Without a doubt, Clayton Christensen is one of the most prolific thinkers, scholars, and writers on innovation. He is probably best known for having coined the term “disruptive innovation”, but that is only the tip of the iceberg. He developed a theory of economic growth that builds on three types of innovation: disruptive, sustaining, and efficiency innovations. Let’s see.
Previously, I’ve discussed some flaws in the way that we teach science, and the particular implications for scientists themselves. However, the view(s) that non-scientists hold of science influence the success or failure of science in a multitude of ways, even though they are not active practitioners. How then does basic science education shape the views of the non-scientists?
In his landmark book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" Thomas Kuhn describes how the majority of scientific work is actually focused on solving scientific puzzles. That’s what Kuhn calls normal science, and scientists are perfectly trained for and highly efficient in pursuing this endeavour. However, there are times when normal science reaches its limits and scientific revolutions arise, even though invisible to most scientists. Let’s take a look at the reasons for this blind spot and what its wider impact is.
understanding innovation 