NOvation: Critical Studies of Innovation 2022-07-15T20:07:47+00:00 Tiago Brandão Open Journal Systems <p>This journal aims to contribute to rethink and debunking narratives of innovation in STS and STI. We need to look critically at studies of innovation to get better pictures of innovation. The journal questions the current narratives of innovation and offers a forum to discuss a different interpretation of innovation. The journal publishes articles in the following areas:</p> <ol> <li class="show">Critical analyzes of innovation and of studies of innovation;</li> <li class="show">Discourse analysis: deconstructing actors’ rhetoric, policy-makers’ frameworks and scholars’ argumentation;</li> <li class="show">Conceptual history: studying the concepts used in the field, the traveling of concepts among fields (academic and public) and their transformation into catchwords;</li> <li class="show">Intellectual history: documenting and revisiting scholars’ theories;</li> <li class="show">Case studies helping to understand the dynamics and processes of innovation and to rethink current narratives;</li> <li class="show">Contributions to alternative modeling of innovation;</li> <li class="show">Other possibilities will be received by the Editors according to compelling argumentation.</li> </ol> <p>&nbsp;</p> <h2>What topics will the journal seek to cover?</h2> <p>Mainly critical studies, a label that should be understood as wide and plural as possible, which could be unfolded in the next topics:</p> <ul> <li class="show">Conceptual history;</li> <li class="show">Intellectual history;</li> <li class="show">Politics and policies;</li> <li class="show">Science and technology;</li> <li class="show">Economics of innovation;</li> <li class="show">Frameworks and Narratives.</li> </ul> Responsible innovation in France 2022-03-04T12:03:30+00:00 Samir Bedreddine <p>This article examines the issue of responsible innovation in France. To describe its underlying mechanisms and logics, we retrace the advent of innovation in public policy and its reception in French firms, showing how responsible innovation has become the cornerstone of public-private interactions. The legal and administrative context of innovation in France, on the one hand, the emerging departments and managers of innovation in the large groups, on the other hand, participate in producing spaces where agents of the political and economic fields converge. Such situated interactions hinge on shared world views, values and tools. Innovation managers, executive directors of large firms, some French politicians and public servants seize upon responsible innovation and create areas regulated by specific norms and values. In these shared spaces, responsible innovation is the star object, the proxy for exchanges between the economic and the political fields.</p> 2022-02-28T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2022 Samir Bedreddine Broadening our horizons 2022-07-15T20:03:32+00:00 Vincent Bryce Tonii Leach Bernd Stahl Laurence Brooks <p>This paper argues that responsible innovation discourses must consider the changing nature of digital innovation, if they are to stand a chance of steering the development of technology towards democratically-acceptable ends. It explores the extent to which foundational narratives of Responsible (Research and) Innovation (RRI) consider problematic features of metatechnologies – defined here as “core information technologies upon which others are based, and whose use vastly expands the degrees of freedom with which humans can act in the social and material worlds” – and implications for responsible innovation discourse in the digital age. The study finds that references underpinning paradigmatic RRI accounts include digital and metatechnology examples, albeit briefly in some cases, somewhat reinforcing the validity of seminal RRI accounts in the context of new and emerging digital technologies with metatechnological attributes. The need for additional reflection on the problematic implications of digital technologies for RRI is identified, for example with respect to distributed development, and recombinant and network-level effects. The paper concludes that the continuing value of RRI as a discourse to society will depend on researchers’ and practitioners’ awareness of the potential of these technologies for cascading, downstream innovation.</p> 2022-02-28T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2022 Vincent Bryce, Tonii Leach, Bernd Stahl, Laurence Brooks Between sustainability commitments and anticipated market requirements 2022-07-15T20:04:15+00:00 Deniz Frost Kathrin Braun Cordula Kropp <p>This article studies ways of dealing with the tension between a commitment to sustainable and responsible research and anticipated market requirements in the midstream of a research process in architecture and construction. Using a slightly modified version of Socio-Technical Integration Research (STIR), we explored the chances of questioning the primacy of the techno-economic innovation paradigm by deliberately provoking reflections through STIR interactions. Our research underlines the difficulties and limitations of challenging an orientation towards values of efficiency and productivity in favour of social and environmental values in the midstream of the research process and examines <em>how</em> the techno-economic innovation paradigm is able to insulate itself against critical questioning. It sheds light at the critical role of the underlying assumption that marketability of prospective outcomes is not one objective amongst others but the precondition for all others and at two argumentative patterns we termed the "lack-of-agency" and the "reconciliation-after-all" pattern.</p> 2022-02-28T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2022 Deniz Frost, Kathrin Braun, Cordula Kropp A Normative Understanding of Innovation 2022-07-15T20:04:59+00:00 Kevin H. Michels <p>Commentators have bemoaned the absence of a clear conceptual understanding of innovation both generally and within responsible innovation (RI). Much of our thinking about innovation is fragmented into separate categories such as “business,” “social” or “technological” innovation with no clear understanding of the term these adjectives are modifying. In addition, RI discussions focus overwhelmingly on technological advances delivered through the marketplace, which are only a portion of the innovation story. Clearly, we need to develop a stronger account of the concept of innovation. What criteria must be satisfied for a contribution to the world to qualify as an innovation or, more simply, what is an innovation? Innovation, I will contend, is <em>ethical change that delivers substantial applied value to beneficiaries of a domain</em>. After developing this account, I will show how it can reframe our understanding of innovation’s relationship with technology and the marketplace, the innovator’s understanding of technology, who gets to innovate, and why the various categories of innovation may be more diverting than helpful. I will also reflect on how the account of innovation offered here can deepen and refine our understanding of RI.</p> 2022-02-28T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2022 Kevin Michels Is Responsible Innovation Possible? 2022-07-15T20:05:52+00:00 Lisann Penttilä <p>Global frameworks of RI face several challenges. These include (1) the extent to which economic interests can be reconciled with the concept of responsibility in innovation processes and (2) the lack of a strong political dimension in these frameworks’ conception of responsibility. Responding to these challenges is crucial if RI is to ensure that societal and natural needs are sufficiently considered in the innovation process. The influence of economic incentives on innovation processes coupled with the widespread depoliticization of persons makes it more urgent that RI adopt a <em>political </em>conception of responsibility in order to safeguard the legitimacy of the values and outcomes it deems societally desirable. This paper argues that the operative conception of responsibility in RI should be broadened to include a stronger political dimension. To this end, I turn to the work of Hannah Arendt to continue rethinking the concept of “the political” and, by extension, how responsibility and politics can be understood as two sides of the same coin.</p> 2022-02-28T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2022 Lisann Penttilä Anticipatory responsible innovation 2022-07-15T20:06:36+00:00 Hannot Rodríguez Sergio Urueña Andoni Ibarra <p>The call for the development of more responsible research and innovation has increasingly permeated European Union research and development policies. Specifically, under the auspices of approaches such as “Responsible Research and Innovation” (RRI) and “Open Science”, these policies conceive of the need to make innovation dynamics radically open and debatable, even with regard to the underlying preferences and expectations shaping them. Responsibility has thus been conceived in eminently anticipatory terms, that is, in terms of collectively taking care in the present of the futures enabled through innovation practices. This normative conception, which emphasises the politicisation of the ways futures are constructed through innovation and goals they are oriented towards, is nonetheless realised within a context where the prevailing way of approaching the future with regard to innovation systems is highly committed to a capitalist imperative of technological progress and economic growth. This article argues that while anticipation – understood as an interventive practice – can deploy valuable responsibilisation heuristics, their degree of disruptiveness, or openness, may depend on how such interventive practice engaging with futures deals with this techno-economic commitment, or imperative.</p> 2022-02-28T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2022 Hannot Rodríguez, Sergio Urueña, Andoni Ibarra Open access, responsibility and the “platformization” of academic publishing 2022-07-15T20:07:47+00:00 Raúl Tabarés <p>Digitalization was supposed to be a transformation force for the academic publishing sector, but it has reinforced the oligopoly of for-profit academic publishers. Open access (OA) was also meant to counterbalance this situation, but after a decade of efforts it seems that it has not achieved their goals. This essay explores how the combination of digitalization and OA have contributed to reinforce the lock-in effects exerted in the sector by digital platforms operated by for-profit academic publishers. I also explore alternative paths for the development of OA with the theoretical lenses that provide responsible innovation, putting social emphasis at the politics and values that lie at the heart of academia. I argue that exploitation, appropriation of labor and quantification metrics widely present in this social domain must be counterbalanced with different actions that do not focus alone in making freely available scientific articles for citizens.</p> 2022-02-28T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2022 Raúl Tabarés Review of Rafael Ziegler’s (2020). Innovation, Ethics and Our Common Futures: A Collaborative Philosophy. 2022-03-15T14:28:04+00:00 Rick Hölsgens <p>In his book “Innovation, Ethics and Our Common Futures: A Collaborative Philosophy,” Rafael Ziegler sets out to critically assess the notion of innovation as a driving force in modern-day (Western) economies. He asserts that ‘innovation as technological novelty for commercial use is driving us deeper in unsustainability’ (p. v), and embarks on a philosophical journey to scrutinize the concept of innovation and its role in modern economies. In doing so, Ziegler aims to develop a <em>sufficientarian</em> notion of innovation, calling to embrace a broad, collaborative understanding of innovation based on pluralistic modes of provision focusing not only on markets and increasing financial welfare, but instead on nature-respecting <em>sufficientarian</em> principles of <em>enough is enough</em> – ‘within justice of a minimum threshold and of respect for upper limits to resource use’ (p. 18).</p> 2022-02-28T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Rick Hölsgens