Abstract
Innovation is presented as the solution to address grand societal challenges. Taking this new policy motto seriously requires to renew the dominant imaginary of innovation defined by a series of attributes—technology centeredness, market relatedness, competition, entrepreneurialism, diffusion, exclusivity and creative destruction—and above all by the belief that innovation is always good. To contribute to such an endeavour, this paper starts with the discussion of five innovation myths. This discussion of deep rooted beliefs that condition a narrow understanding of innovation and innovation policies is crucial for reimagining innovation. The presentation of three literature streams (Democratising innovation, Responsible innovation, Transformative change) that currently feed the innovation renewal allows consideration of explorations in academia as well as in public policy. A re-imagination and re-invention of innovation is underway, and this dynamic is constituted of different actors from different traditions but still has some limitations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Needless to quote the U.S. president George H. W. Bush: “The American way of life is not up for negotiation”.
- 2.
- 3.
This section draws on Joly (2017).
- 4.
Such an imaginary draws on a strong link between innovation and progress. For an inspiring discussion of this link, see Oki (2019).
- 5.
For an interesting challenge of the myth of the linear model, see Edgerton (2004). Against this, Sarewitz (2016) demonstrates that the linear model is not only a contemporary invention but that it has had a central place in the imaginary of scientific institutions and innovation policies since WWII.
- 6.
Among the various examples he gives, the discovery of thermodynamics is probably among the most emblematic: “Sadi Carnot’s remarkable accomplishment in creating the science of thermodynamics was an attempt of the attempt, a half century or so after Watt’s great innovation, to understand what determined the efficiency of steam engines” (Rosenberg 1982: 142).
- 7.
Oslo Manual: “An innovation is the implementation of a new or significantly improved product (good or service). A product innovation is the introduction of a good or service. A process innovation is the implementation of a new or significantly improved production or delivery method.” (OECD 2005).
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
Robert Boyer (2019) shows that innovation in healthcare is not merely determined by technological changes since it is conditioned by institutional arrangements.
- 11.
This section draws on Joly (2016).
- 12.
To learn more about outnovation, one can refer to the analysis of the governance of discontinuation of socio-technical systems. See the DiscGo project and the contribution of Stegmaier et al. (2014).
- 13.
Professor of Economics at University College London, she is an advocate of the role of the State in innovation policy.
- 14.
For a recent comprehensive analysis of the role of users and distributed innovation, cf. Hyysalo et al. (eds.) (2016).
References
Arthur, B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-ins by historical events. The Economic Journal, 99(394), 116–131.
Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Oakland: University of California Press.
Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bijker, W., Hugh, T., & Pinch, T. (1987). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (p. 1987). Cambridge, MA; London: MIT press.
Bonneuil, C., Demeulenaere, E., Thomas, F., Joly, P. B., Allaire, G., & Goldringer, I. (2006). Innover autrement? La recherche agronomique face à l’avènement d’un nouveau régime de production et régulation des savoirs en génétique végétale. Courrier de l’Environnement de l’INRA, 30, pp. 29–52.
Borras, S., & Edler, J. (Eds.). (2014). The governance of socio-technical systems (pp. 111–131). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Boyer, R. (2019). How scientific breakthroughs and social innovations shape the evolution of the healthcare sector. In S. Lechevalier (Ed.), Innovation beyond technology (pp. 89–119). Berlin: Springer.
Bozeman, B., & Sarewitz, D. (2011). Public value mapping and science policy evaluation. Minerva, 49, 1–23.
Callon, M. (1981). Pour une sociologie des controverses socio-techniques. Fundamenta Scientiae, 2(3/4), 381–399.
Callon, M. (1994). Is science a public good? Science, Technology and Human Values, 19(4), 395–424.
Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy. Cambridge, MA, USA; London, UK: MIT Press.
Cohen, D., & Todd, J. M. (2018). The infinite desire for growth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Collingridge, D. (1980). The social construction of technology. London: Frances Pinter.
Cowan, R. (1990). Nuclear power reactors: A study in technological lock-in. The Journal of Economic History, 50(3), 541–567.
David, P. (1986). Understanding the economics of QWERTY: The necessity of history. In W. Parker (Ed.), Economic history and the modern economist. New York: Basil Blackwell.
Dewey, J. (2013). The problems of value. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 10(1913), 268–269.
Edgerton, D. (2004). ‘The linear model’ did not exist: Reflections on the history and historiography of science and research in industry in the twentieth century. In K. Grandin & N. Wormbs (Eds.), The science-industry nexus: History, policy, implications. New York: Watson.
Edgerton, D. (2006). The shock of the Old: Technology and global history since 1900. London: Profile Books.
Fagerberg, J., & Verspagen, B. (2009). Innovation studies—The emerging structure of a new scientific field. Research Policy, 38, 218–233.
Freeman, C., & Louca, F. (2001). As times goes by. From the industrial revolutions to the information revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fujigaki, Y. (2019). Lessons from Fukushima for responsible innovation: How to construct a new relationship between science and society? In S. Lechevalier (Ed.), Innovation beyond technology (pp. 223–239). Berlin: Springer.
Gallie, W. B. (1955). Essentially contested concepts. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (New Series, Vol. 56 (1955–1956), pp. 167–198).
Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31, 1257–1274.
Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36, 399–417.
Godin, B. (2006). The linear model of innovation: The historical construction of an analytical framework. Science Technology & Human Values, 31(6), 639–667.
Godin, B. (2015). Innovation: A conceptual history of an anonymous concept. WP available on www.csiic.ca.
Goulet, F., & Vinck, D. (2012). Innovation through withdrawal contribution to a sociology of detachment. Revue française de sociologie (English Edition), 53(2), 117–146.
Guston, D. (2004). Forget politicizing science: Let’s democratize science! cspo.org/ourlibrary/articles/DemocratizeScience.htm.
Hyysalo, S., Jensen, T. E., & Oudshoorn, N. (Eds.). (2016). The new production of users changing innovation collectives and involvement strategies. New York: Routledge.
Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of knowledge. The coproduction of science and social order. New York: Routledge.
Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S. H. (2015). Dreamscapes of modernity. Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Joly, P. B. (2015). Governing emerging technologies—The need to think outside the (black) box. In S. Hilgartner, C. Miller, & R. Hagendijk (Eds.), Science and democracy: Knowledge as wealth and power in the biosciences and beyond. New York: Routledge.
Joly, P. B. (2016). «Verrouillage socio-technique et transition écologique». In D. Bourg & D. Medda (Eds.), Transitions écologiques. Paris: Institut Veblen.
Joly, P. B. (2017). Beyond the competitiveness framework? Models of innovation revisited. Journal of Economics and Management of Innovation, 1(22), 79–96.
Joly, P. B., Matt, M., Gaunand, A., Colinet, L., Larédo, P., & Lemarié, S. (2015). ASIRPA: A comprehensive theory-based approach to assess societal impacts of a research organization. Research Evaluation, 24(4), 440–453.
Joly, P. B., Rip, A., & Callon, M. (2010). Re-inventing innovation. In M. J. Arentsen, W. van Rossum, & A. E. Steenge (Eds.), Governance of innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Kline, S. J., & Rosenberg, N. (1986). An overview of innovation. In R. Landau & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), The positive sum strategy: Harnessing technology for economic growth (pp. 275–305). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Mazzucato, M. (2015). From market fixing to market-creating: A new framework for economic policy. University of Sussex Working Paper Series. SWPS 2015-25 (September).
OECD. (2005). Oslo manual. Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data (3rd ed.). OECD & Statistical Office of the European Communities.
Oki, S. (2019). ‘Innovation’ as an adaptation of ‘Progress’: Revisiting the epistemological and historical contexts of these terms. In S. Lechevalier (Ed.), Innovation beyond technology (pp. 47–62). Berlin: Springer.
Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39, 751–760.
Paillard, S., Tréyer, S., & Dorin, B. (2014). Agrimonde: Scenarios and challenges for feeding the world in 2050 (p. 295). Versailles: Quae.
Perez, C. (2002). Technological revolutions and financial capital. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Pestre, D. (2019). Environment and social innovation: Why technology never was the solution. In S. Lechevalier (Ed.), Innovation beyond technology (pp. 175–194). Berlin: Springer.
Piketty, T. (2013). Capital in the twenty-first century. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Pollock, N., Williams, R., & D’Adderio, L. (2016). Generification as a strategy: How software producers configure products, manage user communities and segment markets. In S. Hyysalo, T. E. Jensen, & N. Oudshoorn (Eds.), The new production of users changing innovation collectives and involvement strategies (pp. 287–334). New York: Routledge.
Prahalad, C. K. (2005). Fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: Eradicating poverty through profits. Philadelphia: Wharton School Publishing.
Rabeharisoa, V., & Callon, M. (2004). Patients and scientists in French muscular dystrophy research. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge. The co-production of science and social order (pp. 142–160). New York: Routledge.
Rayner, S. (2012). Uncomfortable knowledge: The social construction of ignorance in science and environmental policy discourses. Economy and Society, 41(1), 107–125.
Reinert, H., & Reinert, E. (2006). Creative destruction in economics: Nietzsche, Sombart, Schumpeter. In J. Backhaus & W. Drechsler (Eds.), Friedrich Nietzsche 1844–2000: economy and society. Series The European heritage in economics and the social sciences. Kluwer: Boston.
Rip, A. (1986). Controversies as informal technology assessment. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 8(2), 349–371.
Rip, A., & Kemp, R. (1998). Technological change. Battelle Press.
Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T. M., Galetti, M., Alamgir, M., Crist, E., et al. (2017). World scientists’ warning to humanity: A second notice. BioScience, 67(12), 1026–1028.
Rosenberg, N. (1982). Inside the black box. Technology and economics. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press.
Sarewitz, D. (2016). Saving science. The New Atlantis, Spring-Summer, 5–30.
Schot, J., & Steinmueller, E. (2016). Framing innovation policy for transformative change: Innovation policy 3.0. Brighton: SPRU, Draft, 4/9/2016.
Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Slade, G. (2009). Made to break. Technology and obsolescence in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Soete, L. (2013). Is innovation always good? In J. Fagerberg, B. R. Martin, & E. S. Andersen (Eds.), Innovation studies—Evolution and future challenges (pp. 134–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42, 1568–1580.
Stegmaier, P., Kuhlmann, S., & Visser, V. R. (2014). The discontinuation of socio-technical systems as a governance proble. In S. Borras & J. Edler (Eds.), The governance of socio-technical systems (pp. 111–131). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Stirling, A. (2008). ‘Opening up’ and ‘closing down’ power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology and Human Values, 33(2), 262–294.
Stirling, A. (2009). Direction, distribution, diversity! Pluralising Progress in Innovation, Sustainability and Development. STEPS Centre, University of Sussex, STEPS Working Paper 32.
Subramanian, K. (2015). Revisiting the green revolution: Irrigation and food production in twentieth-century India (Ph.D. dissertation). London: King’ College, .
Tancoigne, E., Randles, S., & Joly, P. B. (forthcoming). RRI (Responsible Research and Innovation) as a new discursive space for science and society.
Van de Ven, A. H. (2016). The innovation journey: You can’t control it, but you can learn to maneuver it. Innovation. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2016.1256780.
von Hippel, E. (1988). The sources of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
von Hippel, E. (2004). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
von Schomberg, R. (2011). Towards responsible research and innovation in the information and communication technologies and security technologies fields. In R. von Schomberg (Ed.), Towards responsible research and innovation in the information and communication technologies and security technologies fields (pp. 7–16). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Wiskerke, J. S. C., & van der Ploeg, J. D. (Eds.). (2004). Seeds of transition. Essays on novelty production, niches and regimes in agriculture. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum.
Wisman, H. (2015). Par delà le Progrès: les paradoxes de l’innovation. Paris: Conférence IHEST. https://www.ihest.fr/.
Acknowledgements
I am very grateful to the editors of this book and to my colleagues at LISIS, Evelyne Lhoste, Doug Robinson and Bruno Turnheim, for very helpful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Joly, PB. (2019). Reimagining Innovation. In: Lechevalier, S. (eds) Innovation Beyond Technology. Creative Economy. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9053-1_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9053-1_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-9052-4
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-9053-1
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)