A clear step forward can be found in the newest version of the Oslo Manual, which provides guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data.
Innovation system theory interprets innovations as a result of the interactions between dependent consumers, producers, research and education, the political system, the supply system, and the infrastructure [22, 23].
It is important to note this when interpreting the innovation linkage results.
Kline and Rosenberg (1986) interpreted the innovation process as a chain of changes not limited only to hardware update, but including market environment, knowledge, and the social dynamics of the organization.
Acknowledging that the family innovation is not completely exogenous, I interpret the family innovation parameter more carefully.
Here, we can interpret the family innovation as relative to the student's expected growth.
In our opinion, Lundvall could be interpreted twofold: first, innovation processes (and innovation systems) operate, in parallel, locally, nationally, and globally; second, the national context (nation-state configuration) still represents an important reference for innovation systems.
Such a categorial shift involves moving away from the temptation to interpret responsible research and innovation in a technocratic way towards a more pluralistic vision that is rooted in the idea of phronesis.
Criterion number 1 interprets 'high' product innovation performance; number 2 interprets 'low' product innovation performance, and number 3 interprets insignificant.
We will look into whether innovation and entrepreneurship manifest themselves differently across different sectors and disciplines and how we could identify, analyze, capture and interpret the emerging patterns of innovation on a trans-disciplinary, trans-temporal, and trans-local basis.
