Advertisement

Minerva

, Volume 57, Issue 4, pp 453–477 | Cite as

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

  • Logan D. A. WilliamsEmail author
  • Thomas S. Woodson
Article

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 real-time evaluation and reflection during the process of innovation – upstream, midstream, and downstream. The result of this new protocol is inclusivity mainstreaming: determining if and how marginalized peoples and perspectives are being maximally incorporated into the model of innovation, while highlighting common problems of inequality that need to be addressed.

Keywords

Poverty Inequality Innovation Inclusivity mainstreaming Policy Evaluation and reflection 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Logan Williams thanks NSF DDIG 1153308, the CAORC Multi-country Fellowship, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and Michigan State University for the funding that allowed her to collect the data about Aurolab and Tilganga-FHIOL from 2011-2012 and in 2017. Both authors thank David J. Hess, and two anonymous referees for their comments on an early draft.

References

  1. Aguirre-Bastos, Carlos, and Mahabir P. Gupta. 2009. Science, Technology and Innovation Policies in Latin America: Do They Work? Interciencia 34(12): 865–72.Google Scholar
  2. Arnstein, Sherry R. July 1, 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35(4): 216–24.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225.Google Scholar
  3. Aurolab. n.d. Aurolab Corporate Brochure. Aurolab. http://www.aurolab.com/images/AurolabCorporateBrochure.pdf.
  4. Bauchspies, Wenda K. 2014. Presence from Absence: Looking within the Triad of Science. Technology and Development. Social Epistemology 28(1): 56–69.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2013.862877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benjamin, Ruha. 2013. People’s Science Bodies and Rights on the Stem Cell Frontier. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10731954.
  6. Budtz Pedersen, David, and Vincent F. Hendricks. 2014. Science Bubbles. Philosophy & Technology 27(4): 503–518.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-013-0142-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cech, Erin A., Anneke Metz, Jessi L. Smith, and Karen deVries. 2017. Epistemological Dominance and Social Inequality: Experiences of Native American Science, Engineering, and Health Students. Science, Technology, & Human Values 42(5): 743–774.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243916687037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cherlet, Jan. 2014. Epistemic and Technological Determinism in Development Aid. Science, Technology, & Human Values 39(6): 773–94.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243913516806.Google Scholar
  9. Clarke, Thomas, Walter Jarvis, and Soheyla Gholamshahi. 2018. The Impact of Corporate Governance on Compounding Inequality: Maximising Shareholder Value and Inflating Executive Pay. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, July.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2018.06.002.Google Scholar
  10. Cockburn, Cynthia, and Susan Ormrod. 1993. Gender and Technology in the Making. London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Contreras, Jorge. 2013. Confronting the Crisis in Scientific Publishing: Latency, Licensing, and Access. Santa Clara Law Review 53(2): 491.Google Scholar
  12. Cowan, Ruth Schwartz. 1985. More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology From the Open Hearth to the Microwave. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  13. Delborne, Jason A. 2008. Transgenes and Transgressions: Scientific Dissent as Heterogeneous Practice. Social Studies of Science 38(4): 509–541.Google Scholar
  14. Dotson, Kristie. 2014. Conceptualizing Epistemic Oppression. Social Epistemology 28(2): 115–138.Google Scholar
  15. Eglash, Ron. 2004. Appropriating Technology: An Introduction. In Appropriating Technology: Vernacular Science and Social Power, eds. Ron Eglash, Jennifer L. Croissant, Giovanna Di Chiro, and Rayvon Fouché, vii–xxi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  16. Eglash, Ron. 2016. Of Marx and Makers: an Historical Perspective on Generative Justice. Teknokultura. Journal of Digital Culture and Social Movements 13(1): 245–269.  https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_TK.2016.v13.n1.52096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Englander, Karen. 2014. The Rise of English as the Language of Science. In Writing and Publishing Science Research Papers in English, by Karen Englander, 3–4. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  18. Eubanks, Virginia. 2018. Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  19. Fisher, Erik. 2007. Ethnographic Invention: Probing the Capacity of Laboratory Decisions. NanoEthics 1(2): 155–165.Google Scholar
  20. Fisher, E., R.L. Mahajan, and C. Mitcham. 2006. Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance From Within. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 26: 485–496.Google Scholar
  21. Fisher, Erik, and Daan Schuurbiers. 2013. Socio-technical Integration Research: Collaborative Inquiry at the Midstream of Research and Development. In Early Engagement and New Technologies: Opening up the Laboratory, eds. Neelke Doorn, Daan Schuurbiers, Ibo van de Poel, and Michael E. Gorman, 97–110. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7844-3_5.Google Scholar
  22. Fujimura, Joan H. 1988. The Molecular Biological Bandwagon in Cancer Research: Where Social Worlds Meet. Social Problems 35(3): 261–283.Google Scholar
  23. Goedhuys, Micheline, and Reinhilde Veugelers. 2012. Innovation Strategies, Process and Product Innovations and Growth: Firm-Level Evidence from Brazil. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, SI: Firm Dynamics and SI: Globelics Conference 23(4): 516–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2011.01.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Godin, Benoît. 2016. Technological Innovation: On the Origins and Development of an Inclusive Concept. Technology and Culture 57(3): 527–556.Google Scholar
  25. Gorman, Michael E., Antonio Calleja-López, Shannon N. Conley, and Farzad Mahootian. 2013. Integrating Ethicists and Social Scientists into Cutting Edge Research and Technological Development. In Early Engagement and New Technologies: Opening up the Laboratory, eds. Neelke Doorn, Daan Schuurbiers, Ibo van de Poel, and Michael E. Gorman, 157–73. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology 16. Springer Netherlands.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7844-3_8.Google Scholar
  26. Greenberg, Daniel S. 2003. Conference Deplores Corporate Influence on Academic Science. Speakers Argue that Corporate Funds Should be Separated from Science to Prevent Undue Influence. Lancet (London, England) 362(9380): 302–303.Google Scholar
  27. Guston, David H., and Daniel Sarewitz. 2002. Real-Time Technology Assessment. Technology in Society, American Perspectives on Science and Technology Policy 24(1): 93–109.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00047-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Guston, David H. 1999. Evaluating the First US Consensus Conference: The Impact of the Citizens’ Panel on Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy. Science, Technology, & Human Values 24(4): 451–482.Google Scholar
  29. Harding, Sandra G. 2008. Sciences from Below: Feminisms, Postcolonialisms, and Modernities. Durham, NC.: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Heeks, Richard, Mirta Amalia, Robert Kintu, and Nishant Shah. 2013. Inclusive Innovation: Definition, Conceptualisation and Future Research Priorities. 53. IDPM Development Informatics Working Papers. Manchester, UK: Centre for Development Informatics, The University of Manchester.Google Scholar
  31. Heeks, R., C. Foster, and Y. Nugroho. 2014. New Models of Inclusive Innovation for Development. Innovation and Development, 0/February 2015: 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930x.2014.928982.Google Scholar
  32. Hess, David J. 1995. Science and Technology in a Multicultural World: The Cultural Politics of Facts and Artifacts. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hess, David J. 2005. Technology- and Product-Oriented Movements: Approximating Social Movement Studies and Science and Technology Studies. Science, Technology, & Human Values 30(4): 515–535.Google Scholar
  34. Hess, David J. 2015. Undone Science and Social Movements: A Review and Typology. In Routledge International Handbook of Ignorance Studies, eds. Matthias Gross and Linsey McGoey, 141–154. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Hess, David J. 2016. Undone Science: Social Movements, Mobilized Publics, and Industrial Transitions. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Hoffman, Kelly M., Sophie Trawalter, Jordan R. Axt, and M. Norman Oliver. 2016. Racial Bias in Pain Assessment and Treatment Recommendations, and False Beliefs about Biological Differences between Blacks and Whites. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113(16): 4296–4301.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516047113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jue, Dean K., Christie M. Koontz, J. Andrew Magpantay, Keith Curry Lance, and Ann M. Seidl. 1999. Using Public Libraries to Provide Technology Access for Individuals in Poverty: A Nationwide Analysis of Library Market Areas Using a Geographic Information System. Library & Information Science Research 21(3): 299–325.Google Scholar
  38. Kaplinsky, Raphael, Joanna Chataway, Norman Clark, Rebecca Hanlin, Dinar Kale, Lois Muraguri, Theo Papaioannou, P. Robbins, and Watu Wamae. 2009. Below the Radar: What Does Innovation in Emerging Economies Have to Offer Other Low-Income Economies? International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development 8(3): 177–197.Google Scholar
  39. Kleinman, Daniel Lee. 1998. Untangling Context: Understanding a University Laboratory in the Commercial World. Science, Technology, & Human Values 23(3): 285–314.Google Scholar
  40. Lehoux, Pascale, Geneviève Daudelin, Myriam Hivon, Fiona Alice Miller, and Jean-Louis Denis. 2014. How Do Values Shape Technology Design? An Exploration of What Makes the Pursuit of Health and Wealth Legitimate in Academic Spin-Offs. Sociology of Health & Illness 36(5): 738–755.Google Scholar
  41. Lehoux, Pascale, Federico Roncarolo, Hudson Pacifico Silva, Antoine Boivin, Jean-Louis Denis, and Réjean Hébert. 2018. What Health System Challenges Should Responsible Innovation in Health Address? Insights From an International Scoping Review. International Journal of Health Policy and Management 0 (November). http://www.ijhpm.com/article_3572.html.
  42. Lipson, Hod, and Melba Kurman. 2013. Fabricated: The New World of 3D Printing. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.Google Scholar
  43. Pacifico Silva, Hudson, Pascale Lehoux, Fiona Alice Miller, and Jean-Louis Denis. 2018. Introducing Responsible Innovation in Health: A Policy-Oriented Framework. Health Research Policy and Systems 16(1): 90.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0362-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Macnaghten, P., R. Owen, J. Stilgoe, B. Wynne, A. Azevedo, A. de Campos, J. Chilvers, et al. 2014. Responsible Innovation across Borders: Tensions, Paradoxes and Possibilities. Journal of Responsible Innovation 1(2): 191–199.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2014.922249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Malkin, Robert A. 2007. Design of Health Care Technologies for the Developing World. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering 9: 567–587.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.bioeng.9.060906.151913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Martin, Brian. 1981. The Scientific Straightjacket: The Power Structure of Science and the Suppression of Environmental Scholarship. Ecologist 11(1): 33–43.Google Scholar
  47. Metcalfe, J. Stanley, Andrew James, and Andrea Mina. 2005. Emergent Innovation Systems and the Delivery of Clinical Services: The Case of Intra-Ocular Lenses. Research Policy 34(9): 1283–1304.Google Scholar
  48. Neal, Homer A., Tobin L. Smith, and Jennifer B. McCormick. 2008. Beyond Sputnik: US Science Policy in the Twenty-First Century. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  49. Oudshoorn, Nelly, Els Rommes, and Marcelle Stienstra. 2004. Configuring the User as Everybody: Gender and Design Cultures in Information and Communication Technologies. Science, Technology, & Human Values 29(1): 30–63.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243903259190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Papaioannou, T. 2014. How inclusive can innovation and development be in the twenty-first century? Innovation and Development 4(2): 187–202.  https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2014.921355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Parthasarathy, Shobita. 2017. Patent Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  52. Peetz, David. 2015. An Institutional Analysis of the Growth of Executive Remuneration. Journal of Industrial Relations 57(5): 707–725.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022185615590903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pereira, Maria do Mar. 2018. Boundary-Work That Does not Work: Social Inequalities and the Non-Performativity of Scientific Boundary-Work. Science, Technology, & Human Values, August, 0162243918795043.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243918795043.Google Scholar
  54. Pierce, Joy. 2009. Blind Inclusion: New Technology Designed for the Margins. Social Identities Journal for the Study of Race, Nation and Culture 15(4): 525–536.Google Scholar
  55. Prahalad, C.K., and S.L. Hart. 2002. The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid. Strategy+business, First Quarter (26). Retrieved 15 November 2015, from http://www.strategy-business.com/article/11518?gko=9a4ba.
  56. Read, Jennan Ghazal, and Bridget K. Gorman. 2010. Gender and Health Inequality. Annual Review of Sociology 36(1): 371–386.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rafols, Ismael, Patrick van Zwanenberg, Molly Morgan, Paul Nightingale, and Adrian Smith. 2011. Missing Links in Nanomaterials Governance: Bringing Industrial Dynamics and Downstream Policies into View. The Journal of Technology Transfer 36(6): 624–639.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-011-9208-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rifkin, Jeremy. 2011. The Third Industrial Revolution: How Lateral Power is Transforming Energy, the Economy, and the World. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  59. Roth, Lorna. 2013. The Fade-Out of Shirley, a Once-Ultimate Norm: Colour Balance, Image Technologies, and Cognitive Equity. In The Melanin Millennium. Skin Color as 21st Century International Discourse, ed. Ronald Hall, 273–286. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  60. Schoffer, Filemon. 2016. How Expiring Patents Are Ushering in the Next Generation of 3D Printing. TechCrunch, May 15, 2016. http://social.techcrunch.com/2016/05/15/how-expiring-patents-are-ushering-in-the-next-generation-of-3d-printing/.
  61. Schot, Johan, and Arie Rip. 1997. The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Technology Assessment: The End of OTA 54(2): 251–268.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00180-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schuurbiers, Daan. 2011. What Happens in the Lab: Applying Midstream Modulation to Enhance Critical Reflection in the Laboratory. Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4): 769–788.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9317-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Settles, Isis H., NiCole T. Buchanan, and Kristie Dotson. 2018. Scrutinized but not Recognized:(In)Visibility and Hypervisibility Experiences of Faculty of Color. Journal of Vocational Behavior, June.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.06.003.Google Scholar
  64. Shrum, Wesley. 2015. Development Aid: A New Course for STS. Science, Technology, & Human Values 40(3): 445–455.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243914562474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Smith, Adrian, Mariano Fressoli, Dinesh Abrol, Elisa Arond, and Adrian Ely. 2016. Grassroots Innovation Movements. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  66. Smith, Adrian, and Andy Stirling. 2007. Moving Outside or Inside? Objectification and Reflexivity in the Governance of Socio-Technical Systems. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 9(3–4): 351–373.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15239080701622873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stilgoe, Jack, Richard Owen, and Phil Macnaghten. 2013. Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation. Research Policy 42(9): 1568–1580.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stokes, D. 1997. Pasteur’s Quadrant. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
  69. The Fred Hollows Foundation. 2013. Investing in Vision: Comparing the Costs and Benefits of Eliminating Avoidable Blindness and Visual Impairment. Australia: Price Water Coopers.Google Scholar
  70. Thimmesch, Debra. Pinshape Infograph & Survey: Who’s 3D Designing and Printing? 3DPrint.Com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing (blog). https://3dprint.com/40086/3d-designprint-infograph/. Accessed 28 Jan 2015.
  71. Tomblin, David, Zachary Pirtle, Mahmud Farooque, David Sittenfeld, Erin Mahoney, Rick Worthington, Gretchen Gano, et al. 2017. Integrating Public Deliberation into Engineering Systems: Participatory Technology Assessment of NASA’s Asteroid Redirect Mission. Astropolitics 15(2): 141–166.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14777622.2017.1340823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Warren, Josephine. 2015. When Undone Science Stifles Innovation: The Case of the Tasmanian Devil Cancer. Prometheus 33(3): 257–276.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08109028.2016.1168202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Whitley, Richard, Jochen Gläser, and Grit Laudel. 2018. The Impact of Changing Funding and Authority Relationships on Scientific Innovations. Minerva 56(1): 109–134.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-018-9343-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Williams, Logan D.A. 2013. Three Models of Development: Community Ophthalmology NGOs and the Appropriate Technology Movement. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology 12(4): 449–475.  https://doi.org/10.1163/15691497-12341267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Williams, Logan D.A. 2017. Getting Undone Technology Done: Global Techno-Assemblage and the Value Chain of Invention. Science, Technology and Society 22(1): 38–58.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0971721816682799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Williams, Logan D.A. 2019. Eradicating Blindness: Global Health Innovation from South Asia. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan. http://www.palgrave.com/9789811316241.
  77. Williams, Logan D.A., and Thomas S. Woodson. 2012. The Future of Innovation Studies in Less Economically Developed Countries. Minerva 50(2): 221–237.Google Scholar
  78. Woodson, Thomas S., and Logan D.A. Williams. 2018. Stronger Together: Frameworks for Interrogating Inequality in Science and Technology Innovation. SSRN Scholarly Paper 3264086. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3264086.
  79. Woodson, Thomas S. 2015. 3D Printing for Sustainable Industrial Transformation. Development 58(4): 571–576.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41301-016-0044-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Woodson, Thomas, Julia Torres Alcantara, and Milena Silva do Nascimento. 2019. Is 3D Printing an Inclusive Innovation?: An Examination of 3D Printing in Brazil. Technovation, January.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.12.001.Google Scholar
  81. Winner, Langdon. 1980. Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus 109(1): 121–136.Google Scholar
  82. Wyatt, Sally M.E. 2003. Non-Users Also Matter: The Construction of Users and Non-Users of the Internet. In How Users Matter: The Co-Construction of Users and Technology, eds. Nelly Oudshoorn and Trevor Pinch, 67–79. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Inclusive Research by Design SM Logan Williams Consultancy Services, LLCCumberlandUSA
  2. 2.Technology and SocietyStony Brook UniversityStony BrookUSA

Personalised recommendations