Governing beyond the project: Refocusing innovation governance in emerging science and technology funding.

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Social Studies of Science Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-16 DOI:10.1177/03063127231205043
Robert Dj Smith, Stefan Schäfer, Michael J Bernstein
{"title":"Governing beyond the project: Refocusing innovation governance in emerging science and technology funding.","authors":"Robert Dj Smith, Stefan Schäfer, Michael J Bernstein","doi":"10.1177/03063127231205043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article analyses how a recent idiom of innovation governance, 'responsible innovation', is enacted in practice, how this shapes innovation processes, and what aspects of innovation are left untouched. Within this idiom, funders typically focus on one point in an innovation system: researchers in projects. However, the more transformational aspirations of responsible innovation are circumscribed by this context. Adopting a mode of critique that assembles, this article considers some alternative approaches to governing the shared trajectories of science, technology, and society. Using the idea of institutional invention to focus innovation governance on four inflection points-agendas, calls, spaces, evaluation-would allow funding organizations and researchers to look 'beyond the project', developing new methods to unpack and reflect on assumed purposes of science, technology, and innovation, and to potentially reconfigure the institutions that condition scientific practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":51152,"journal":{"name":"Social Studies of Science","volume":" ","pages":"377-404"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11118785/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Studies of Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127231205043","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article analyses how a recent idiom of innovation governance, 'responsible innovation', is enacted in practice, how this shapes innovation processes, and what aspects of innovation are left untouched. Within this idiom, funders typically focus on one point in an innovation system: researchers in projects. However, the more transformational aspirations of responsible innovation are circumscribed by this context. Adopting a mode of critique that assembles, this article considers some alternative approaches to governing the shared trajectories of science, technology, and society. Using the idea of institutional invention to focus innovation governance on four inflection points-agendas, calls, spaces, evaluation-would allow funding organizations and researchers to look 'beyond the project', developing new methods to unpack and reflect on assumed purposes of science, technology, and innovation, and to potentially reconfigure the institutions that condition scientific practice.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
项目之外的治理:重新聚焦新兴科技资助的创新治理。
本文分析了创新治理的最新习语“负责任的创新”是如何在实践中实施的,它如何塑造创新过程,以及创新的哪些方面未被触及。在这个成语中,资助者通常关注创新系统中的一点:项目中的研究人员。然而,负责任的创新更具变革性的愿望受到这种背景的限制。本文采用集合的批判模式,考虑了一些管理科学、技术和社会共享轨迹的替代方法。利用制度发明的思想将创新治理集中在四个拐点上——议程、呼吁、空间、评估——将使资助组织和研究人员能够“超越项目”,开发新的方法来解读和反思科学、技术和创新的假定目的,并有可能重新配置制约科学实践的制度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Social Studies of Science
Social Studies of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
45
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Studies of Science is an international peer reviewed journal that encourages submissions of original research on science, technology and medicine. The journal is multidisciplinary, publishing work from a range of fields including: political science, sociology, economics, history, philosophy, psychology social anthropology, legal and educational disciplines. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
期刊最新文献
Virtual diversity and the value-ladenness of science Silence of the labs. The commercial roots of the genomic commons From the bench to public policy: Enhancing public trust in science. Making expert advice public in a time of emergency: Independent SAGE and the contestation of science during the Covid pandemic in the UK.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1