Asheim & Clark (2001) also once mobilised Sennett’s theories in a guest editorial, though not

focused on SIs. The editorial focused on the new economy, more precisely on the social costs

of the new economy on creative cities. They related to Sennett (1998) when discussing the

changes of the labour market in the new post-Fordist production regime, regarding the

increase of flexibility and the decrease of security. One could therefore ask, why these

discussions are not continued in the SIs literature?

The ‘theoretical environment’ of studies on clusters is historically firmly anchored in

regional-focused-studies (Cruz & Teixeira, 2009) mainly published in journals like Regional

Studies (1st place) or European Planning Studies (2

nd place). Most of these researches stay

within their disciplines, as most academic disciplines, and rarely adopt an interdisciplinary

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!9 We initially found 16 articles, however only 4 articles really treat industrial clusters (and not for

example cluster analysis).

! "+!

approach. However, overcoming disciplinary boundaries by using for example concepts and

theories from other fields is, as already mentioned, considered as crucial to facilitate the

production of new knowledge (Greckhamer, et al., 2008; Schmidt, 2007). We thus try to

develop a new view on policy driven clusters by adopting a “Sennettdian” view. This

framework might help illuminate certain problems, traditional cluster analyses have

difficulties to conceptualize and thus to overcome.

A discussion of the different “Sennettdian” concepts applicable to SIs

Hereinafter we will now summarize several main categories of Sennett’s theories that we

consider relevant for studying SIs and particularly relevant for policy driven clusters. For

every category we will first discuss the relevant SIs literature and then introduce Sennett’s

theory, and thus add, as already discussed, a more human notion to the discussion. We will

finish every category with open questions for further research. The categories are presented in

an aleatoric manner.

Myth of the purified community (Sennett, 1992 (1970))

The concept of community is defined in multiple ways but the common elements of all these

definitions are: “people living within a specific area, sharing common ties, and interacting

with one another” (Lyon, 1987, p. 5). The similarities with a common cluster definition is

striking: “Clusters are geographic concentrations of interconnected companies, specialized

suppliers, service providers, firms in related industries, and associated institutions (e.g.,

universities, standards agencies, trade associations) in a particular field that compete but

also cooperate” (Porter, 2000, p. 15). Instead of talking about “people”, the cluster definition

cites a long list of “organisations and institutions”, and instead of “interacting” with each

other, the definition employs the word “cooperate”. The intrinsic sense however is the same:

connected human beings.

For innovation, the informal character of community, versus market and hierarchy (Adler,

2001), plays a crucial role and “is increasingly recognized as the organizational principle

most effective in generating and sharing new knowledge” (p. 220). Governmental authorities,

drying to set up policy driven clusters, and conscious about the positive effects of

communities on innovation, invest thus in cluster organisations (or associations) (Rosenfeld,

2005; Sölvell, Lindqvist, & Ketels, 2003). The employees of these cluster organisations try to

! ""!

develop, through different types of activities (e.g. business events, social events, company

visits), a certain sense of community among local actors in order to foster innovation. The

crucial element of these organisations is the “enthusiastic” and “fanatical” cluster manager

or animateur, with its strong networking and innovation skills (Cooke, 1996, p. 170), that tries

to build up the community.

As governmental authorities invest tax money into cluster organisations, at least during the

initial set up phase, they also want to monitor and evaluate the cluster organisations’

performances (Gallié, Glaser, Lefebvre, et al., 2012). A part of these evaluations is

concentrated on the cluster managers and their capacity to create a community among local

actors. This is for example measured10

with (1) quantitative indicators like number of

organised events, number of participants at these events or number of “exchanged business

cards”, or with (2) qualitative indicators like the managers’ capacity of knowing well all the

different local actors and thus capable to introduce the “right” people to each other (Kalcher,

Piber, & Gruber, 2004; Nauwelaers & Pellegrin, 2004). During these evaluation phases,

cluster organisations and cluster managers are under high scrutiny and traverse a stressful

period of time, as bad evaluation results might put into question the continuation of the

governmental subsides, and thus jeopardize their jobs. The interviewed cluster managers try

therefore to proclaim that they have implemented a strong community within their region.

Sennett (1992 (1970), p. 36), summarizes very well this ambiguity towards manifesting

community where no real community might actually be. He argues that people often “talk

about their understanding of each other and of the common ties that bind them, but the

images are not true to their actual relations. But the lie they have formed as their common

image is a usable falsehood – a myth – for the group. Its use is that it makes a coherent image

of the community as a whole: people draw a picture of who they are that binds them all

together as one being, with a definite set of desires, dislikes, and goals. The image of the

community is purified of all that might convey a felling of difference, let alone conflict, in who

“we” are.” Sennett continues his argumentation that a real sense of belonging too each other

passes through the acceptance of difference and problems and not through an

overemphasizing of the “we”.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10 We will not discuss here the actual quality of these indicators, as the discussion would be too long.

This might constitute a very interesting article on its own.

! "#!

Based on these theories, several questions arise: Which kind of community do cluster

managers have to create in order to foster innovation? What are the different stages of

community creation in clusters and when does a cluster pass from an overemphasized

demonstration of “we” to a deeply connected community that allows vive, confronting and

stimulating discussions? Should, and if yes how should, the advancement of community be

measured?

Chameleons of the new economy (Sennett, 1998)

Morrsion (2008, p. 818) critics that “a large part of the literature seems to take it for granted

that industrial districts are able per se to translate and share external knowledge, which

raises concerns about the robustness and plausibility of the theoretical conclusions based on

this approach and the implications for policy”. Therefore Morrison (2008) and others focus

on the role of gatekeepers in industrial districts. Gatekeepers (Allen, 1977; Morrison, 2008, p.

819) are a small community of individuals (within organisations) that maintain informal

linkages to external actors (to other organisations) and that are therefore at the core of an

information network as well as overexposed to external sources of information profitable for

their organisation. The concept is similar to the marginal-secant concept developed by Crozier

& Friedberg (2007 (1977)) but without references to the power dimension.

These gatekeepers, are thus meant to be the carriers of the “tacit knowledge” that circulates in

the air within an industrial district (Marshall, 1920). This, in theory, directly joins Marshall’s

basic argument regarding the benefits of co-location: “if one man starts a new idea, it is taken

up by others and combined with suggestions of their own; and thus it becomes the source of

further new ideas“11

, this is the process of new innovation.

These gatekeepers, called for example chief innovation officer or innovation manager, are the

once that actively participate in the different cluster events. However, most of the time they

are not the once who actually work on the research and development projects and thus the

invention process. Most of the time, they participate in the different cluster events to find new

business partners or subsidies. In France, for example, the cluster organisations are also

responsible for scrutinizing R&D project proposals. In case the project is considered of low

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 Book IV, Chapter X, § 3

! "$!

quality by the cluster organisation, the project does not receive a cluster label. This can have

fierce consequences for the survival of the project, as it is no longer eligible for the national

cluster subsidy programme and for certain other national cluster programmes it will receive a

lower subsidies’ rate. These gatekeepers thus also have a political agenda in participating in

the different cluster events, as they know that cluster managers, at some point, will scrutinize

their research projects.

These gatekeepers are thus mainly specialised in writing and replying to national project calls

and finding the right project partners to be eligible for the different subsidies. In France, for

example, some subsidies require a certain number and diversity of actors participating in the

project (SMEs, university, large firm, etc.). Once the project is written and submitted, the

gatekeeper turns to the next conquest: another public project call, finding the right business

partners and writing the proposal. In case the project is won, a team within the organisation

will be responsible for it, but often the gatekeeper is not in touch with the project anymore.

Finally, we exactly find what Schumpeter (2003 (1943), p. 132) already stipulated 70 years

ago: “innovation itself is being reduced to routine. Technological process is increasingly

becoming the business of teams of trained specialists who turn out what is required and make

it work in predictable ways. The romance of earlier commercial adventure is rapidly wearing

away, because so many more things can be strictly calculated that had of old to be visualized

in a flash of genius”.

We can relate this human behaviour to what Sennett (1998) calls chameleon qualities, which

are necessary to survive in the new economy. The highly flexible work arrangements of the

new economy don’t allow the individuals to create real commitment to their work, to create

long-term bonds and true connections. These arrangements favour more short-term,

opportunistic behaviours that are not based on trust and loyalty. Instead, employees of the

new economy keep a certain distance to their work and don’t get personally involved.

Based on these assumptions of the new economy we can ask following questions: Which role

do flexible work arrangements of the new economy, and all its consequences, play for

clusters? Are the theories of Marshall still valid, or should we admit that the context has

completely changed? Should the once who really work on the R&D projects participate in the

cluster activities, instead of the gatekeepers, in order to relate again to Marshall?

! "%!

(other “Sennettdian” topics still have to be developed: regarding collaboration, the public

scene, the public place, loyalty, commitment, short term vs. long term values etc.)

CONCLUSION

In this paper we tried to discuss the lack of conceptualisation of the human being (its

motivation, hidden agendas, personal objectives) in the new economy within the systems of

innovation approach. The research agenda on systems of innovation should dick more into

this “Organisation of Hypocrises” (Brunsson, 2002) in order to ameliorate the associated

policies and better foster innovation. Research should particularly focus on a comparison

between the different levels that constitute a particular system of innovation. For example

policy driven clusters should focus on a comparison of the discourses of cluster members,

cluster managers and government officials in order to detect flaws in the system and thus

improve the whole system. Otherwise, policy driven cluster policies, that primarily exist to

increase innovation, risk to become what Smelser calls (1998) “collective myths and

fantasies” (Gabriel, 2005). In order to prevent systems of innovation to become collective

myths and fantasies, a more human approach to the concept is necessary.

! "&!

REFERENCES

,-./01!23!43!5#++"63!7809/:1!;</080=;>1!8?-!:0@A:B!:;/!9?CD./-E/!/=C?CF>!8?-!:;/!G@:@0/!CG!=8H<:8.<AF3!!"#$%&'$(&)%*+,&-%,-1!#"&I#$%3!

,../?1! J3! K3! 5"*((63! .$%$#&%#* (/-* 01)2* )3* 4-,/%)1)#56* 4-,/%)1)#5* 4"$%73-"* $%8* (/-*9&77-:&%$(&)%* )3* 4-,/%)1)#&,$1* ;%3)":$(&)%* <&(/&%* (/-* =>9* !"#$%&'$(&)%3!L8FM0<-E/1!7,B!7NJ!20/AA3!

,A;/<F1!O3!J3!5"**'63!N?-@A:0<8.!-<A:0<=:A!8A!P./80?<?E!0/E<C?APB!,!=C?-<:<C?!GC0!H0CAH/0<:>3!?@")A-$%*B1$%%&%#*+(@8&-7C*D5%61!$(*I%++3!

,A;/<F1!O3!J31!Q!L.8091!R3!5#++"63!L0/8:<S<:>!8?-!=CA:!<?!@0M8?!8?-!0/E<C?8.!-/S/.CHF/?:!<?!:;/!P?/D!/=C?CF>P3!?@")A-$%*B1$%%&%#*+(@8&-7C*E5(61!)+&I)""3!

,A;/<F1! O3! J31! Q! NA89A/?1! ,3! 5"**(63! TC=8:<C?1! 8EE.CF/08:<C?! 8?-! <??CS8:<C?B! :CD80-A!0/E<C?8.! <??CS8:<C?! A>A:/FA! <?! UC0D8>V!?@")A-$%* B1$%%&%#* +(@8&-7C* F5$61! #**I$$+3!

,A;/<F1!O3!J31! 4F<:;1!W3!T31!Q!X@E;:C?1!L3! 5#+""63!Y/E<C?8.! <??CS8:<C?!A>A:/FAB! :;/C0>1!/FH<0<=A!8?-!HC.<=>3!=-#&)%$1*+(@8&-7C*DF5(61!)(&I)*"3!

,@/0M8=;1!L31!Q!4<.S/0A:/<?1!T3!O3!5#++$63!G@$1&($(&H-*8$($6*I%*&%(")8@,(&)%*()*,)8&%#*$%8*$%$157&73!U/D!ZC09B!UZ[!H0/AA3!

O0@?AAC?1! U3! 5"*)*63! 4/-* !"#$%&'$(&)%* )3* J5A),"&756* 4$1KC* 9-,&7&)%7C* $%8* I,(&)%7* &%*!"#$%&'$(&)%73!L;<=;/A:/0B!KC;?!\<./>!Q!4C?A!T:-3!

O0@?AAC?1! U3! 5#++#63! 4/-* !"#$%&'$(&)%* )3* J5A),"&756* 4$1KC* 9-,&7&)%7* $%8* I,(&)%7* &%*!"#$%&'$(&)%7!5#!/-363!LCH/?;8E/?B!LCH/?;8E/?!O@A<?/AA!4=;CC.!20/AA3!

L8.;C@?1!L31!Q!4/??/::1!Y3!5#++(63!B"$,(&,&%#*L@1(@"-3!X]C?B!YC@:./-E/3!L;<80C?<1! ^31! Q! L;</A81! _3! 5#++'63! `C0FA! CG! =0/8:<C?! CG! <?-@A:0<8.! =.@A:/0A! <?!

M<C:/=;?C.CE>3!4-,/%)H$(&)%C*MN5*61!"+'%I"+('3!L;@?E1! 43! 5#++#63! O@<.-<?E! 8! ?8:<C?8.! <??CS8:<C?! A>A:/F! :;0C@E;! 0/E<C?8.! <??CS8:<C?!

A>A:/FA3!4-,/%)H$(&)%C*MM5)61!%)&I%*"3!LCC9/1! 23! 5"**'63! J;/! ?/D! D8S/! CG! 0/E<C?8.! <??CS8:<C?! ?/:DC09AB! ,?8.>A<A1!

=;808=:/0<A:<=A!8?-!A:08:/E>3!+:$11*O@7&%-77*?,)%):&,7C*P5#61!"&*I"("3!LCC9/1! 23! 5"**(63! Y/E<C?A! <?! 8! E.CM8.! F809/:B! :;/! /]H/0</?=/A! CG! \8./A! 8?-! O8-/?I

\@0::/FM/0E3!=-H&-2*)3*;%(-"%$(&)%$1*B)1&(&,$1*?,)%):5C*D5#61!$%*I$)"3!LCC9/1! 23! 5#++"63! Y/E<C?8.! <??CS8:<C?! A>A:/FA1! =.@A:/0A1! 8?-! :;/! 9?CD./-E/! /=C?CF>3!

;%8@7("&$1*$%8*L)"A)"$(-*L/$%#-C*QR5%61!*%&I*(%3!LC0M<?1! K3!731!Q!4:08@AA1!,3! 5"**+63!a0C@?-/-!:;/C0>!0/A/80=;B!20C=/-@0/A1!=8?C?A1!8?-!

/S8.@8:<S/!=0<:/0<83!G@$1&($(&H-*7),&)1)#5C*QS5"61!$I#"3!L0Cb</01!731!Q!`0</-M/0E1!R3!5#++(!5"*((663!TU$,(-@"*-(*1-*757(V:-3!280<AB!R-<:<C?A!-@!4/@<.3!L0@b1!43!L3!431!Q!J/<]/<081!,3!,3!L3!5#++*63!J;/!RSC.@:<C?!CG!:;/!L.@A:/0!T<:/08:@0/B!4;/--<?E!

T<E;:! C?! :;/! Y/E<C?8.! 4:@-</AIY/E<C?8.! 4=</?=/! ^/M8:/!=-#&)%$1* +(@8&-7C* DD5*61!"#'$I"#))3!

^C.C0/@]1! ^31! Q! 280:C1! 43! 5#++&63! Y/E<C?8.! <??CS8:<C?! A>A:/FAB! L@00/?:! -<A=C@0A/! 8?-!@?0/AC.S/-!<AA@/A3!4-,/%)1)#5*&%*7),&-(5C*MW5#61!"$$I"&$3!

^CCE8?1!c3!5#++&63!TC?EI:/0F!RFH.C>F/?:!8?-!:;/!Y/A:0@=:@0<?E!CG!:;/!T8MC@0!7809/:!<?!R@0CH/3!4&:-*>*+),&-(5C*QD5"61!'&I)(3!

R-d@<A:1!L3!5#++"63!4/-*+57(-:7*)3*;%%)H$(&)%*IAA")$,/*$%8*;%%)H$(&)%*B)1&,56*I%*$,,)@%(*)3*(/-*7($(-*)3*(/-*$"(X!28H/0!H0/A/?:/-!8:!:;/!^Y[N^!LC?G/0/?=/1!,8.MC0E3!

R-d@<A:1!L3!5#++&63!4>A:/FA!CG!N??CS8:<C?3! N?!K3!`8E/0M/0E1!^3!L3!7CD/0>!Q!Y3!Y3!U/.AC?!5R-A361! 4/-* !Y3)"8* J$%8Z))K* )3* ;%%)H$(&)%! 5HH3! ")"I#+)63! X]GC0-B! X]GC0-![?<S/0A<:>!20/AA!X]GC0-3!

! "'!

`/.-F8?1!73!231!Q!,@-0/:A=;1!^3!O3!5"***63!N??CS8:<C?!<?!=<:</AB!4=</?=/IM8A/-!-<S/0A<:>1!AH/=<8.<b8:<C?!8?-! .C=8.<b/-!=CFH/:<:<C?3!?@")A-$%*-,)%):&,*"-H&-2C*DS5#61!%+*I%#*3!

`/S0/1! Y3! 5#++(63! RFH.C>F/?:! <?A/=@0<:>! 8?-! AC=<8.! :;/C0>B! :;/! HCD/0! CG! ?<E;:F80/A3!<)"KC*?:A1)5:-%(*>*+),&-(5C*MQ5$61!&"(I&$&3!

a8M0</.1! Z3! 5#++&63! a.8AA! =8E/A! 8?-! E.8AA! H8.8=/AB! <F8E/A! CG! C0E8?<b8:<C?! <?! <F8E/I=C?A=<C@A!:<F/A3!!"#$%&'$(&)%C*QM5"61!*I#(3!

a8..<e1!R3I231!a.8A/01!,31!T/G/MS0/1!231!Q!28../b1!`3!5#+"#63!RS8.@8:<C?!FC-/0?/1!eS8.@8:<C?!FC-/A:/! V! T/! =8A!-/A!Hf./A!-/! =CFHe:<:<S<:e! G08?g8<A3!B)1&(&[@-7* -(*:$%$#-:-%(*A@Z1&,C*ME5%61!&($I&*+3!

a8..<e1!R3I231!a.8A/01!,31!7e0<?-C.1!_31!Q!\/<.1!J3!5#+"#63!WCD!-C!H0/I/]<A:<?E!YQ^!8=:<S<:</A!<?! 8! 0/E<C?! <?G.@/?=/! :;/!H/0GC0F8?=/!CG! =.@A:/0! <?<:<8:<S/AV!J;/! =8A/!CG!`0/?=;!=CFH/:<:<S/?/AA!=.@A:/0A3!?@")A-$%*B1$%%&%#*+(@8&-7C*Q\MSC*&0&"7(*$"(&,1-3!

a0/=9;8F/01! J31! cC0CITh@?EM/0E1! 731! L<./A<b1! 431! Q! W8>/A1! 43! 5#++)63! ^/F>A:<G><?E!<?:/0-<A=<H.<?80>!d@8.<:8:<S/!0/A/80=;3!G@$1&($(&H-*;%[@&"5C*QD5#61!$+(I$$"3!

a0C:;1!K31!Q!LC0<h?1!R3!5#++&63!Y/=.8<F<?E!@0M8?<:>B!N?-/:/0F<?8:/!AH8=/A1!<?GC0F8.!8=:C0A!8?-!@0M8?!8E/?-8!A/::<?E3!]"Z$%*+(@8&-7C*DM5$61!&+$I&#'3!

W/0:CE1! 23! ^31! Q! Y/FC/1! 43! 5#++"63! ;%%)H$(&H-* ,1@7(-"76* 8"&H-"7* )3* %$(&)%$1* &%%)H$(&)%*757(-:73!280<AB!XRL^!I!X0E8?<A8:<C?!GC0!R=C?CF<=!LCICH/08:<C?!8?-!^/S/.CHF/?:3!

KC;8??/AA/?1! K3I,31! Q! X.A/?1! O3! 5#+"+63! J;/! G@:@0/! CG! S8.@/! =0/8:<C?! 8?-! <??CS8:<C?AB!,AH/=:A! CG! 8! :;/C0>! CG! S8.@/! =0/8:<C?! 8?-! <??CS8:<C?! <?! 8! E.CM8.! 9?CD./-E/!/=C?CF>3!;%(-"%$(&)%$1*^)@"%$1*)3*;%3)":$(&)%*.$%$#-:-%(C*SR5'61!&+#I&""3!

c8.=;/01! J31! 2<M/01! W31! Q! a0@M/01! 73! 5#++%63! .$%$#-:-%(* +@::$"56* ?H$1@&-"@%#*L1@7(-"1$%8*_&-8-"`7(-""-&,/3!\</?B!R=C2.@A3!

c80.A/?1! ,3! 5#+""63! iL.@A:/0i! L0/8:<C?! M>! Y/=C?G<E@0<?E! LCFF@?<:</A! CG! 208=:<=/3!?@")A-$%*B1$%%&%#*+(@8&-7C*QE5&61!(&$I(($3!

T@?-S8..1! O3Ij3! 5R-363! 5"**#63! _$(&)%$1* +57(-:7* )3* ;%%)H$(&)%6* 4)2$"87* $* 4/-)"5* )3*;%%)H$(&)%*$%8*;%(-"$,(&H-*T-$"%&%#3!TC?-C?B!2<?:/03!

T>C?1!T3!5"*)(63!4/-*,)::@%&(5*&%*@"Z$%*7),&-(53!2;<.8-/.H;<8B!J/FH./![?<S/0A<:>!20/AA3!78=T/C-1! a31! Y8=C1! 731! Q! \80-1! c3! 5#++$63! U/EC:<8:<?E! :;/! =C?:/FHC080>! =<:>B!

<?:0C-@=:<C?3!]"Z$%*+(@8&-7C*DR5*61!"'&&I"'("3!78E@<0/1! c31! Q! ^8S</A1! ,3! 5#++(63! L):A-(&(&H-* "-#&)%$1* ,1@7(-"76* %$(&)%$1* A)1&,5*

$AA")$,/-7B!XRL^!I!X0E8?<A8:<C?!GC0!R=C?CF<=!LCICH/08:<C?!8?-!^/S/.CHF/?:3!78./0M81! `3! 5#++#63! 4/=:C08.! A>A:/FA! CG! <??CS8:<C?! 8?-! H0C-@=:<C?3! =-7-$",/* B)1&,5C*

SQ5#61!#%(I#'%3!7809@A/?1! ,3! 5#++$63! `@bb>! LC?=/H:A1! 4=8?:>! RS<-/?=/1! 2C.<=>! ^<A:8?=/B! J;/! L8A/! GC0!

Y<EC@0! 8?-! 2C.<=>! Y/./S8?=/! <?! L0<:<=8.! Y/E<C?8.! 4:@-</A3! =-#&)%$1* +(@8&-7C*SW5'Q(61!(+"I("(3!

780A;8..1! ,3! 5"*#+63!B"&%,&A1-7* )3* -,)%):&,7! 5):;! /-363! TC?-C?B!78=F<..8?! 8?-!LC31! T:-3!5C?.<?/! S/0A<C?B! ;::HBkkDDD3/=C?.<M3C0Ek.<M080>k780A;8..kF802LCS/03;:F.! l!8==/AA/-!+#k"+k#+"+63!

7=^CD/..1! T3! 5#++$63! 78A=@.<?/! <-/?:<:</A! 8?-! .CDIH8<-! DC09B! >C@?E! F/?! <?! @0M8?!.8MC@0!F809/:A3!;%(-"%$(&)%$1*^)@"%$1*)3*]"Z$%*$%8*=-#&)%$1*=-7-$",/C*MW5%61!)#)I)%)3!

7C00<AC?1!,3!5#++)63!a8:/9//H/0A!CG!9?CD./-E/!D<:;<?!<?-@A:0<8.!-<A:0<=:AB!D;C!:;/>!80/1!;CD!:;/>!<?:/08=:3!=-#&)%$1*+(@8&-7C*DM5'61!)"(I)$&3!

U8@D/.8/0A1!L31!Q!2/../E0<?1!K3!5#++%63!?H$1@$(&)%*8-7*-YAV"&-%,-7*8-*,1@7(-"&%#*-%*=V#&)%*2$11)%%-B!7RYNJ1!788A:0<=;:![?<S/0A<:>3!

! "(!

U<CA<1! K3! 5#+""63! O@<.-<?E! <??CS8:<C?! A>A:/FAB! 8?! <?:0C-@=:<C?! :C! :;/! AH/=<8.! A/=:<C?3!;%8@7("&$1*$%8*L)"A)"$(-*L/$%#-C*MR5'61!"'$(I"'%$3!

2C0:/01!73!R3!5"**+63!4/-*L):A-(&(&H-*I8H$%($#-*)3*_$(&)%73!TC?-C?B!78=F<..8?3!2C0:/01!73!R3!5"**)63!L.@A:/0A!8?-!:;/!?/D!/=C?CF<=A!CG!=CFH/:<:<C?3!J$"H$"8*O@7&%-77*

=-H&-2C*_)HXa9-,X1!((I*+3!2C0:/01!73!R3!5#+++63!TC=8:<C?1!LCFH/:<:<C?1!8?-!R=C?CF<=!^/S/.CHF/?:B!TC=8.!L.@A:/0A!

<?!8!a.CM8.!R=C?CF>3!?,)%):&,*9-H-1)A:-%(*G@$"(-"15C*QD5"61!"&I$%3!YCA/?G/.-1! 43! 5#++&63! N?-@A:0>! =.@A:/0AB! M@A<?/AA! =;C<=/1! HC.<=>! C@:=CF/1! C0! M08?-<?E!

A:08:/E>V!^)@"%$1*)3*_-2*O@7&%-77*;8-$7*$%8*4"-%87C*S5#61!%I"$3!48]/?<8?1! ,3! 5"**%63!=-#&)%$1* $8H$%($#-6* ,@1(@"-* $%8* ,):A-(&(&)%* &%* +&1&,)%* b$11-5* $%8*

=)@(-*QMP3!L8FM0<E/1!7,B!W80S80-![?<S/0A<:>!20/AA3!4=;F<-:1! K3! L3! 5#++(63! c?CD./-E/! HC.<:<=A! CG! <?:/0-<A=<H.<?80<:>3! ;%%)H$(&)%C* MR5%61! $"$I

$#)3!4=;@FH/:/01! K3! ,3! 5#++$! 5"*%$663! L$A&($1&7:C* +),&$1&7:* >* 9-:),"$,53! [4,B! J8>.C0! Q!

`08?=<A!/IT<M080>3!4=C::1! ,3! K3! 5#++(63! L8H<:8.<AF! 8?-![0M8?<b8:<C?! <?! 8! U/D!c/>V! J;/! LCE?<:<S/IL@.:@08.!

^<F/?A<C?3!+),&$1*0)",-7C*PF5%61!"%'&I"%)#3!4/??/::1! Y3! 5"*)%! 5"*(+663! 0$:&1&-7* I#$&%7(* (/-* L&(56* .&881-* L1$77* J):-7* )3* ;%8@7("&$1*

L/&,$#)C*QPWMaQPER3!L8FM0<-E/B!W80S80-![?<S/0A<:>!20/AA3!4/??/::1!Y3!5"**#!5"*(+663!4/-*]7-7*)3*9&7)"8-"6*B-"7)%$1*;8-%(&(5*$%8*L&(5*T&3-3!U/D!ZC09B!

\\!UC0:C?!Q!LCFH8?>3!4/??/::1!Y3!5"**#!5"*((663!4/-*0$11*)3*B@Z1&,*.$%3!U/D!ZC09B!\\!UC0:C?!Q!LCFH8?>3!4/??/::1!Y3!5"**#!5"**+663!4/-*L)%7,&-%,-*)3*(/-*?5-3!U/D!ZC09B!\\!UC0:C?!Q!LCFH8?>3!4/??/::1!Y3!5"**$!5"*)+663!I@(/)"&(53!U/D!ZC09B!\\!UC0:C?!Q!LCFH8?>3!4/??/::1!Y3! 5"**%63!01-7/*$%8*+()%-6*4/-*O)85*$%8* (/-*L&(5* &%*<-7(-"%*L&H&1&'$(&)%3!U/D!

ZC09B!\\!UC0:C?!Q!LCFH8?>3!4/??/::1!Y3!5"**)63!4/-*L)"")7&)%*)3*L/$"$,(-"6*4/-*B-"7)%$1*L)%7-[@-%,-7*)3*<)"K*&%*(/-*

_-2*L$A&($1&7:3!U/D!ZC09B!\\!UC0:C?!Q!LCFH8?>3!4/??/::1!Y3!5#++$63!=-7A-,(*&%*$*<)"18*)3*;%-[@$1&(53!U/D!ZC09B!\\!UC0:C?!Q!LCFH8?>3!4/??/::1!Y3!5#++'63!4/-*L@1(@"-*)3*(/-*_-2*L$A&($1&7:3!U/D!W8S/?B!Z8./![?<S/0A<:>!20/AA3!4/??/::1!Y3!5#++)63!4/-*L"$3(7:$%3!TC?-C?B!2/?E@<?!OCC9A3!4/??/::1!Y3!5#+""63!4/-*0)"-&#%-"3!TC?-C?B!UC::<?E!W<..!R-<:<C?A3!4/??/::1! Y3! 5#+"#63! 4)#-(/-"6* 4/-* =&(@$17C* B1-$7@"-7* $%8* B)1&(&,7* )3* L))A-"$(&)%3! U/D!

W8S/?B!Z8./![?<S/0A<:>!20/AA3!4/??/::1!Y31!Q!LCMM1!K3!5"**$!5"*(#663!4/-*J&88-%*;%c@"&-7*)3*L1$773!U/D!ZC09B!\\!UC0:C?!

Q!LCFH8?>3!4<.S/01! ^31! L.8091! J3! U31! Q! Z8?/b1! L3! K3! U3! 5#+"+63! 4=/?/AB! 4C=<8.! =C?:/]:! <?! 8?! 8E/! CG!

=C?:<?E/?=>3!+),&$1*0)",-7C*PP5&61!##*$I#$#%3!4F/.A/01! U3! 5"**)63! LC../=:<S/! F>:;A! 8?-! G8?:8A</AB! J;/! F>:;! CG! :;/! ECC-! .<G/! <?!

L8.<GC0?<83!4/-*+),&$1*?8#-7*)3*B75,/)$%$157&71!"""I"#%3!4m.S/..1!n31!T<?-dS<A:1!a31!Q!c/:/.A1!L3!5#++$63!4/-*L1@7(-"*;%&(&$(&H-*d"--%Z))K3!4:C=9;C.FB!

ooo NSC0>!JCD/0!2@M.<A;/0A3!JD//-</1!^3!5#+"$63!789<?E!A/?A/!CG!<?A/=@0<:>B!8!-/G/?=/!CG!Y<=;80-!4/??/::PA!AC=<C.CE>!

CG!DC093!<)"KC*?:A1)5:-%(*>*+),&-(5C*MW5"61!*%I"+%3!\R`3! 5#+""63!4/-* d1)Z$1* L):A-(&(&H-%-77* =-A)"(* MRQQaMRQM3! a/?/S8B!\C0.-! R=C?CF<=!

`C0@F3!!

! "#!

Table 1: Summary of Richard Sennett’s academic outreach12

Book Total

citations

Articles citing the book

are mainly published in

Articles citing the book

are mainly using following keywords

industrial

clusters

The Corrosion of Character

(1998) 779

Work Employment and Society,

Human Relations Identity, Employment, Work 2

The Fall of Public Man

(1992 (1977)) 508

International Journal of Urban and

Regional Research, Urban Studies Public Space, Urban Planning, Urban Society -

The Hidden Injuries of

Class (1993 (1972)) 233

Sociology, Sociological Research

Online, Sociological Review Social Class, Humans -

The Culture of the New

Capitalism (2006) 205 Organization, Human Relations Globalization, Identity -

Flesh and Stone (1994) 179 Environment and Planning D: Society

and Space, Urban Studies Mobility, Urban Planning, Public Space -

Respect in a World of

Inequality (2003) 170 Sociology Respect, Ethics, Humans -

The Craftsman (2008) 168 Environment and Planning A, Journal

of Vocational Education and Training Knowledge, Work 2

The Uses of Disorder (1992

(1970)) 151 Urban Studies Urban Planning, Public Space -

The Conscience of the Eye

(1992 (1990)) 145

Urban Studies, Journal of Urban

Design Public Space, Urban Planning, Urban Area -

Families Against the City

(1984 (1970)) 14 (no main journal can be identified) (no main keyword can be identified) -

The Foreigner (2011) 9 (no main journal can be identified) Sense of Place -

Practicing Culture (2007) 5 Social Identities Globalization, National Identity -

Together (2012) 1 Political Quarterly Social Politics -

Authority (1993 (1980))13

n.a. (Human Relations, Sociology) (Authority, Humans, Neoliberalism, Public Space) -

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!12 Database: Scopus. Search criteria: (1) words: “‘Sennett’ AND ‘book title’” in “References” (one query per book); (2) date range: all years; (3) document

type: article; (4) subject areas: “physical sciences” and “social sciences & humanities”; (5) language: English, French and German 13 No data available for the book „Authority“ due to the short and not precise enough title (difficulties of limiting the search results)