Challenging the “deficit model” of innovation: Framing policy issues under the innovation imperative

Abstract As innovation is increasingly becoming an imperative for policymakers around the globe, there is a growing tendency to frame policy problems as problems of innovation. This logic suggests that we are unable to address grand societal challenges and ensure economic competitiveness because our societies, institutions, scientific activities or individual predispositions are not sufficiently geared towards innovation. In this paper, we analyze this “deficit model” of innovation in which a lack of innovation is routinely invoked as the main obstacle to social progress. Drawing parallels to research on the deficit model of public understanding of science (PUS), we develop a theoretical framework that captures the dynamics and normative implications of deficit construction, highlighting five salient dimensions: problem diagnoses, proposed remedies, the role of expertise, implied social orders, and measures of success. We apply this framework to three empirical case studies of recent innovation strategies in Luxembourg, Singapore, and Denmark. Attention to this deficit framing around innovation is important, we argue, because it is an essential part of how innovation transforms societies in the 21st century: not only through new technological possibilities or economic growth, but also by shaping public discourse, narrowing policy options, and legitimizing major institutional interventions. The implied pro-innovation bias tends to marginalize other rationales, values, and social functions that do not explicitly support innovation. It further delegates decisions about sweeping social reconfigurations to innovation experts, which raises questions of accountability and democratic governance. Experiences from the history of PUS suggest that, without a dedicated effort to transform innovation policy into a more democratic, inclusive, and explicitly political field, the present deficit logic and its technocratic overtones risks significant social and political conflict.

[1]  E. Mansfield,et al.  The modern university: contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support , 1996 .

[2]  B. Godin “Innovation Studies”: Staking the Claim for a New Disciplinary “Tribe” , 2014 .

[3]  S. Carney University Governance in Denmark: From Democracy to Accountability? , 2006 .

[4]  J. Schumpeter,et al.  The Theory of Economic Development , 2017 .

[5]  J. Stilgoe,et al.  Developing a framework for responsible innovation* , 2013, The Ethics of Nanotechnology, Geoengineering and Clean Energy.

[6]  Joakim Juhl Innovation science: between models and machines , 2016 .

[7]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities And Challenges , 2007 .

[8]  A. Irwin From deficit to democracy (re-visited) , 2014, Public understanding of science.

[9]  Evgeny Morozov,et al.  Book review: To save everything click here: the folly of technological solutionism , 2013 .

[10]  A. Irwin The Politics of Talk , 2006 .

[11]  J. P. Lane,et al.  Pushes and Pulls , 2013 .

[12]  Joseph R. Bell Engines of Innovation: The Entrepreneurial University in the Twenty-First Century , 2010 .

[13]  B. Wynne Unruly Technology: Practical Rules, Impractical Discourses and Public Understanding , 1988 .

[14]  R. V. Schomberg A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation , 2013 .

[15]  S. Jasanoff Designs on Nature , 2005 .

[16]  S. Sismondo An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies , 2003 .

[17]  Frank Fischer,et al.  The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning , 1993 .

[18]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science , 1992 .

[19]  Dis-inviting the Unruly Public , 2015 .

[20]  John Ziman,et al.  Public Understanding of Science , 1991 .

[21]  D. Newman,et al.  Architecting complex international science, technology, and innovation partnerships (CISTIPs): A study of four global MIT collaborations , 2015 .

[22]  W. G. Huff,et al.  The developmental state, government, and Singapore's economic development since 1960 , 1995 .

[23]  Sheila Jasanoff,et al.  Panacea or diagnosis? Imaginaries of innovation and the ‘MIT model’ in three political cultures , 2017, Social studies of science.

[24]  Paul Krugman,et al.  The Myth of Asia's Miracle , 1994 .

[25]  R. Radhakrishnan Why Compare? , 2010 .

[26]  James Wilsdon,et al.  Why should we promote public engagement with science? , 2014, Public understanding of science.

[27]  S. Jasanoff Contested Boundaries in Policy-Relevant Science , 1987 .

[28]  P. Romer Endogenous Technological Change , 1989, Journal of Political Economy.

[29]  N. Fairclough,et al.  Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language , 1995 .

[30]  S. Schwartzman,et al.  The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1994 .

[31]  A. Stirling “Opening Up” and “Closing Down” , 2008 .

[32]  S. Jasanoff,et al.  The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. , 1991 .

[33]  Martin W. Bauer,et al.  What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda , 2007 .

[34]  S. Carney Negotiating Policy in an Age of Globalization: Exploring Educational “Policyscapes” in Denmark, Nepal, and China , 2008, Comparative Education Review.

[35]  M. Callon,et al.  Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy , 2009 .

[36]  S. Jasanoff Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science , 2003 .

[37]  Mike Michael,et al.  Publics performing publics: of PiGs, PiPs and politics , 2009 .

[38]  D. Yanow Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis , 1999 .

[39]  David C. Mowery,et al.  Ivory tower and industrial innovation : university-industry technology transfer before and after the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States , 2004 .

[40]  Mary Tiles,et al.  Living in a Technological Culture: Human Tools and Human Values , 1995 .

[41]  James Wilsdon,et al.  See-Through Science : Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream , 2004 .

[42]  F. Scherer New Perspectives on Economic Growth and Technological Innovation , 1999 .

[43]  Laurence E. Lynn,et al.  Public Management As Art, Science, and Profession , 1996 .

[44]  K. Tan,et al.  From Efficiency-Driven to Innovation-Driven Economic Growth: Perspectives from Singapore , 2005 .

[45]  Philip Shapira,et al.  Introduction. A Systemic Perspective: The Innovation Policy Dance , 2010 .

[46]  Sheila Jasanoff,et al.  Judgment Under Siege: The Three-Body Problem of Expert Legitimacy , 2005 .

[47]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Risk As Globalising "Democratic" Discourse? Framing Subjects And Citizens , 2006 .

[48]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science – Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music? , 2006, Public Health Genomics.

[49]  A. Rip,et al.  The challenge of addressing Grand Challenges , 2014 .

[50]  M. Polanyi The Republic of science , 1962 .

[51]  Gregory K. Clancey,et al.  Intelligent Island to Biopolis: Smart Minds, Sick Bodies and Millennial Turns in Singapore , 2012 .