Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding Innovation and the Problem of Technology Adoption

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Rethinking the Clinical Gaze

Part of the book series: Health, Technology and Society ((HTE))

Abstract

The chapter introduces the theoretical foundations of the book, drawing on literature from medical sociology, STS, and innovation studies. It begins by describing the innovation-as-an-emergent process conceptualisation of innovation, contrasting this with the linear model, and it provides an overview of social science literature on the problem of technology adoption within healthcare settings. In the process of bringing these two areas together, the chapter introduces and describes the notion of proto-platforms, drawing on Keating and Cambrosio’s notion of biomedical platforms. This book can thus be seen as a study of a patient-centred proto-platform, constituted by various socio-technical elements that reflect the ideals of patient-centred care, which has emerged to deliver DBS in a paediatric context.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Greenhalgh and colleagues (Greenhalgh et al. 2004) have provided a useful systematic review of these disciplines and their various perspectives on innovation.

  2. 2.

    The TRL system has been used in various initiatives aimed at scrutinising and facilitating innovation within regenerative medicine in the UK (UK Research Councils 2012), and the UK Government’s ‘Catapult’ innovation-funding agencies target their support to projects at TRL 4–6.

  3. 3.

    Although it is often the case that particular actors or groups of actors are strategically delineated as the main ‘inventor’ or ‘innovator’ – Latour has referred to this as the secondary mechanism of attribution (1987, 119).

  4. 4.

    May has also produced a freely available, online NPT toolkit to assist health professionals, managers, and other stakeholder with the adoption process. See www.normalizationprocess.org/npt-toolkit/.

  5. 5.

    A brief overview of methodology and data collection methods is described in ‘Notes’ on page 215.

Bibliography

  • Abrishami, Payam, Albert Boer, and Klasien Horstman. 2014. “Understanding the Adoption Dynamics of Medical Innovations: Affordances of the Da Vinci Robot in the Netherlands.” Social Science & Medicine 117(0): 125–133. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.07.046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antonelli, Cristiano. 2009. “The Economics of Innovation: From the Classical Legacies to the Economics of Complexity.” Economics of Innovation and New Technology 18(7): 611–646. doi: 10.1080/10438590802564543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antonelli, Cristiano, and Gianluigi Ferraris. 2011. “Innovation as an Emerging System Property: An Agent Based Simulation Model.” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 14(2): 1. doi: 10.18564/jasss.1741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baer, L., D. R. Elford, and P. Cukor. 1997. “Telepsychiatry at Forty: What Have We Learned?” Harv Rev Psychiatry 5(1): 7–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry, A. 2001. Political Machines:Governing a Technological Society. New York: Athlone Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, K. 2013. “Biomarkers, the Molecular Gaze and the Transformation of Cancer Survivorship.” Biosocieties 8(2): 124–143. doi: 10.1057/biosoc.2013.6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, N., B. Rappert, and A. Webster. 2000. Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective Techno-Science. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Consoli, Davide, and Andrea Mina. 2008. “An Evolutionary Perspective on Health Innovation Systems.” Journal of Evolutionary Economics 19(2): 297–319. doi: 10.1007/s00191-008-0127-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Laat, Bastiaan. 2000. “Scripts for the Future: Using Innovation Studies to Design Foresight Tools.” In Contested Futures, edited by N. Brown, B. Rappert, and A. Webster, 175–208. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Djellal, Faridah, and Faïz Gallouj. 2005. “Mapping Innovation Dynamics in Hospitals.” Research Policy 34(6): 817–835. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.04.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, John, and Andrew Webster. 2016. “The Social Management of Biomedical Novelty: Facilitating Translation in Regenerative Medicine.” Social Science & Medicine 156: 90–97. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.03.025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelijns, A., and N. Rosenberg. 1994. “The Dynamics of Technological Change in Medicine.” Health Aff (Millwood) 13(3): 28–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhalgh, T., G. Robert, F. Macfarlane, P. Bate, and O. Kyriakidou. 2004. “Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations: Systematic Review and Recommendations. Milbank Q 82. doi: 10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x.

  • Haynes, R. Brian. 1990. “Loose Connections Between Peer-Reviewed Clinical Journals and Clinical Practice.” Annals of Internal Medicine 113(9): 724–728. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-113-9-724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, Benjamin. 2010. The Sociology of Innovation. Cambridge MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, Michael M., Paul A. Martin, Paul Nightingale, Alison Kraft, and Surya Mahdi. 2007. “The Myth of the Biotech Revolution: An Assessment of Technological, Clinical and Organisational Change.” Research Policy 36(4): 566–589. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.02.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • House of Lords Science and Technology Committee. 2013. Regenerative Medicine Report. London: House of Lords.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joyce, Kelly A. 2006. “From Numbers to Pictures: The Development of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and the Visual Turn in Medicine.” Science as Culture 15(1): 1–22. doi: 10.1080/09505430600639322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyce, Kelly. 2008. Magnetic Appeal: MRI and the Myth of Transperancy. London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keating, P., and A. Cambrosio. 2003. Biomedical Platforms: Realigning the Normal and the Pathological in Late-Twentieth-Century Medicine. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Chapelle, C., F. Jansen, B. Pelger, and B. Mol. 2013. ““Robotchirurgie in Nederland: Hoogwaardig Bewijs Voor Effectiviteit Ontbreekt.” Ned. Tijdschr. Geneeskd 157: A515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. 1992. “Where Are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts.” In Shaping Technology, Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, edited by W. E. Bijker and J. Law, 225–258. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, John. 2009. “Actor Network Theory and Material Semiotics.” In The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, edited by B. Turner, 141–158. Hoboken NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Llewellyn, S., R. Proctor, G. Harvey, G. Maniatopoulos, and A. Boyd. 2014. “Facilitating Technology Adoption in the NHS: Negotiating the Organisational and Policy Context - a Qualitative Study.” Health Services and Delivery Research 2(23). doi: 10.3310/hsdr02230.

  • Lomas, Jonathan. 2007. “The in-Between World of Knowledge Brokering.” BMJ 334(7585): 129–132. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39038.593380.AE.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madden, Mary. 2012. “Alienating Evidence Based Medicine vs. Innovative Medical Device Marketing: A Report on the Evidence Debate at a Wounds Conference.” Social Science & Medicine 74(12): 2046–2052. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.02.026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mankins, John. 1995. Technology Readiness Levels. Office of Space Access and Technology, NASA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, Paul A. 1999. “Genes as Drugs: The Social Shaping of Gene Therapy and The Reconstruction Of Genetic Disease.” Sociology of Health & Illness 21(5): 517–538. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.00171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, Carl. 2013a. “Agency and Implementation: Understanding the Embedding of Healthcare Innovations in Practice.” Social Science & Medicine 78: 26–33. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.11.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, Carl. 2013b. “Towards a General Theory of Implementation.” Implementation Science 8(1): 1–14. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, Carl, Linda Gask, Theresa Atkinson, Nicola Ellis, Frances Mair, and Aneez Esmail. 2001. “Resisting and Promoting New Technologies in Clinical Practice: The Case of Telepsychiatry.” Social Science & Medicine 52(12): 1889–1901. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00305-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, C., T. Finch, F. Mair, L. Ballini, C. Dowrick, M. Eccles, L. Gask, A. MacFarlane, E. Murray, and T. Rapley. 2007. “Understanding the Implementation of Complex Interventions in Health Care: The Normalization Process Model.” BMC Health Serv Res 7: 142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mesman, J. 2008. Uncertainty in Medical Innovation:Experienced Pioneers in Neonatal Care. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mittra, J. 2016. The New Health Bioeconomy: R&D Policy and Innovation for the Twenty-First Century. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan US.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mittra, J., and C. Milne. 2013. “Introduction to Translational Medicine.” In Translational Medicine: The Future of Therapy, edited by J. Mittra and C Milne, 3–13. Singapore: Pan-Stanford.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mol, Annemarie. 1999. “Ontological Politics. A Word and Some Questions.” The Sociological Review 47(S1): 74-89. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.1999.tb03483.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morlacchi, Piera, and Richard R. Nelson. 2011. “How Medical Practice Evolves: Learning to Treat Failing Hearts with an Implantable Device.” Research Policy 40(4): 511–525. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morlacchi, Piera, and Richard Nelson. 2016. “The Evolution of the Left Ventricular Assist Device as a Treatment for Heart favour.” In Medical Innovation: Science, technology and practice, edited by David Consoli, Andrea Mina, Richard Nelson, and Ronnie Ramlogan, 48–68. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasveer, Bernike. 1989. “Knowledge of Shadows: The Introduction of X-Ray Images in Medicine.” Sociology of Health & Illness 11(4): 360–381. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.ep11373066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickstone, J. V. 2001. Ways of Knowing: A New History of Science, Technology, and Medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regenerative Medicine Expert Group. 2015. Building on our own Potential: A UK Pathway for Regenerative Medicine. London: Department of Health.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schot, Johan, and Frank W. Geels. 2007. “Niches in Evolutionary Theories of Technical Change.” Journal of Evolutionary Economics 17(5): 605–622. doi: 10.1007/s00191-007-0057-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, Herbert. 1979. “Rational Decision Making in Business Organizations.” American Economic Review 69(4): 493–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, Susan Leigh, and Anselm Strauss. 1999. “Layers of Silence, Arenas of Voice: The Ecology of Visible and Invisible Work.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 8(1): 9–30. doi: 10.1023/a:1008651105359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomlin, Zelda, Susan Peirce, Glyn Elwyn, and Alex Faulkner. 2013. The Adoption Space of Early-Emerging Technologies: Evaluation, Innovation, Gatekeeping (PATH). Final report. Edited by NIHR Service Delivery and Organisation programme.

    Google Scholar 

  • UK Research Councils. 2012. A Strategy for UK Regenerative Medicine. London: Medical Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulucanlar, S., A. Faulkner, S. Peirce, and G. Elwyn. 2013. “Technology Identity: The Role of Sociotechnical Representations in the Adoption of Medical Devices.” Social Science & Medicine 98: 95–105. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.09.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yarnold, J. 2009. “Early and Locally Advanced Breast Cancer: Diagnosis and Treatment National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Guideline 2009.” Clinical Oncology 21(3): 159–160. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2008.12.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Social Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

    John Gardner

Authors
  1. John Gardner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gardner, J. (2017). Understanding Innovation and the Problem of Technology Adoption. In: Rethinking the Clinical Gaze. Health, Technology and Society. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53270-7_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53270-7_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-53269-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-53270-7

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation