, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp 149–167 | Cite as

A Cultural Political Economy of Research and Innovation in an Age of Crisis

  • David TyfieldEmail author


Science and technology policy is both faced by unprecedented challenges and itself undergoing seismic shifts. First, policy is increasingly demanding of science that it fixes a set of epochal and global crises. On the other hand, practices of scientific research are changing rapidly regarding geographical dispersion, the institutions and identities of those involved and its forms of knowledge production and circulation. Furthermore, these changes are accelerated by the current upheavals in public funding of research, higher education and technology development in the wake of the economic crisis. The paper outlines an agenda for science & technology policy studies in terms of a research programme of a ‘cultural political economy of research and innovation’ (CPERI). First, the implications of the overlapping crises for science policy analysis are discussed. Secondly, three rough constellations of contemporary approaches to science policy are critically compared, namely: a techno-statist Keynesian governance; a neoliberal marketplace of ideas; and co-productionist enabling of democratic debate. CPERI is then introduced, showing how it builds on the strengths of co-production while also specifically targeting two major weaknesses that are of heightened importance in an age of multiple crises, namely neglect of political economy and the concept of power.


Science & technology policy Crisis Cultural political economy Governmentality 



I would like to thank Dan Sarewitz, Arie Rip and Kean Birch for comments on earlier versions of this paper and Niklas Hartmann for discussion of some key issues.


  1. Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, Ulrich, and Natan Sznaider. 2006. Unpacking cosmopolitanism for the social sciences: a research agenda. British Journal of Sociology 57(1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bozeman, Barry, and Daniel Sarewitz. 2010. Public value mapping and science policy evaluation. Minerva 49(1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, Mark B. 2009. Science in democracy. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bruno, Isabelle. 2009. The “indefinite discipline” of competitiveness benchmarking as a neoliberal technology of government. Minerva 47(3): 261–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chesbrough, Henry. 2005. Open innovation. Cambridge (MA): Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  7. Collins, Harry, and Robert Evans. 2002. The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Sciences 32(2): 235–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crouch, Colin. 2011. The strange non-death of neoliberalism. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  9. Dean, Mitchell. 2010. Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Debray, Regis. 1973. Prison writings. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  11. Dryzek, John. 2000. Deliberative democracy and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Durant, Darrin. 2011. Models of democracy in social studies of science. Social Studies of Science 41(5): 691–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. European Commission. 2008. Commission Recommendation of 07/02/2008 on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research. Brussels: EC.Google Scholar
  14. Ezrahi, Yaron. 1990. The descent of Icarus. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fischer, Frank. 2003. Reframing public policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fischer, Frank. 2008. Democracy and expertise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Foucault, Michel. 2008. The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the College de France, 1978–1979. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Gieryn, Thomas. 1999. Cultural boundaries of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gläser, Jochen. 2010. From governance to authority relations. In Reconfiguring Knowledge Production, eds. Richard Whitley, Jochen Gläser, and Lars Engwall, 357–370. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hagendijk, Rob. 2004. The public understanding of science and public participation in regulated worlds. Minerva 42(1): 41–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hartmann, Niklas. 2011. Governmentality and ‘science in society’. Unpublished MA dissertation, Lancaster University.Google Scholar
  22. Hedgecoe, Adam. 2011. ‘Dual use of biotechnology’, Presentation at Cesagen Symposium on International Governance of Science, Wales Millennium Centre, Cardiff, 26 July.Google Scholar
  23. Irwin, Alan. 2006. The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Social Studies of Science 36(2): 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Irwin, Alan, and Brian Wynne. 1996. Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jasanoff, Sheila (ed.). 2004. States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Jessop, Bob. 2002. The future of the capitalist state. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  27. Jessop, Bob. 2010. Cultural political economy and critical policy studies. Critical Policy Studies 3(3–4): 336–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jessop, Bob. Forthcoming. Beyond finance-dominated capitalism? Critical reflections on growth regimes, Capital & Class.Google Scholar
  29. Joly, Pierre-Benoît, Arie Rip, and Michel Callon. 2010. Reinventing innovation. In Governance and Innovation, eds. Maarten Arentsen, Wouter van Rossum, and Bert Steenge, 19–32. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  30. Klein, Naomi. 2007. The shock doctrine. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  31. Lemke, Thomas. 2011. Foucault, governmentality, and critique. Boulder (CO) and London: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Levidow, Les, Joseph Murphy, and Susan Carr. 2007. Recasting “substantial equivalence”: Transatlantic governance of GM food. Science, Technology and Human Values 32: 26–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lezaun, Javier, and Linda Soneryd. 2007. Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science 16: 279–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lindblom, Charles. 1979. Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Review 39(6): 517–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lothian, Tamara, and Roberto Mangabeira Unger. 2011. Crisis, slump, superstition and recovery. Working Paper. Accessed 12 April 2012.
  36. Mirowski, Philip. 2011a. ScienceMart: Privatizing American science. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Mirowski, Philip 2011b. Trial by Twitter: New Horizons in Neoliberal Peer Review. Presentation to the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S) Annual Conference, Cleveland (OH), 6 November.Google Scholar
  38. Mirowski, Philip, and Dieter Plehwe (eds.). 2009. The road from Mont Pélérin. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Mirowski, Philip, and Esther-Mirjam Sent. 2008. The commercialization of science and the response of STS. In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, eds. Edward Hackett, Judy Wacjman, Olga Amsterdamska, and Michael Lynch, 635–690. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  41. Ockwell, David. 2008. Energy and economic growth: Grounding our understanding in physical reality. Energy Policy 36: 4600–4604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pagano, Ugo, and Maria Alessandra Rossi. 2009. The crash of the knowledge economy. Cambridge Journal of Economics 33: 665–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pellizzoni, Luigi. 2011. Governing through disorder: Neoliberal environmental governance and social theory. Global Environmental Change 21: 795–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pestre, Dominique. 2009. Understanding the forms of government in today’s liberal and democratic societies: An introduction. Minerva 47(3): 243–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Polanyi, Michael. 1962. The republic of science: It’s political and economic theory. Minerva 1(1): 54–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schumpeter, Joseph. 1976. Capitalism, socialism and democracy, 5th ed. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  47. Stirling, Andy. 2005. Opening up or closing down: Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology. In Science, Citizenship and Globalisation, eds. Melissa Leach, Ian Scoones, and Brian Wynne, 218–231. London: Zed.Google Scholar
  48. Stirling, Andy. 2009. Direction, distribution and diversity! Pluralising progress in innovation, sustainability and development. STEPS Working Paper 32. Brighton: STEPS Centre.Google Scholar
  49. Sum, Ngai-Ling, and Bob Jessop. 2009. Towards a cultural political economy. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  50. Thorpe, Charles. 2008. Political theory in science and technology studies. In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, eds. Edward Hackett, Judy Wacjman, Olga Amsterdamska, and Michael Lynch, 63–82. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. Tlili, Anwar, and Emily Dawson. 2010. Mediating science and society in the EU and UK: From information-transmission to deliberative democracy? Minerva 48(4): 429–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tyfield, David, Jun Jin, and Tyler Rooker. 2010. Game-changing China. London: NESTA.Google Scholar
  53. Tyfield, David. 2011. Food systems transitions and disruptive low carbon innovation. Journal of Experimental Botany 62: 3701–3706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tyfield, David. 2012a. The economics of science: A critical realist overview (Volume 1). Abingdon & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Tyfield, David. 2012b. The economics of science: A critical realist overview (Volume 2). Abingdon & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. von Hippel, Eric. 2005. Democratizing innovation. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.Google Scholar
  57. Whitley, Richard. 2010. Reconfiguring the public sciences. In Reconfiguring Knowledge Production, eds. Richard Whitley, Jochen Gläser, and Lars Engwall, 3–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wilsdon, James, and Rebecca Willis. 2004. See-through science. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  59. Wynne, Brian. 2008. Elephants in the rooms where publics encounter ‘‘science’’?: A response to Durant. Public Understanding of Science 17: 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wynne, Brian, and Ulrike Felt. 2007. Taking European knowledge society seriously. Science Economy and Society Directorate EUR 22700, Brussels: D-G Research.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sociology DepartmentBowland North, Lancaster UniversityLancasterUK

Personalised recommendations