軍事創新自 1980 年代中葉起成為戰略研究的重要研究議題之一，從創新一詞的提出，與對擴散、邏輯漸進主義以及突現性變革途徑等相關概念的轉化、應用與深入研究，均呈現出跨科際研究的多元風貌。在各種背景不同、功能互異的學科交相衝擊下，使得軍事創新的相關論述不斷推陳出新。加上後冷戰時期，各主要國家軍隊為因應威脅形態的轉變，無不積極從事軍事轉型的工作，這些因素使得創新與轉型不僅成為戰略研究中的學理論戰焦點，更具有鮮明的實務重要性。誠如 Andrew Pettigrew 所言：對於創新的研究不當限於組織的改變，而是要針對變革過程有全面與動態的分析;是故，「對變革的研究應當涉及變革的系絡、變革的過程與變革的內容等三者的持續作用，以及管控前述三者關係的技巧」。本文以政治學派(以政治、國際關條與戰略研究學者為主)之軍事創新論述為基準點，先說創新一詞之概念進行釐清，其次簡要論述政治學派內各分支理論針對軍事創新所提出的論點異同，最後以歷史學派(以軍史學者為主)的補充與管理學派(以組織理論、公共政策與企業管理學者為主)的啟發提出未來政治學派在軍事創新研究上值得推進的領域。
Military innovation became one of the major research agendas within the field of strategic studies since the mid-1980s. The military innovation studies, at the onset, presented the landscape of interdisciplinary diversity From the introduction of the term "innovation" to the translation, application, and investigation of related concepts such as diffusion, logical incrementalism, or emergent approach, the knowledge of military innovation, which was deeply affected by the contributions of various disciplines whose academic backgrounds and functions are different, has been significantly cultivated and swiftly accumulated. Furthermore, all major militaries in the world are currently taking various innovative efforts as the responses to the changing environment in the post Cold-War era. These factors not only brought about the studies of military innovation or transformation as one of the most heated theoretic debates in the field of strategic studies but also carry evident significance in the real world. The studies of innovation, as Andrew Pettigrew suggests, should be focused on the holistic and dynamic analysis of changing rather than be preoccupied with the intricacies of narrow changes. Thus, “theoretically sound and practically useful research on change should involve the continuous interplay between ideas about the context of change, the process of change and the content of change together with skill in regulating the relations between the three." This article is mainly but not exclusively based upon the evolution of military innovation studies within the politics school (including political scientists, international relations theorists, and strategic studies researchers). The concept of “innovation” will be analyzed in the first place. Then the main arguments of various branches within the politics school concerning military innovation will be presented and compared. Finally, the article will demonstrate that the complement of the history school (mainly military historians) and the enlightenment of the management school (scholars of organization, public policy, or management) will be invaluably helpful for opening the new landscape of military innovation studies within the politics school in the future.
Please enter the journal title, keywords, and author-related information you want to query.