Paradigmas transformadores para una sociología comprometida:
El caso de las políticas de innovación
DOI
https://doi.org/10.25267/Rev_estud_socioeducativos.2023.i11.21Informazioni
Autori
- Sandro Giachi (ES) Universidad de Cádiz https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4120-4726
Abstract
La sociología ha mostrado que las innovaciones pueden generar tanto impactos sociales positivos como negativos. Sin embargo, es frecuente encontrar una postura acrítica y genéricamente optimista acerca del papel de la innovación para el desarrollo socioeconómico en el discurso dominante de las instituciones. En este trabajo defendemos que un cambio de paradigma alrededor del concepto de innovación — teniendo en cuenta sus implicaciones para las políticas públicas — constituye un enfoque fructífero para una sociología comprometida con la transformación social. En particular, presentamos el concepto de «innovación transformadora» que deriva de un paradigma diferente para las políticas de innovación y que se fundamenta en algunos avances recientes de la teoría sociológica sobre cambio tecnológico, como la teoría de las transiciones y la perspectiva multinivel. Ilustraremos las implicaciones prácticas de este paradigma a través de la presentación de un proyecto de investigación-acción intersectorial llevado a cabo entre más de seis países, el Consorcio de políticas de innovación transformadora. Finalmente, discutimos los resultados de tres experiencias innovadoras en el ámbito educativo, mostrando cómo el paradigma transformador aporta conceptos y estrategias que pueden contribuir a una transformación radical e inclusiva de los sistemas sociotécnicos.
Parole chiave
Downloads
Come citare
Licenza
Questo lavoro è fornito con la licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale 4.0 Internazionale.
Riferimenti bibliografici
Arjona, R., & Ravet, J. (2021). Ciencia e innovación para transformar Europa. Papeles de Economía Española, (169), 2-15.
Ayisi, J., Ndakala, F., Owuor, R., Nyanga, R., Daniels, C., Wanyama, B.& Ting, B. (2019). Nomadic education in Kenya: a case study of mobile schools in Samburu County, as a transformative innovation policy. TIPC Transformative Innovation Learning History. https://tinyurl.com/4udzfap5
Berardi, F. (2017). Futurability: the age of impotence and the horizon of possibility. Londres: Verso Books.
Borrás, S., & Edler, J. (2020). The roles of the state in the governance of socio-technical systems’ transformation. Research Policy, 49(5), 103971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.103971
Cantwell, J. (2005). Innovation and Competitiveness. En J. Fagerberg, D.C. Mowery & R.R. Nelson (ed) The Oxford handbook of innovation (543-567). Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286805.003.0020
Chataway, J., Chux, D., Kanger, L., Ramirez, M., Schot, J., & Steinmueller, E. (2017). Developing and enacting transformative innovation policy. 8th International Sustainability Transitions Conference, Goteburgo, Suecia, 18-21 de junio. https://tinyurl.com/urjs8kbv
Cozzens, S.E. & Kaplinsky, R. (2010). Innovation, Poverty, and Inequality: Cause, Consequence, or Co-evolution? En B.-Å. Lundvall, K. Joseph, C. Chaminade & J. Vang (ed) Handbook on Innovation Systems and Developing Countries: Building Domestic Capabilities in a Global Setting (57-82). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Cozzens, S. & Takhur, D. (2014). Innovation and Inequality: Emerging Technologies in an Unequal World. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Daniels, C. (2019). Transformative Innovation Policy Africa Hub Exploratory. TIPC Technical Report. https://tinyurl.com/42p3nmpr
Edler, J., & Boon, W.P. (2018). The next generation of innovation policy: Directionality and the role of demand-oriented instruments’—Introduction to the special section. Science and Public Policy, 45(4), 433-434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy026
Fatou, C., Joseph, D., Lawson Assion, M. S., Daniels, C., & Ting, B. (2019). ICT in Higher Education in Africa: Example of the Virtual University in Senegal. TIPC Transfomarive Innovation Learning History. https://tinyurl.com/munsts3d
Fernández Esquinas, M. (2020). Innovación: Una perspectiva sociológica. RES. Revista Española de Sociología, 29(3), 5-37. http://doi.org/10.22325/fes/res.2020.55
Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. Nueva York: Penguin.
Geels, F.W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research policy, 31(8-9), 1257-1274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8
Geels, F.W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy, 33(6–7), 897–920. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015
Geels, F.W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399–417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003
Ghosh, B., Kivimaa, P., Ramirez, M., Schot, J., & Torrens, J. (2021). Transformative outcomes: assessing and reorienting experimentation with transformative innovation policy. Science and Public Policy, 48(5), 739-756. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scab045
Giachi, S. (2019). Transformando las prácticas de evaluación en las agencias de innovación para fomentar transiciones hacia la sostenibilidad. Arxius de sociologia, (40), 21-30.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gilman, N. (2018). Modernization theory never dies. History of Political Economy, 50(S1), 133-151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00182702-7033896
Godin, B. (2015). Innovation contested: The idea of innovation over the centuries. Nueva York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315855608
Godin, B. & Vinck, D. (2016). Critical Studies of Innovation. Alternative Approaches to the Pro-innovation Bias. Cheltelham: Edward Elgar.
González García, M.I., Luján López, J.L., & López Cerezo, J.A. (1996). Ciencia, tecnología y sociedad: una introducción al estudio social de la ciencia y la tecnología. Madrid: Tecnos.
Greaves, H., & MacAskill, W. (2019). The case for strong longtermism. Global Priorities Institute, 5. https://tinyurl.com/2fheb5zd
Grin, J., Rotmans, J., Schot, J.W., Geels, F.W., & Loorbach, D. (2010). Transitions to sustainable development: new directions in the study of long term transformative change (Routledge studies in sustainability transitions; Vol. 1). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203856598
Hevia Martínez, G. (2019). La sociedad como artefacto: Sistemas sociotécnicos, sociotecnologías y sociotécnicas. CTS: Revista iberoamericana de ciencia, tecnología y sociedad, 14(40), 267-295.
Kanger, L., Geels, F.W., Sovacool, B., & Schot, J. (2019). Technological diffusion as a process of societal embedding: Lessons from historical automobile transitions for future electric mobility. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 71, 47-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.11.012
Kanger, L., & Schot, J. (2019). Deep transitions: Theorizing the long-term patterns of socio-technical change. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 32, 7-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.07.006
Kemp, R., Schot, J. & Hoogma, R. (1998). Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management. Technology analysis & strategic management, 10(2), 175-198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537329808524310
Molas-Gallart, J., Boni, A., Giachi, S., & Schot, J. (2021). A formative approach to the evaluation of Transformative Innovation Policies. Research Evaluation, 30(4), 431-442. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvab016
Molas-Gallart, J. y Davies, A. (2006). Toward theory-led evaluation: The experience of European science, technology, and innovation policies. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(1), 64-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005281701
Molina-Luque, F. (2021). El nuevo contrato social entre generaciones: elogio de la profiguración. Madrid: Catarata.
Røpke, I. (2012). The unsustainable directionality of innovation–The example of the broadband transition. Research Policy, 41(9), 1631-1642. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.04.002
Saijo, T. (2020). Future design: Bequeathing sustainable natural environments and sustainable societies to future generations. Sustainability, 12(16), 6467. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12166467
Schot, J., Boni, A, Ramirez, M.S. & Steward, F. (2018). Addressing the sustainable development goals through transformative innovation policy. Tipc Research Brief, 1. https://tinyurl.com/377xbmc2
Schot, J., Daniels, C., Torrens, J., & Bloomfield, G. (2017). Developing a shared understanding of transformative innovation policy. TIPC Research Brief, 1. https://tinyurl.com/2p8fsr5e
Schot, J., & Kanger, L. (2018). Deep transitions: Emergence, acceleration, stabilization and directionality. Research Policy, 47(6), 1045-1059. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.009
Schot, J., & Rip, A. (1997). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological forecasting and social change, 54(2-3), 251-268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00180-1
Schot, J., & Steinmueller, W.E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research policy, 47(9), 1554-1567. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011
Sirera Miralles, C. (2015). Neglecting the 19th century: Democracy, the consensus trap and modernization theory in Spain. History of the Human Sciences, 28(3), 51-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0952695115579588
Weber, K. M., & Rohracher, H. (2012). Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change: Combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive ‘failures’ framework. Research policy, 41(6), 1037-1047. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.015
Weiss, C.H. (1997). How Can Theory-Based Evaluation Make Greater Headway. Evaluation Review, 21(4), 501-524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0193841X9702100405
Zapf, W. (1991). The role of innovations in modernization theory. International Review of Sociology, 2(3), 83-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03906701.1991.9971098