34: Policy frameworks for the social appropriation of technology and innovation (Tiago Brandão, Carolina Bagattolli, Rafael de Brito Dias, Noela Invernizzi)
The use of the term social is usually associated with promises of political transformation. The ‘social’ implies undertaking significant change towards the access to well-being and development for disadvantaged populations and communities. In addition, there are now many conceptualisations of (new and old) technologies combined with the ‘innovation-speak’ of our era (Vinsel & Russel, 2020); there are even some conceptualisations that seek to pair these promises of technoscience with (historical) social problems, (local) community demands and (universal) societal goals of sustainability. Various groups are even calling for a 'counter-hegemonic vision of innovation'. (Pansera, 2023; Robra et al., 2023) When we analyse these concepts in detail, we see a tension between transformation (for Better Worlds, implicitly) and the appropriation of the social, for the sake of a political rhetoric that is characterised either by a phenomenon of militant aspiration or by complex processes of corporate capture. (Pel, 2015). The oscillation of the content around social innovation is accompanied by a proliferation of other conceptualisations that point to alternative practices and policies regarding the development of technology and its democratisation, both in terms of its use and its production. In Latin America, the concept of Social Technology has been used (and expanded) for two generations. In Asia, there is already an abundance of literature on the phenomenon of frugal innovation (and/or jugaad innovation). In Europe, we find several proposals for social entrepreneurship (i.e., 'social business', cf. Rory-Duff & Bull, 2019) instrumentalising the concept of social innovation. The literature on grassroots innovation has also gained hype in South America, Africa, and the far East. Among the many others that we should discuss (e.g., mundane technology, inclusive innovation, common innovation, convivial innovation), we seek to identify the seminal texts, their momentum, and the experiences they have given rise. In sum, the aim of this track is to begin a comparison of the main categories and ideas of those policy-frameworks (according to Godin, 2009), that have been shaping for several years already an activist praxis – and, more occasionally, the formulation of policies. Thus, we search to understand the kind of policy proposal, support programme and/or activist strategy that each of these concepts has been inspiring in the Global South. With this approach, we aim to discuss, (a) what conceptions of “better worlds” are being pursued by STI policies in different regions and understand (b) how they are assumed to be achieved and designed by both social movements and political establishments.
Keywords: social technology, social innovation, inclusive innovation, grassroots innovation, frugal innovation, mundane technology, common innovation