From “More Innovation” to “Better Innovation”?

Sebastian Pfotenhauer

doi:10.17351/ests2023.1365

Sebastian Pfotenhauer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2023.1365

Abstract

This paper departs from the observation that there seems to be a new appetite for critique and reflexivity in innovation policy and innovation studies (IS), owed in part to an abundance of recent innovation controversies. In what follows, I offer a cautiously optimistic take on what this new appetite means for STS’s relationship with mainstream innovation settings and why STS knowledge seems to be particularly en vogue right now. I explore three basic STS messages that have gained wider traction in mainstream innovation circles and that many actors not trained in STS now readily embrace: on the politics of technology, the politics of experimentation, and the work needed to situate innovation practices locally. Whether or not this new appetite for STS remains, as it were, primarily instrumental, it nevertheless opens up new opportunities for wider critical engagement and impact, and perhaps a stronger institutionalization of the field of STS.

References

Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. First Edition. Translated from German by Mark Ritter. London, England, Newbury Park, California, and New Delhi, India: SAGE Publications.

Birch, Kean, and D. T. Cochrane. 2022. “Big Tech: Four Emerging Forms of Digital Rentiership.” Science as Culture 31(1): 44–58.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2021.1932794.

Delvenne, Pierre, and François Thoreau. 2012. “Beyond the ‘Charmed Circle’ of OECD: New Directions for Studies of National Innovation Systems.” Minerva 50(2): 205–219.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-012-9195-5.

Engels, Franziska, Alexander Wentland, and Sebastian M. Pfotenhauer. 2019. “Testing Future Societies? Developing a Framework for Test Beds and Living Labs as Instruments of Innovation Governance.” Research Policy 48(9): 1–11.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103826.

Frahm, Nina M., Tess Doezema, and Sebastian M. Pfotenhauer. 2021. “Fixing Technology with Society: The Coproduction of Democratic Deficits and Responsible Innovation at the OECD and the European Commission.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 47(1): 174–216.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243921999100.

Frahm, Nina M. 2022. Soft Constitutions: Co-Producing Neuro-Innovation and Society in the US, EU, and OECD. PhD Dissertation. Technical University of Munich.

Gieryn, Thomas F. 2006. “City as Truth-Spot: Laboratories and Field-Sites in Urban Studies.” Social Studies of Science 36(1): 5–38.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25474429.

Haddad, Christian, and Maximilian Benner. 2021. “Situating Innovation Policy in Mediterranean Arab Countries: A Research Agenda for Context Sensitivity.” Research Policy 50(7): 1–12.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104273.

Hilgartner, Stephen, Barbara Prainsack, and J Benjamin Hurlbut. 2017. “Ethics as governance in genomics and beyond.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by Ulrike Felt, Fouche Rayvon, Clark A. Miller, Laurel Smith-Doerr, 823–51. Fourth Edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hurlbut, J. Benjamin. 2017. Experiments in Democracy: Human Embryo Research and the Politics of Bioethics. New York: Columbia University Press.

Irwin, Alan. 2006. “The Politics of Talk: Coming to Terms with the ‘New’ Scientific Governance.” Social Studies of Science 36(2): 299–320.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312706053350.

Irwin, Alan. 2023. “STS and Innovation: Borderlands, Regenerations and Critical Engagements.” Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 9(2): 41–56.

https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2023.1363.

Irwin, Alan, Jane Bjørn Vedel, and Signe Vikkelsø. 2021. “Isomorphic Difference: Familiarity and Distinctiveness in National Research and Innovation Policies.” Research Policy 50(4): 1–9.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104220.

Joly, Pierre-Benoit, Arie Rip, and Michel Callon. 2010. “Re-inventing Innovation.” In Governance of Innovation: Firms, Clusters and Institutions in a Changing Setting, edited by Maarten J. Arentsen, Wouter van Rossum, and Albert E. Steenge, 19–32. Edward Elgar Publishing. Accessed March 4, 2016.

https://ideas.repec.org/h/elg/eechap/13020_2.html.

Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1995. “Laboratory Studies: The Cultural Approach to the Study of Science.” In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Peterson, and Trevor Pinch. Second Edition. London, England: Sage.

https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412990127.

Kuhlmann, Stefan, Stegmaier Peter, and Kornelia Konrad. 2019. “The Tentative Governance of Emerging Science and Technology—A Conceptual Introduction.” Research Policy 48(5): 1091–1097.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.01.006.

Latour, Bruno. 1983. “Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the World.” In Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, edited by Karin Knorr-Cetina and Michael J. Mulkay, 141–170. London, England: Sage Publications.

Laurent, Brice. 2017. Democratic Experiments: Problematizing Nanotechnology and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10580.001.0001.

Laurent, Brice, Liliana Doganova, Clément Gasull, and Fabian Muniesa. 2021. “The Test Bed Island: Tech Business Experimentalism and Exception in Singapore.” Science as Culture 30(3): 367–390.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2021.1888909.

Marres, Noortje. 2020. “Co-Existence or Displacement: Do Street Trials of Intelligent Vehicles Test Society?” The British Journal of Sociology 71(3): 537–555.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12730.

Martin, Ben R., Paul Nightingale, and Alfredo Yegros-Yegros. 2012. “Science and Technology Studies: Exploring the Knowledge Base.” Research Policy 41(7): 1182–1204.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.010.

Niewöhner, Jörg. 2016. “Co-Laborative Anthropology: Crafting Reflexivities Experimentally.” In Ethnological Interpretation and Analysis: Towards a Transparent Research Process, edited by Jukka Joukhi and Tytti Steel, 81–25. Helsinki: Ethnos.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2019. OECD Recommendation on Responsible Innovation in Neurotechnology. Adopted on December 11, 2019. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Accessed March 30, 2020.

https://www.oecd.org/science/recommendation-on-responsible-innovation-in-neurotechnology.htm.

Owen, Richard, Mario Pansera, Phil Macnaghten, et al. 2021. “Organisational Institutionalisation of Responsible Innovation”. Research Policy 50(1): 1–13.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104132.

Pfotenhauer, Sebastian M., and Sheila Jasanoff. 2017. “Panacea or Diagnosis? Imaginaries of Innovation and The ‘MIT Model’ in Three Political Cultures.” Social Studies of Science 47(6): 783–810.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312717706110.

Pfotenhauer, Sebastian M., and Joakim Juhl. 2017. “Innovation and the Political State: Beyond the Myth of Technologies and Markets.” In Critical Studies of Innovation: Alternative Approaches to the Pro-Innovation Bias, edited by Benoît Godin and Dominique Vinck, 68–94. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar. 68–94.

https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785367229.00012.

Pfotenhauer, Sebastian M., Joakim Juhl, and Erik Aarden. 2019. “Challenging the ‘Deficit Model’ of Innovation: Framing Policy Issues under the Innovation Imperative.” Research Policy 48(4): 895–904.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.015.

Pfotenhauer, Sebastian M., Nina Frahm, David Winickoff, et al. 2021. “Mobilizing the Private Sector for Responsible Innovation in Neurotechnology.” Nature Biotechnology 39(6): 661–664.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-00947-y.

Pfotenhauer, Sebastian M., Brice Laurent, Kyriaki Papageorgiou, and Jack Stilgoe. 2021. “The Politics of Scaling.” Social Studies of Science 52(1): 3–34.

https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127211048945.

Pfotenhauer, Sebastian M., Alexander Wentland, and Luise Ruge. 2023. “Understanding Regional Innovation Cultures: Narratives, Directionality, and Conservative Innovation in Bavaria.” Research Policy 52(3): 1–18.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104704.

Pinch, Trevor. 1993. “‘Testing - One, Two, Three . . . Testing!’: Toward a Sociology of Testing.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 18(1): 25–41.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/689699.

Rabinow, Paul, and Gaymon Bennett. 2012. Designing Human Practices: An Experiment with Synthetic Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Schot, Johan, and W. Edward Steinmueller. 2018. “Three Frames for Innovation Policy: R&D, Systems of Innovation and Transformative Change.” Research Policy 47(9): 1554–1567.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011.

Shapin, Steven, and Simon Schaffer. 1985. Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Shelley-Egan, Clare, Diana M. Bowman, and Douglas K. R. Robinson. 2018. “Devices of Responsibility: Over a Decade of Responsible Research and Innovation Initiatives for Nanotechnologies.” Science and Engineering Ethics 24(6): 1719–1746.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9978-z.

Stilgoe, Jack, Richard Owen, and Phil Macnaghten. 2013. “Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation.” Research Policy 42(9): 1568–1580.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008.

Stirling, Andrew. 2008. “‘Opening Up’ and ‘Closing Down’: Power, Participation, and Pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology.” Science, Technology & Human Values 33(2): 262–294.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907311265.

Tennant, Chris, and Jack Stilgoe. 2021. “The Attachments of ‘Autonomous’ Vehicles.” Social Studies of Science 51(6): 846–870.

https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127211038752.

Viseu, Ana. 2015. “Caring for Nanotechnology? Being an Integrated Social Scientist.” Social Studies of Science 45(5): 642–664.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312715598666.

Webster, Andrew. 2007. “Crossing Boundaries Social Science in the Policy Room.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 32(4): 458–478.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907301004.

Winickoff, David E., and Sebastian M. Pfotenhauer. 2018. “Technology Governance and the Innovation Process.” In OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2018: Adapting to Technological and Societal Disruption, 221–240. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.

https://doi.org/10.1787/sti_in_outlook-2018-en.