Panacea or diagnosis? Imaginaries of innovation and the ‘MIT model’ in three political cultures

Abstract

Innovation studies continue to struggle with an apparent disconnect between innovation's supposedly universal dynamics and a sense that policy frameworks and associated instruments of innovation are often ineffectual or even harmful when transported across regions or countries. Using a cross-country comparative analysis of three implementations of the 'MIT model' of innovation in the UK, Portugal and Singapore, we show how key features in the design, implementation and performance of the model cannot be explained as mere variations on an identical solution to the same underlying problem. We draw on the concept of sociotechnical imaginaries to show how implementations of the 'same' innovation model -and with it the notion of 'innovation' itself -are co-produced with locally specific diagnoses of a societal deficiency and equally specific understandings of acceptable remedies. Our analysis thus flips the conventional notion of 'best-practice transfer' on its head: Instead of asking 'how well' an innovation model has been implemented, we analyze the differences among the three importations to reveal the idiosyncratic ways in which each country imagines the purpose of innovation. We replace the notion of innovation as a 'panacea' -a universal fix for all social woes -with that of innovationas-diagnosis in which a particular 'cure' is 'prescribed' for a 'diagnosed' societal 'pathology,' which may in turn trigger 'reactions' within the receiving body. This approach offers new possibilities for theorizing how and where culture matters in innovation policy. It suggests that the 'successes'

Lithium and development imaginaries in Chile, Argentina and Bolivia

“…Sociotechnical imaginaries reflect a particular kind of knowledge and discourse about development-one that puts science and technology at the center of progress. By analyzing development discourses and policies as sociotechnical imaginaries, the analyst can shed light on the assumptions and contradictions underpinning development promises, such as those that sustain false binaries, technological determinisms or normative appraisals of the ideal citizen (Eaton, Gasteyer, & Busch, 2013;Hsu, 2017;Jasanoff & Kim, 2009;Kim, 2015;Levidow & Papaioannou, 2013;Pfotenhauer & Jasanoff, 2017;Smith & Tidwell, 2016;Tidwell & Smith, 2015). Ideally, by examining debates about extraction-led development as sociotechnical imaginaries operating at a national level, social scientists can provide insights into efforts in Latin American societies to dissolve such binaries or challenge technological determinism.…”

Failure through Success: Co-construction Processes of Imaginaries (of Participation) and Group Development

“…By adopting a symmetrical STS approach, we assume that imaginaries and innovation are coproduced and culturally embedded (Pfotenhauer and Jasanoff 2017a). We hence suggest that participation in innovation processes is "part of a collectively held imaginary of sociotechnical progress" (Pfotenhauer and Jasanoff 2017a, 786).…”

“…Research on group development has to date focused on communication and interaction patterns, norms, rules, conflicts, leadership processes, and emotions (Tuckman 2001;Mills 1967) but has neglected imaginaries as tacit collective imaginations of an attainable future. Universalistic models of group development have not taken into account the influence of imaginaries, which are especially relevant in innovation processes (Pfotenhauer and Jasanoff 2017a). In this sense, imaginaries capture local, cultural, and temporal aspects, which are essential within heterogeneous groups.…”

Make Way for the Robots! Human- and Machine-Centricity in Constituting a European Public–Private Partnership

“…Jasanoff and Kim 2015). Recently, it has also been expanded to critical studies of innovation as innovation imaginaries (Pfotenhauer and Jasanoff 2017), including in the digital domains (Gunnarsdóttir and Rommetveit 2017; Rommetveit and Wynne 2017).…”

“…Innovation imaginaries performatively mix up previous distinctions between life and market, private and public, human and machine, science and politics. They are amalgamations in which the making of European identity, creation of new markets, and the solution to pressing problems (Pfotenhauer and Jasanoff 2017), come together in new ways. The agenda to make autonomous robots to address societal problems has performatively funneled collective future-making.…”