The contradiction of Indian innovation: an epistemological explanation

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the value of decolonial approaches (DAs) such as epistemic locus (Mignolo, 1995, 2000) in studying innovation. Design/methodology/approach This paper is based on a case study of a stem cell surgical innovation developed in India. A critical hermeneutic analysis method has been followed for data analysis. Findings Epistemic locus influences the framing of the problem, perceptions of risks/opportunities as well as the envisioning of alternate institutional systems. Persistent and strategic effort at building connections changes local improvisation into a globally legitimate innovation. Research limitations/implications It indicates the value of using DAs for innovation studies especially epistemic locus, enactment and connections in understanding knowledge generation and innovation. Practical implications Innovation in Global South can be encouraged by giving more space to the innovator to attempt or experiment. More conscious conversation of epistemic locus of the researcher could help. Social implications Countries have to move beyond a mere technological imitation to include discussions on epistemic imitation. Epistemic imitation prevents one from seeing what one has and one only looks at conditions from the eyes of the dominator. Originality/value This study documents the development of an innovation from an Indian epistemic locus which differs from a western epistemic locus and the impact this has on an innovation.

Agency, Directionality, Location and the Geographic Situatedness of Knowledge Making: The Politics of Framing in Innovation Research on Energy

“…These cases relate perhaps to the structural resemblance of donors to European institutions which have historically played a role in fostering forms of innovation considered desirable (in Europe). They may also relate to the strong association between innovation and finance, with expensive technologies associated for example with the "fourth industrial revolution" 4 often perceived to be more innovative than frugal low-cost solutions (Jammulamadaka, 2018). Conversely, scholars based in lower income countries demonstrate comparatively lower willingness to make the kind of bold, far reaching knowledge claims which are common amongst scholars based in and studying locations in higher income countries.…”

“…Further examples include the "contradiction" of innovation in India; that is, how analysing the Indian medical system from a western, patent-orientated understanding of innovation makes the country appear non-innovative relative to Europe and the US. In contrast, adopting an Indian "frugal innovation" understanding demonstrates how factors usually perceived as barriers to patentorientated innovation -a lack of funding and adequate infrastructure -in fact foster frugal innovations such as low-cost yet effective methods of eye surgery (Jammulamadaka, 2018). Other examples demonstrate how this also affects policy actors; that elites, including donors and development banks, often encode a commitment to follow the example of higher income countries when seeking to spur modernity in lower income countries (Nilsson, 2016).…”

“…Specific domains critiqued which are alleged to be overly simplistic include Sectoral Systems of Innovation (Arora et al, 2014), RRI (Groves et al, 2016), the MLP (Doci et al, 2015), frugal innovation (Levänen et al, 2016); user innovation (Martiskainen et al, 2021); and the linear model of innovation (Carayannis and Campbell, 2009;Hekkert and Negro, 2009). Allegations of exclusions are directed towards the MLP (Hopkins et al, 2020;Lieu et al, 2020;Seyfang and Heseltine, 2012), TIS (Hopkins et al, 2020), RRI (Koch, 2020;Sauermann et al, 2020); living labs experimentation (Delina, 2020;Batinge et al, 2021); perceived technological innovation orthodoxy (Arora et al, 2020;Kotilainen et al, 2019;Burke and Stephens, 2017;Jerneck and Olsson, 2013;Koirola et al, 2018), "masculinist" innovation discourse (Pettersson and Lindberg, 2013) and perceived eurocentric understandings of innovation (Calvo Martinez et al, 2019;Jammulamadaka, 2018;Ludwig and McNaughten, 2020). Such exclusions are related to but are distinct from allegations of oversimplification: here scholars allege that actors are excluded from innovation rather than simply playing an overlooked role.…”

“…drawing on ontologies and epistemologies from places in lower income countries. Within our sample, this includes India (Jammulamadaka, 2018) and Colombia (Calvo Martinez et al, 2019) for example. Here, scholars turn to marginalised knowledges such as indigenous or traditional ecological knowledge and express concern about how Eurocentric innovation theorizing is dominant.…”

Author(ing) from post-colonial context: challenges and jugaad fixes

“…My jugaad is what Mignolo would call as enactive epistemology or enactment, since it seeks transformations rather than truths (Mignolo, 2000, p. 26). But, an engagement with denotative epistemic spaces such as academic writing transforms jugaad or inferior knowledge into superior denotative knowledge concepts ( Jammulamadaka, 2019). While such a course of creating denotative "methodological" knowledge and concepts is not something I have actively contemplated, I remain open to this possibility, if, that will help in addressing the asymmetries in geographies of knowledge production.…”