Advertisement

Conclusion: Innovation from Below

Chapter
  • 106 Downloads

Abstract

Two new concepts, systemic technology choice and interlocking innovations, are summarized. Four modes of science and technology circulation (diffusion, appropriation, translation, and contestation) are likewise summarized. The conceptual contribution of contestation in a global field of science and its relationship to circular causality in the multi-level of perspective is illuminated. The implications of the dual regime thesis for the multi-level perspective on socio-technical system transitions and multi-regime interactions are revealed. New questions and future work are proposed for science and technology studies and international relations theory. The surprise of the Aravind model traveling from India to the USA is briefly discussed.

Keywords

Innovation Engagement Multi-level Perspective Dual Regime Regime Thesis Socio-technical Regime 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Benjamin, Ruha. 2009. “A Lab of Their Own: Genomic Sovereignty as Postcolonial Science Policy.” Policy and Society 28 (4): 341–55.Google Scholar
  2. Crum, Robert. 2015. “An Innovative Ophthalmological and Financial Model for People at All Economic Levels.” Program Results Report. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/program_results_reports/2015/rwjf419225.
  3. Debaise, Didier. 2013. “A Philosophy of Interstices: Thinking Subjects and Societies from Whitehead’s Philosophy.” Subjectivity 6 (1): 101–11.Google Scholar
  4. Demchak, Chris C., and Peter J. Dombrowski. 2014. “Rise of a Cybered Westphalian Age: The Coming Decades.” In The Global Politics of Science and Technology—Vol. 1—Concepts from International Relations and Other Disciplines, edited by Maximilian Mayer, Mariana Carpes, and Ruth Knoblich, 91–113. Global Power Shift: Comparative Analysis and Perspectives. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Furlong, Kathryn. 2014. “STS Beyond the ‘Modern Infrastructure Ideal’: Extending Theory by Engaging with Infrastructure Challenges in the South.” Technology in Society 38 (August): 139–47.Google Scholar
  6. Geels, Frank W. 2005a. “Conceptual Perspective on Sytems Innovations and Technological Transitions.” In Technological Transitions and System Innovations: A Co-evolutionary and Socio-Technical Analysis, 75–102. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 2005b. “The Dynamics of Transitions in Socio-Technical Systems: A Multi-level Analysis of the Transition Pathway from Horse-Drawn Carriages to Automobiles (1860–1930).” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 17 (4): 445–76. Google Scholar
  8. ———. 2005c. “Processes and Patterns in Transitions and System Innovations: Refining the Co-evolutionary Multi-Level Perspective.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Transitions towards Sustainability through System Innovation 72 (6): 681–96.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 2007. “Analysing the Breakthrough of Rock ‘n’ Roll (1930–1970) Multi-regime Interaction and Reconfiguration in the Multi-level Perspective.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74 (8): 1411–31.Google Scholar
  10. Geels, Frank W., and Johan Schot. 2007. “Typology of Sociotechnical Transition Pathways.” Research Policy 36 (3): 399–417.Google Scholar
  11. Geels, Frank W., Florian Kern, Gerhard Fuchs, Nele Hinderer, Gregor Kungl, Josephine Mylan, Mario Neukirch, and Sandra Wassermann. 2016. “The Enactment of Socio-Technical Transition Pathways: A Reformulated Typology and a Comparative Multi-level Analysis of the German and UK Low-Carbon Electricity Transitions (1990–2014).” Research Policy 45 (4): 896–913.Google Scholar
  12. Herrera, Geoffrey Lucas. 2006. “International Systems Theory, Technology and Transformation.” In Technology and International Transformation: The Railroad, the Atom Bomb, and the Politics of Technological Change, 13–44. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hess, David J. 2016. Undone Science: Social Movements, Mobilized Publics, and Industrial Transitions. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hughes, Thomas Parke. 1987. “The Evolution of Large Technological Systems.” In The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, edited by Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas Parke Hughes, and Trevor J. Pinch, 51–82. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 1994. “Technological Momentum.” In Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism, edited by Merritt Roe Smith and Leo Marx, 101–114. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Mahony, Martin. 2014. “The Predictive State: Science, Territory and the Future of the Indian Climate.” Social Studies of Science 44 (1): 109–33.Google Scholar
  17. Mehta, Pavithra K., and Suchitra Shenoy. 2011. Infinite Vision: How Aravind Became the World’s Greatest Business Case for Compassion. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Nieusma, Dean. 2007. “Challenging Knowledge Hierarchies: Working Toward Sustainable Development in Sri Lanka’s Energy Sector.” Sustainability: Science Practice and Policy 3: 32–44.Google Scholar
  19. Odumosu, Toluwalogo B. 2009. Interrogating Mobiles: A Story of Nigerian Appropriation of the Mobile Phone. Troy, NY: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Science and Technology Studies.Google Scholar
  20. Onsongo, Elsie Khakasa, and Johan Schot. 2017. “Inclusive Innovation and Rapid Sociotechnical Transitions: The Case of Mobile Money in Kenya.” SWPS 2017–07. SPRU Working Paper Series. Brighton: Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  21. Pacific Vision Foundation. 2017. “Thanks to Our Sponsors: The Eye Institute Grand Opening October 4, 2017.” Horizons: The Pacific Vision Foundation Newsletter, December 2017.Google Scholar
  22. Raven, Rob. 2007. “Co-evolution of Waste and Electricity Regimes: Multi-regime Dynamics in the Netherlands (1969–2003).” Energy Policy 35 (4): 2197–2208.Google Scholar
  23. Raven, Rob, and Geert Verbong. 2007. “Multi-regime Interactions in the Dutch Energy Sector: The Case of Combined Heat and Power Technologies in the Netherlands 1970–2000.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 19 (4): 491–507.Google Scholar
  24. Raven, Rob, Johan Schot, and Frans Berkhout. 2012. “Space and Scale in Socio-Technical Transitions.” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 4 (September): 63–78.Google Scholar
  25. Salm, Martin, Daniel Belsky, and Frank A. Sloan. 2006. “Trends in Cost of Major Eye Diseases to Medicare, 1991 to 2000.” American Journal of Ophthalmology 142 (6): 976–82.Google Scholar
  26. Samsky, Ari. 2012. “Scientific Sovereignty: How International Drug Donation Programs Reshape Health, Disease, and the State.” Cultural Anthropology 27 (2): 310–32.Google Scholar
  27. Shepherd, Chris J. 2006. “From in Vitro to in Situ on the Precarious Extension of Agricultural Science in the Indigenous ‘Third World’.” Social Studies of Science 36 (3): 399–426.Google Scholar
  28. Stark, Walter J., Alfred Sommer, and Ronald E. Smith. 1989. “Changing Trends in Intraocular Lens Implantation.” Archives of Ophthalmology 107 (10): 1441–44.Google Scholar
  29. Stephenson, Niamh. 2011. “Emerging Infectious Disease/Emerging Forms of Biological Sovereignty.” Science, Technology & Human Values 36 (5): 616–37.Google Scholar
  30. Sutherland, Lee-Ann, Sarah Peter, and Lukas Zagata. 2015. “Conceptualising Multi-regime Interactions: The Role of the Agriculture Sector in Renewable Energy Transitions.” Research Policy 44 (8): 1543–54.Google Scholar
  31. 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.Google Scholar
  32. Williams, Logan D. A., and Thomas S. Woodson. 2012. “The Future of Innovation Studies in Less Economically Developed Countries.” Minerva 50 (2): 221–37.Google Scholar
  33. Worthington, Richard. 1993. “Introduction: Science and Technology as a Global System.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 18 (2): 176–85.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Logan Williams Consultancy Services, LLCCumberlandUSA

Personalised recommendations