Besides the regulatory, financial, and political components, each effective innovation ecosystem also strongly depends on the psychological profile of the respective society. And there again, one has to distinguish between two components: a society's traditional mentality — including its treatment of innovation (being stronger or weaker) — and "the nation's state of mind," which changes from time to time, depending on numerous internal and external factors. Networks and associations like the Knowledge Economy Network (KEN) play an important role in strengthening public awareness of the role of innovation in supporting development and general progress.

There are numerous factors influencing innovation at the company/organization level, including societal features in general, such as the innovative culture, incentives for innovators, the influence and positive example of leaders, as well as the market and financial environment – in short, a good innovation ecosystem. Unfortunately, the ecosystem in many European countries, including Slovenia, is not efficient enough. And things are not getting better, as illustrated by Slovenia's weakening position, moving in the world ranking over the last 5 years from 29th to 33rd among 132 countries.

It is important to point out that in most countries around the world, the following basic facts have not yet been fully recognized, which is slowing down their development into innovative, knowledge economies:

  1. Innovation contributes about 60% to GDP growth (as calculated by the Swedish professor Charles Edquist from the University of Lund).

  2. The nature of the innovation process has changed radically in recent decades, as it no longer follows the traditional linear model. Now, virtually all factors in society are actively involved in innovation activity—including government.

  3. The difference between invention (a new idea) and innovation (a new product adopted in the market) is still not fully recognized.

  4. The country needs to create an effective innovation ecosystem, focusing on support for creativity and entrepreneurship.

  5. Sufficient and properly organized financing of innovation is essential (the most successful countries allocate at least 3% of GDP from public and private sources, medium-performing countries about 2%, and the inefficient ones less than 1.5% of GDP). Slovenia, regrettably, is in the third category.

  6. A prerequisite for a country's innovation success is a modern, high-quality education system (with an emphasis on competencies and skills) that supports the values of a modern innovation and entrepreneurial culture.

  7. A well-functioning market is very important for a country’s innovation success, as well as access to venture capital, which is crucial for the creation and development of companies. In terms of venture capital's share in GDP, Slovenia ranks among the lowest in the EU, with a share 5 times lower than Austria's and 20 times lower than the USA's.

Of course, it is not easy to accept and internalize all this, as it requires a conscious commitment towards developing an innovative society and economy from all social sectors, starting with government bodies and services. It is not only about proper organization and an appropriate development strategy from companies to the state level, but also about a value system and mindset that recognizes knowledge and innovation as irreplaceable, key pillars of successful development.

At the company level, this means that innovation is the first priority in achieving international competitiveness, but at the same time a prerequisite for successful business now and in the future—with highly productive and satisfied employees. This, in turn, imposes an obligation on management to consistently emphasize the importance of innovation through communication with colleagues and to appropriately evaluate and reward innovative employees. Otherwise, countries cannot avoid serious brain drain, as is the case with Slovenia, which has lost about 20,000 university-educated people in the last 30 years—unfortunately, with little prospect of their return. This marks the difference between brain circulation (positive) and brain drain (highly negative).

In short, no country can become a knowledge economy if innovation is not consciously accepted as a goal by every citizen, with effective systemic support and engagement of all actors in society and an appropriate innovation and entrepreneurial psychological profile within the population.

The psychological approach and a productive attitude in modern entrepreneurship offer the following advantages:

  • We identify, appreciate, and stimulate our own potential and that of our colleagues and business partners.

  • We take into account the psychological profile of our colleagues and partners—especially leaders of negotiation teams—and adjust our style of communication accordingly (in conversation, negotiations, and collaboration).

  • We encourage people in our environment to openly express their expectations, interests, and disagreements regarding collaboration offers being negotiated.

  • We encourage our colleagues and partners to be innovative and original, rather than limiting ourselves to routine and avoiding areas where we diverge. It is completely wrong to rule out in advance, or too early, the possibility of reaching a mutually acceptable compromise.

It is increasingly recognized that modern knowledge societies and economies largely depend on efficient, productive communication of science, research, and innovation within society. This has become more important than ever before, and—unfortunately—only a few societies around the globe have fully understood this, enjoying significant benefits across many domains.

Several important reasons invite societies to pay adequate attention to science and research communication. The following three are among the most important:

  1. With recognition of the changed nature of the innovation process by Prof. Charles Edquist, science and research must be much more integrated into society than during the period of the evolutionary innovation model. This is, in reality, the case only in some societies.

  2. Why is it so difficult to achieve? This requires broad public awareness of the new reality and the full commitment of the government to support it by, among other things, creating a good innovation ecosystem and devoting at least 2.5% of a country's GDP to R&D.

  3. However, all this can be achieved only if most of the important societal actors fully understand the critical importance of science, research, and innovation for societal progress and are actively engaged in supporting these efforts, thereby contributing to broader public understanding and acceptance of the role of science, research, and innovation.

  4. Unfortunately, the conditions described above have so far been created only in a handful of countries, which are, unsurprisingly, also the most advanced and wealthiest countries in the world. This coincidence should motivate other countries to look to these role models and be inspired by their positive experiences.

To be effectively integrated into current socio-economic development, science, research, and innovation should not only be presented; their objectives, efforts, and achieved results need to be introduced in an easily understandable fashion to the broader public. This is not an easy task, as the key objectives of science, research, and innovation communication are the following:

  • Presenting research and innovation results in an understandable way, while also alerting the public to relevant dilemmas—thereby stimulating critical thinking, encouraging scientific literacy, and fostering public debate, including on issues of important public decisions. This contributes to the popularization of science, research, and innovation, which is particularly important in a knowledge society.

  • Research communicators bear responsibility for the accuracy, complexity, and relevance of presented information, keeping in mind the potential impact on public opinion as well as on significant political decision-makers.

  • Relevant research and innovation results and dilemmas must be properly presented within academia and to broader society by institutes and universities as part of their broader social responsibility.

  • Specialized journalists have an important role in educating the public and providing facts and new discoveries, which should be considered in addressing and properly solving major public issues.

  • Popular science is extremely important for communicating research and innovation, as it operates in commonly understood language and is expected to reach many members of society.

In many countries, science is not optimally communicated to most sectors of society. In most countries, science and academia are seen as "ivory towers"—an alienated elite of society, sometimes perceived as uninterested in productive interaction with the broader society.

According to a Eurobarometer study from 2021, in most of the less developed EU countries, the public has expressed rather critical views about their science communities—qualifying them as "narrow-minded, immoral, arrogant," and criticizing them for poor communication. A few years ago, the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science funded a large project titled "Science Communication by Scientists: Rewarded!" This project identified numerous problems in this domain and produced practical proposals and recommendations, published in 2022. On this basis, science communication has been recognized as an essential effort in knowledge society, presenting the scientific community with ways to improve in their interest and in the interest of society at large, and to enjoy positive outcomes.

There is little doubt that introducing this subject into university curricula is an essential element. This means that all students will become aware of the problem before experiencing it and before having the opportunity to contribute to its reduction.

Communication should be part of any new research project proposal—demonstrating to the funding agency that researchers intend to present and disseminate the results of their projects to the broader society. This is important, as it will be evaluated by experts and should contribute to a positive decision by the respective funding agency to support the project proposal. At the same time, being aware of this approach reminds researchers of the importance of communicating research results and their implications, ensuring that relevant social actors operate in line with new scientific discoveries.

A key characteristic of the modern knowledge society and innovative economy is the position of science and research, recognized as prime movers of progress. This recognition is hardly possible if science pays insufficient attention to communication with society.

In conclusion, proper attention to appropriate science communication is an essential element in building a successful, innovative, and competitive economy. No responsible social actor should ignore this well-established fact!