Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Minerva Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Throughout the paper, for brevity and to avoid irritating repetition, I will use the terms ‘science’ and/or ‘science policy’ to stand, mutatis mutandis, for ‘science and technology policy’.

  2. Though neoliberal thought is explicitly comfortable with monopoly, see e.g. Crouch (2011).

  3. In particular, it highlights the limitations of experts and the capabilities and potential contributions of publics, not because of an absolute epistemic superiority but on the critical, relational basis that ‘“publics know better than you think they do” and that “they know some salient things better than you”’ (Wynne 2008:28, original emphasis).

  4. Though there is a growing body of work associated with co-productionist perspectives that highlights the problems, not just benefits, of citizen engagement (e.g. Lezaun & Soneryd 2007).

References

  • Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Ulrich, and Natan Sznaider. 2006. Unpacking cosmopolitanism for the social sciences: a research agenda. British Journal of Sociology 57(1): 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, Barry, and Daniel Sarewitz. 2010. Public value mapping and science policy evaluation. Minerva 49(1): 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Mark B. 2009. Science in democracy. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruno, Isabelle. 2009. The “indefinite discipline” of competitiveness benchmarking as a neoliberal technology of government. Minerva 47(3): 261–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, Henry. 2005. Open innovation. Cambridge (MA): Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crouch, Colin. 2011. The strange non-death of neoliberalism. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean, Mitchell. 2010. Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debray, Regis. 1973. Prison writings. London: Allen Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, John. 2000. Deliberative democracy and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durant, Darrin. 2011. Models of democracy in social studies of science. Social Studies of Science 41(5): 691–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2008. Commission Recommendation of 07/02/2008 on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research. Brussels: EC.

  • Ezrahi, Yaron. 1990. The descent of Icarus. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, Frank. 2003. Reframing public policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, Frank. 2008. Democracy and expertise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, Michel. 2008. The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the College de France, 1978–1979. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, Thomas. 1999. Cultural boundaries of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hagendijk, Rob. 2004. The public understanding of science and public participation in regulated worlds. Minerva 42(1): 41–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, Niklas. 2011. Governmentality and ‘science in society’. Unpublished MA dissertation, Lancaster University.

  • Hedgecoe, Adam. 2011. ‘Dual use of biotechnology’, Presentation at Cesagen Symposium on International Governance of Science, Wales Millennium Centre, Cardiff, 26 July.

  • Irwin, Alan. 2006. The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Social Studies of Science 36(2): 299–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, Alan, and Brian Wynne. 1996. Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila (ed.). 2004. States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, Bob. 2002. The future of the capitalist state. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, Bob. 2010. Cultural political economy and critical policy studies. Critical Policy Studies 3(3–4): 336–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, Bob. Forthcoming. Beyond finance-dominated capitalism? Critical reflections on growth regimes, Capital & Class.

  • 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 

  • Klein, Naomi. 2007. The shock doctrine. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, Thomas. 2011. Foucault, governmentality, and critique. Boulder (CO) and London: Paradigm Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levidow, Les, Joseph Murphy, and Susan Carr. 2007. Recasting “substantial equivalence”: Transatlantic governance of GM food. Science, Technology and Human Values 32: 26–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lezaun, Javier, and Linda Soneryd. 2007. Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science 16: 279–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, Charles. 1979. Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Review 39(6): 517–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lothian, Tamara, and Roberto Mangabeira Unger. 2011. Crisis, slump, superstition and recovery. Working Paper.http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/unger/english/pdfs/JOINT_PIECE.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2012.

  • Mirowski, Philip. 2011a. ScienceMart: Privatizing American science. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Mirowski, Philip, and Dieter Plehwe (eds.). 2009. The road from Mont Pélérin. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ockwell, David. 2008. Energy and economic growth: Grounding our understanding in physical reality. Energy Policy 36: 4600–4604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pagano, Ugo, and Maria Alessandra Rossi. 2009. The crash of the knowledge economy. Cambridge Journal of Economics 33: 665–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellizzoni, Luigi. 2011. Governing through disorder: Neoliberal environmental governance and social theory. Global Environmental Change 21: 795–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pestre, Dominique. 2009. Understanding the forms of government in today’s liberal and democratic societies: An introduction. Minerva 47(3): 243–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, Michael. 1962. The republic of science: It’s political and economic theory. Minerva 1(1): 54–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, Joseph. 1976. Capitalism, socialism and democracy, 5th ed. London: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Stirling, Andy. 2009. Direction, distribution and diversity! Pluralising progress in innovation, sustainability and development. STEPS Working Paper 32. Brighton: STEPS Centre.

  • Sum, Ngai-Ling, and Bob Jessop. 2009. Towards a cultural political economy. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyfield, David, Jun Jin, and Tyler Rooker. 2010. Game-changing China. London: NESTA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyfield, David. 2011. Food systems transitions and disruptive low carbon innovation. Journal of Experimental Botany 62: 3701–3706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyfield, David. 2012a. The economics of science: A critical realist overview (Volume 1). Abingdon & New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyfield, David. 2012b. The economics of science: A critical realist overview (Volume 2). Abingdon & New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, Eric. 2005. Democratizing innovation. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wilsdon, James, and Rebecca Willis. 2004. See-through science. London: Demos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, Brian. 2008. Elephants in the rooms where publics encounter ‘‘science’’?: A response to Durant. Public Understanding of Science 17: 21–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, Brian, and Ulrike Felt. 2007. Taking European knowledge society seriously. Science Economy and Society Directorate EUR 22700, Brussels: D-G Research.

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sociology Department, Bowland North, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YT, UK

    David Tyfield

Authors
  1. David Tyfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Tyfield.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tyfield, D. A Cultural Political Economy of Research and Innovation in an Age of Crisis. Minerva 50, 149–167 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-012-9201-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-012-9201-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation