A retrospective analysis of responsible innovation for low-technology innovation in the Global South

Abstract

The role of low-technology innovation in addressing global challenges is undervalued. Responsible innovation (RI) has the potential to direct lowtechnology innovation toward global challenges in the Global South, yet this possibility remains largely unexplored. Through a retrospective analysis, this article explores how researchers grapple with dimensions of an RI framework in a research project and highlights key areas for researchers to consider when involved with lowtechnology innovation in a development context. The analysis demonstrates that RI can structure discussion and create space for anticipation, reflection and engagement with stakeholders. However, even when researchers are committed to the idea of RI, it is difficult to enact in practice. Although RI places significant emphasis on inclusive and meaningful engagement as imagined by codevelopment and inclusive models of innovation, the deficit model of public engagement presents a formidable barrier. Surprisingly, low-technology innovators are likely to face the same struggles as high technology innovators with regards to engagement that allows end-users to shape the technology which may ultimately benefit them.

Public engagement in contested political contexts: reflections on the role of recursive reflexivity in responsible innovation

“…They are also set within a moment in which the imperative is urgent to address power dynamics, exclusions, and structural injustices that both shape innovation and within which new innovations get taken up. As scholars have repeatedly noted, RI frameworks and accompanying capacities, such as public engagements, have primarily focused on the global North (Macnaghten et al 2014;Wong 2016;De Campos et al 2017;Doezema et al 2019;Hartley et al 2019;Reyes-Galindo, Monteiro, and Macnaghten 2019). This special issue continues to bring much needed attention to contexts within the global South where priorities for RI and modes of knowledge production may offer new contexts.…”

“…This issue explores the imperatives and limitations of RI in light of reflections on asymmetries, in what we are calling the 'recursive reflexivity' of responsible innovation. While the well-known 'AIRR' framework of anticipation, inclusion, responsiveness, and reflexivity (Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013) remains a key approach to RI, these very same dimensions of praxis can be continually taken upas RI scholars have already done (De Hoop, Pols, and Romijn 2016;Brand and Blok 2019;Hartley et al 2019)-to interrogate RI on both theoretical and pragmatic levels. Stilgoe et al define reflexivity at the institutional level as ' … holding a mirror up to one's own activities, commitments and assumptions, being aware of the limits of knowledge and being mindful that a particular framing of an issue may not be universally held ' (2013, 1570).…”

Difficulty and doability enacting responsible innovation

“…In addition, they suggest, 'Citizen involvement could … be used to disrupt traditional agenda setting and thereby contribute to change and diversity as well as accentuate a shift away from technological emphasis. ' Hartley et al (2019), in the second research article, also seek to disrupt traditional conceptions of technology. Noting that the potential for low-technology research and innovation 'is often undervalued in the dominant assumption that high-technology innovation will drive economic development,' the authors explore the role of RI in building capacities for appropriate technology responses to development challenges in the Global South.…”

Learning from failure

“…Of the various inspirations, neighbors, and predecessors of responsible innovatione.g. technology assessment (van Lente, Swierstra, and Joly 2017), sustainable development (Stirling 2016), appropriate technology (Hartley et al 2019) -ITE has received less recognition and attention (cf. Woodhouse 2016).…”