A Tale of Two Perspectives on Innovation and Global Equity
Abstract
Both science and technology studies (STS) and innovation studies (IS) see great promise for technology to address global inequality, but they view it quite differently. This article compares the two approaches and examines whether and how they might learn from one another to achieve social equity and justice. To do this, I focus on the case of menstrual health innovation in India, an intervention highly praised as a clear example of potentially transformative “inclusive innovation.” The article argues that IS would benefit from understanding innovation as a sociotechnical system and taking the political dimensions seriously. Meanwhile, we STS scholars should learn to translate our grassroots-based, locally-sensitive solutions to policymakers oriented towards scalability.
References
Data Availability
Data published in this issue can be accessed in STS Infrastructures at: https://n2t.net/ark:/81416/p4ds3n.
References
Balki, R. 2018. Padman. Film. 140 min. Los Angeles, LA: Columbia Pictures.
Birtchnell, Thomas. 2011. “Jugaad as Systemic Risk and Disruptive Innovation in India.” Contemporary South Asia. 19(4): 357–372.
Costanza-Chock, Sasha. 2020. Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Development Innovation Ventures. 2022. Development Innovation Ventures. Accessed July 23, 2022.
Elyachar, Julia. 2012. “Next Practices: Knowledge, Infrastructure, and Public Goods at the Bottom of the Pyramid.” Public Culture 24(1): 109–129.
Gandhi, M. K. 1960. Village Industries. Ahmedabad, Gujarat: Navijivan Publishing House.
Gupta, Anil K., R. Sinha, D. Koradia, et al. 2003. “Mobilizing Grassroots’ Technological Innovations and Traditional Knowledge, Values and Institutions: Articulating Social and Ethical Capital.” Futures: The Journal of Policy, Planning and Futures Studies 35: 975-987.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(03)00053-3.
Irani, Lilly. 2019. Chasing Innovation: Making Entrepreneurial Citizens in Modern India. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
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.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2004. States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order. New York: Routledge.
Kuraishi, Mari. 2010. “Development Marketplace: A Silicon Valley for Development.” Development Outreach 12(1): 19–21.
Moeller, Kathryn. 2018. The Gender Effect: Capitalism, Feminism, and the Corporate Politics of Development. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Okerlund, Johanna, Evan Klasky, Aditya Middha, Sujin Kim, et. al. 2022. What’s in the Chatterbox? Large Language Models, Why They Matter, and What We Should Do About Them. Accessed July 23, 2022.
https://stpp.fordschool.umich.edu/research/research-report/whats-in-the-chatterbox.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2015. Innovation Policies and Inclusive Growth. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
Oudshoorn, Nelly and Pinch, Trevor, eds. 2003. How Users Matter: The Co-construction of Users and Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Parthasarathy, Shobita. 2017. “Grassroots Innovation Systems for a Post-Carbon World: Promoting Economic Democracy, Environmental Sustainability, and the Public Interest.” Brooklyn Law Review 82(2): 761–787.
⸻. 2023. “Can Innovation Serve the Public Good?” Boston Review July 6.
⸻. 2022. “How Sanitary Pads Came to Save the World: Knowing Inclusive Innovation through Science and the Marketplace.” Social Studies of Science
https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127221122457.
Prahalad, C. K. 2005. The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty through Profits. Upper Saddle, N. J.: Wharton School Publishing.
Prahalad, C. K., and Stuart L. Hart. 2002. “The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid.” Strategy + Business 26. Accessed July 23, 2022.
https://www.strategy-business.com/article/11518.
Rajan, Prashant. 2021. “Making When Ends Don’t Meet: Articulation Work and Visibility of Domestic Labor During Do-It-Yourself (DIY) Innovation on the Margins.” Technical Communication Quarterly 30 (4): 315–330.
Schot, Johan, and Arie Rip. 1997. “The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54(2–3): 251–268.
Silbey, Jessica. 2014. The Eureka Myth: Creators, Innovators, and Everyday Intellectual Property. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Sharma, Aviram. 2020. “‘We Do Not Want Fake Energy: The Social Shaping of a Solar Micro-Grid in Rural India.” Science, Technology, and Society 25(2): 308–324.
Smith Adrian, Fressoli Mariano, Abrol Dinesh, Arond Elisa, et al. 2016. Grassroots Innovation Movements. New York: Routledge.
Stilgoe, Jack, Richard Owen, and Phil Macnaghten. 2013. “Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation.” Research Policy 42(9): 1568–1580.
VillGro. 2022. About Us. Website. Accessed July 20, 2022.
Winner, Langdon. 1986. The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Zehtabchi, Rayka. 2018. “Period. End of Sentence.” Documentary Short Film. 25 min. Los Angeles, CA: The Pad Project.
Copyright (c) 2023 Shobita Parthasarathy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors of all content published in ESTS retain the copyright to their work, and agree to license them under one of the following Creative Commons licenses CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, CC BY 4.0, CC BY-SA 4.0, and refer to the individual article footer for specific licensing data. Please read our open access policy for more information.
