2019
DOI: 10.1007/s11024-019-09375-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Enhancing Socio-technical Governance: Targeting Inequality in Innovation Through Inclusivity Mainstreaming

Abstract: Socio-technical governance has been of long-standing interest to science and technology studies and science policy studies. Recent calls for midstream modulation direct attention to a more complicated model of innovation, and a new place for social scientists to intervene in research, design and development. This paper develops and expands this earlier work to demonstrate how a suite of concepts from science and technology studies and innovation studies can be used as a heuristic tool to conduct realtime evalu… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 68 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The approach is based on the idea that social and ecological elements are intertwined in complex and adaptive ways: in some cases, it is possible to identify different, interacting parts whose configuration might be more or less desirable and amenable to change (see Berkes 2017). In particular, this approach has often been used to interpret complex problems where societal, technical and ecological problems interact (Williams and Woodson 2019) and to envision governance solutions (Borràs and Edler 2014) or to change them in more just directions (Salomon et al 2019).…”
Section: Resilient Socioeconomic Unsustainability and Its Effects On ...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The approach is based on the idea that social and ecological elements are intertwined in complex and adaptive ways: in some cases, it is possible to identify different, interacting parts whose configuration might be more or less desirable and amenable to change (see Berkes 2017). In particular, this approach has often been used to interpret complex problems where societal, technical and ecological problems interact (Williams and Woodson 2019) and to envision governance solutions (Borràs and Edler 2014) or to change them in more just directions (Salomon et al 2019).…”
Section: Resilient Socioeconomic Unsustainability and Its Effects On ...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Institutions are structured in ways that limit participation in science and technological innovation to powerful social groups (Harding, 1992;Woodhouse and Sarewitz, 2007;Cozzens, 2008;Williams and Woodson, 2019). Actors maintain the path dependence of knowledge production systems by drawing narrow boundaries around epistemological content (Burke and Heynen, 2014, p. 12), as well as by presuming people from marginalized identity groups are incompetent (Muhs et al, 2012).…”
Section: Future Challenges To Achieving Justice: Overcoming Institutimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Technologists and companies disproportionately imagine privileged users and design products and services for them (Williams and Woodson, 2019). For example, a visually impaired engineering undergraduate student had to challenge discriminatory practices built around the epistemology of collecting and processing data using instruments (Slaton, 2013).…”
Section: Future Challenges To Achieving Justice: Overcoming Institutimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The conclusion one could therefore draw from Lehoux et al’s paper is that it calls for an entire research programme to understand the research and innovation life cycle and ecosystem to determine how the system-level outcomes described in the paper can be achieved and responsible innovation can be realised. Such research has already begun (see, for example, Williams and Woodson 15 ) but will require significant efforts to come to fruition.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%