Votre recherche

This open access book summarizes research being pursued within the SISCODE (Society in Innovation and Science through CO-DEsign) project, funded by the EU under the H2020 programme, the goal of which is to set up an analytical, reflective and learning framework to explore the transformations in initiatives and policies emerging from the interaction between citizens and stakeholders. The book provides a critical analysis of the co-design processes activated in 10 co-creation labs addressing societal challenges across Europe. Each lab as a case study of real-life experimentation is described through its journey, starting from the purpose on the ground of the experimentation and the challenge addressed. Specific attention is then drawn on the role of policies and policy maker engagement. Finally, the experimentation is enquired in terms of its output, transformations triggered within the organization and the overall ecosystem, and its outcomes, opening the reasoning towards the lessons learnt and reflections that the entire co-creation journey brought.

Frugal Innovation is on the rise with products and services that leverage digital technologies like big data, AI, virtual reality and m-health.

This article explores how health innovation designers articulate are and responsibility when designing new health technologies. Towards this end, we draw on Tronto’s ethic of care framework and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) scholarship to analyse interviews with Canadian health innovators (n ¼ 31). Our findings clarify how respondents: 1) direct their attention to needs and ways to improve care; 2) mobilise their skill set to take care of problems; 3) engage in what we call ‘care-making’ practices by prioritising key material qualities; and 4) operationalise responsiveness to caregivers and care-receivers through user-centred design. We discuss the inclusion of health innovation designers within the care relationship as ‘caremakers’ as well as the tensions underlying their ways of caring and their conflicting responsibilities.

Stories of community resilience and rapid innovation have emerged during the global pandemic caused by COVID-19. As communities, organizations, and individuals have had to shift modalities during the pandemic, they have identified ways to sustain community well-being. Prior to COVID-19, colleges and universities were hailed as anchors of economic and social resilience and well-being for communities of place. In this light, this commentary highlights stories of rapid community innovation occurring at Hobart & William Smith Colleges in the Finger Lakes region of New York. A series of vignettes are presented showcasing lessons and on-going questions regarding rapid pivots, community values, and diversity and inclusion during (and after) the pandemic. Overall, these insights can inform future local collaborative development efforts post-COVID-19 between colleges/universities and their local community.

Collaboration can be challenging work. We convene colleagues together and try to work collaboratively, often providing only limited support and resources to move the collective effort forward. It is no wonder that the experience of collaboration can be frustrating.

Frugal innovation has gained prominence based on its potential contribution to sustainable development and the new opportunities that it offers to low-income customers. This paper aims to analyse the strategic knowledge transfer practices implemented by an entrepreneurial university for fostering frugal innovations within an emerging economy. Design/methodology/approach This study adopted a case study methodological approach. The selected case was the University of Campinas (Unicamp), one of the leading universities in Brazil in terms of research quality and technology transfer. The study built upon 14 interviews with key informants and secondary sources of data (official and public documents). Findings The findings highlight the multidimensional dynamics of frugal innovations arising from university–industry relationships. Key dimensions considered include the internal capabilities of universities to foster frugal innovations and connect them to markets, the surrounding innovation ecosystems in which the university is embedded and the overarching institutional framework. Research limitations/implications The analysis of strategic management practices for frugal innovation requires an evolutionary perspective, but the findings lacked sufficient longitudinal information for a formal evaluation. Also, as our empirical analysis is based on an in-depth case study of one university, further validation in other contexts would be necessary. Practical implications This study offers new insights regarding the effectiveness of university-business collaboration partnerships for developing frugal innovations in emerging economies. Policymakers should promote societal programs enhancing the active participation of all agents involved in the entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystem. University managers should understand the challenges and the opportunities behind the adoption of an inclusive and societal orientation. Social implications By adopting frugal innovation practices, universities can enhance their contribution of meeting the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. Originality/value The literature on frugal innovation has emphasized the importance of networking between different types of firms, NGOs and governments, but the role of universities in frugal innovation remains mostly unexplored. This study addresses this gap by exploring how entrepreneurial universities participate in frugal innovations to meet societal challenges.

This chapter introduces responsible innovation in a business context. The first part explains the basic terms that constitute responsible innovation from a business perspective. The second part presents tangible business practices that operationalise responsible innovation and introduces two good practice examples that hint at the variety of ways in which responsible innovation can be implemented in companies.

Provides a guide to the development of innovative mindsets for new and seasoned researchers, students and other practitioners who collaborate with social science researchers Rather than focusing on how and why specific research methodologies are employed, the book increases meaningful research by developing transferable mindsets, across every stage of the research production Uniquely accessible by conveying key concepts via a combination of theoretical research, allegories and conversations emerging from the author’s unique perspective as a millennial academic researcher of lived experience and documentary filmmaker

Technology is the answer, but what was the question? Introduction Many firms, charities and governments are in favour of more innovation, and like to side with the new against the old. But should they? A moment's reflection shows that it's not altogether coherent (whether intellectually, ethically or in terms of policy) to simply be in favour of innovation, whether that innovation is a product, a service or a social idea. Some innovations are unambiguously good (like penicillin or the telephone). Others are unambiguously bad (like concentration camps or nerve gas). Many are ambiguous. Pesticides kill parasites but also pollute the water supply. New surveillance technologies may increase workplace productivity but leave workers more stressed and unhappy. Smart missiles may be good for the nations deploying them and terrible for the ones on the receiving end.In finance, Paul Volcker, former head of the US Federal Reserve, said that the only good financial innovation he could think of was the automated teller machine. That was an exaggeration. But there is no doubt that many financial innovations destroyed more value than they created, even as they enriched their providers, and that regulators and policy makers failed to distinguish the good from the bad, with very costly results. In technology, too, a similar scepticism had emerged by the late 2010s, with digital social media described as the ‘new tobacco’, associated with harm rather than good, with addiction rather than help. Or, to take another example: when the US Central Intelligence Agency's venture capital arm, In-QTel, invested heavily in firms like Palantir, which then became contractors for the intelligence and military (a prime example of the ‘entrepreneurial state’), it was far from obvious how much this was good or bad for the world.The traditional justification for a capitalist market economy is that the net effects of market-led innovation leave behind far more winners than losers, and that markets are better able to pick technologies than bureaucracies or committees. But even if, overall, the patterns of change generate more winners than losers, there are likely to be some, perhaps many, cases where the opposite happens. It would be useful to know.

Responsible Innovation (RI) is a young field of research that has nevertheless had remarkable successes in dissemination within academic and political circles. However, there is relatively little awareness of its limits, blind spots and situations in which it cannot be used for actual innovation trajectories. Without such awareness, there is a risk that RI may get hollowed out and turned into a tool for ‘greenwashing’. To examine RI’s limits, we present a case study on biofuel innovation in Hassan, South India. This case study demonstrates that there are important barriers that may make it difficult to conduct innovation according to RI values. In particular, we highlight the following factors that emerge from our case study and need more attention in order to be included and adequately theorised in the RI literature: material barriers to innovation, engagement with abandoning or reducing existing practices as a consequence of innovation, power differences and dependencies, (un)clear demarcation of responsibilities, strategic behaviour and, lastly, different, diverging and even contradictory interests. We demonstrate that such factors may obstruct the possibility to innovate in a responsible way, leading us to our core observation that RI should be about innovating responsibly – or not innovating at all.

The governance of emerging science and innovation is a major challenge for contemporary democracies. In this paper we present a framework for understanding and supporting efforts aimed at ‘responsible innovation’. The framework was developed in part through work with one of the first major research projects in the controversial area of geoengineering, funded by the UK Research Councils. We describe this case study, and how this became a location to articulate and explore four integrated dimensions of responsible innovation: anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion and responsiveness. Although the framework for responsible innovation was designed for use by the UK Research Councils and the scientific communities they support, we argue that it has more general application and relevance.

I provide a vision and definition of Responsible Research and Innovation and propose a broad framework for its implementation under Research and Innovation schemes around the world. I make the case that RRI should be understood as a strategy of stakeholders to become mutual responsive to each other and anticipate research and innovation outcomes underpinning the "grand challenges" of our time for which they share > responsibility.> Research and Innovation processes need to become more responsive and adaptive to these grand challenges. This implies, among other, the introduction of broader foresight and impact assessments for new technologies beyond their anticipated market-benefits and risks. Social benefits of new technologies need to take into account widely shared public values. This implies a paradigm shift in innovation policy, moving away from an emphasis on key technologies towards issue and mission oriented policies. Background information can be found on: http://Renevonschomberg.wordpress.com

Abstract. Three points are discussed: first, that limits of technological fixes are revealed by current economic, social, and environmental problems; second, that these problems cannot be solved by a technological fix but require alternative forms of activity and being; third, that realizing these limits makes possible the re-emergence of the sacred. Two attitudes toward technology, nature, and the sacred are described: Technocrats desacralize nature and strive to shape it technologically for human ends alone; pernetarians resacralize nature and develop a perennial philosophy (synthesized from elements of different spiritual disciplines) allied with an enlarged, artful science, so as to design activities compatible with nature.

A new tool that blends your everyday work apps into one. It's the all-in-one workspace for you and your team