Manifesto Seminar: Arie Rip

Arie Rip (University of Twente, Netherlands) Putting the K Back in: Knowledge , Research and Innovation Systems (KRIS) STEPS Seminar, University of Sussex, 19 February 2009

Approach (1)
(National) systems of knowledge, research and innovation show paths of development (changes, but lots of continuity, cf. Nelson 1993)
In principle, different paths are possible, and should be considered in their own right.
In practice, dominance of so-called ‘modern research system’ paths (TRIAD countries, with some internal variety),
ST policy studies reflect this dominance. Instead, consider alternative paths as topics of study, and not just for developing countries
Subsequent question: How to modulate ongoing development in direction of a desirable path?

STI policy (mostly top down) KRIS, and frame conditions: productive constellations, and evolution over time outputs, further effects: contribution to economic growth, poverty alleviation, social coherence simplistic view: ongoing activities, patterns, dynamics embedded in, & modulating the system Against the linear view of policy making

Approach (2)
Knowledge (rather than science), including informal and local knowledge
Universities and public research institutes are not the only knowledge producers, and not automatically guardians of quality
Cf. recognition of ‘third sector knowledge production’ and ‘distributed innovation’ (up to ‘collective experimentation’, cf. Joly, Rip & Callon) in developed economies – for developing countries even more important
Competencies, and learning – key element (since Lundvall), but overworked as a catchphrase

Knowledge
There is now recognition of a “third sector” of knowledge production (consultancies, NGOs, patient associations) in developed countries
There are equivalents in developing countries?
Quality of the knowledge?
Local and interpretive knowledge – how to achieve broader validity than local?
Systematic (eventually, ’evidence based’) knowledge is important – but lack of applicability in concrete locations
So a trade-off!

Knowledge (2)
Includes professional, informal and local/indigenous knowledge (e.g. increasingly recognized importance of traditional healers and their professionalization)
Knowledge blending and technoblending occurs, and is increasingly recognized as productive
Comparative advantage of developing countries:
Knowledge about situations where new technology may be taken up, or where poverty alleviation has to take place

Development paths of KRIS
Linked to emergence of strong (modern) nation states in 19th century
Modern research system emerges after 1870 in Europe, USA and Japan
In colonies and Commonwealth countries subsidiary systems
Innovation systems since 1950s
Decolonisation; changes in Mediterranean countries; now globalisation

Emergence of the modern research (and innovation) system in Europe, USA and Japan, since 1870
Not uniform across countries, but there are overall similarities
Is productive, also because of existing informal interactions, political culture
Strong core, successive recontextualisations
Now opening up to other knowledges than professionalized scientific knowledge production

By now, strongly institutionalized (outer ring is still being articulated) I’ve used this mapping of institutions as a diagnostic tool, e.g. for South Africa Increasing interactions between science and society 1870 1945 1970 1985 2000

Patient associations influence research agendas and engage in research themselves, undermining the exclusive rights of scientists Technology Assessment , Ethical, Legal & Social Aspects surround ongoing science and technology (Human Genome Project initiated this) Outreach, public engagement – feedback into research agendas? (ex. interactive TA of GM vines) Also consultancies (and NGOs) bridging science and the economy, science and the community Authority over science (knowledge production) is also claimed by non-scientists (from USA Congressmen to patients and indigenous people); counter-authority is not the answer. Re-contextualization of science Increasing interactions between science and society 1870 1945 1970 1985 2000 key challenge

Other paths are possible
Modern research system is opening up – to some extent
Developing countries have a different history – may “grow” their own path?
Obviously, there are lots of constraints and dependencies. Including post-colonial (incl. the Commonwealth pattern), and responses ranging from self-pity to asserting oneself (as in African Renaissance)
Indications of reseach systems must then also be about “own” growth!

Growth points
‘ Knowledge blending’ and ‘technoblending’: productive mixes of local and imported (visible in agriculture and health, also elsewhere)
Role of informal sector, also because role of intermediaries – which is an important feature of productive innovation systems generally
Identification of such growth points based on a diagnosis of system dynamics; especially importance of heterogeneous/hybrid developments

Improving your system
Centres of excellence and relevance are proposed, but too often focused on “high” ST
Try “low” ST (analysis of uptake/embedding of technology; poverty reduction “on location”)
Knowledge production and civil society (cf. also ‘people’s research’)
Universities as a location for capacity building, but often constrain the broader capacities ( go for “porous” and “post-modern” universities rather than “traditional” excellence)

In conclusion
Add analysis (and diagnosis) of evolution of KRIS: emerging paths (path dependencies)
Indicators/indications can be specified, but require a diagnosis of:
system dynamics (esp. heterogeneity), and
a desirable path (political choices)
Empirical work? Include case studies
For Sussex Manifesto: add systemic perspectives
Convergence of developments in European KRIS and developing countries’ KRIS?

Manifesto Seminar: Arie Rip

by STEPS Centre on Mar 03, 2009

Accessibility

Categories

Tags

Upload Details

Usage Rights

1 Embed 1

Statistics

Manifesto Seminar: Arie Rip — Presentation Transcript