Overview of National Sociotechnical Imaginaries

Abstract

In this Chapter, we give an overview of national STI imaginaries by country. We provide information on policy structure and policy culture, and other aspects of national discourses and practices that are relevant to our study. Keywords Sociotechnical imaginaries • Responsible research and innovation • STI policy goals • STI framing • Administrative style • Public participation 7.1 Australia Characteristic of the Australian STI imaginary is that its science and innovation systems are relatively separate. There is the political ambition to move the innovation system towards a 'systems of innovation' model to strengthen the economy, but there is a lack of effective intermediaries, and of incentives for actors in the STI system to collaborate. Particular to this imaginary is attention to the inclusion of marginalised groups to increase their welfare and economic productivity. The STI system seems to be aligned with the 'science for society' model and an accompanying 'deficit model' of science communication. However, it is pushed in the direction of the 'systems of innovation' model by policy-makers intent on increasing publicprivate collaborations, and in the direction of the 'RRI model', because of attention to inclusion of marginalised groups and a realisation of the challenges this offers for non-localised research. These different directions are not necessarily in tension, as inclusion is also considered important in the innovation system. Another characteristic of the Australian STI imaginary is the reason for public distrust in science. While many nations struggle with this phenomenon, the reason given in various national reports is scientific contributions to controversial technologies, such as nuclear energy or GMOs. The Australia report (Sehic and Ashworth 2018) claims that it is rather because of scientific contributions to an economy based on the resource-intensive sectors of industrial agriculture and mineral extraction, in a country characterised by water scarcity and fragile ecosystems. Here, it is thus not so much the technologies themselves, but the fit of the technologies with the local environment that generates controversy. The history of this imaginary seems to be similar to that of many Western countries: after the Second World War, spurred on

Reconceptualising responsible research and innovation from a Global South perspective

“…Van de Poel et al (2017) distinguished environmental and organizational factors affecting implementation, with type of technology, level of certainty, innovation pattern, market structure, and level of public scrutiny as the most relevant conditioning factors. The RRI-Practice project identified policy structure, policy culture and RRI focus as points of differentiation between country case studies (Wittrock et al 2020). Schönherr, Martinuzzi, and Jarmai (2020) identified cultural setting, legal framework and funding regime as important external drivers.…”