The political economy of technical fixes: the (mis)alignment of clean fossil and political regimes
In European research and innovation policy, Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) and Open Science (OS) encompass two co-existing sets of ambitions concerning systemic change in the practice of research and innovation. This paper is an exploratory attempt to uncover synergies and differences between RRI and OS, by interrogating what motivates their respective transformative agendas. We offer two storylines that account for the specific contexts and dynamics from which RRI and OS have emerged, which in turn offer entrance points to further unpacking what 'opening up' to society means with respect to the transformative change agendas that are implicit in the two agendas. We compare differences regarding the 'how' of opening up in light of the 'why' to explore common areas of emphasis in both OS and RRI. We argue that while both agendas align with mission-oriented narratives around grand societal challenges, OS tends to emphasize efficiency and technical optimisation over RRI's emphasis on normative concerns and democracy deficits, and that the two agendas thus contrast in their relative legitimate emphasis on doable outcomes versus desirable outcomes. In our conclusion, we reflect on the future outlook for RRI and OS' coexistence and uptake, and on what their respective ambitions for transformation might mean for science-society scholars and scholarship.
Transdisciplinary research and innovation (R&I) efforts have emerged as a means to address challenges to sustainable transformation. One of the main elements of transdisciplinary efforts is the ‘inclusion’ of different stakeholders, values and perspectives in participatory R&I processes. In practice, however, ‘doing inclusion’ raises a number of challenges. In this article, we aim to contribute to re-politicizing inclusion in transdisciplinarity for transformation, by (1) empirically unraveling four key challenges that emerge in the political practice of ‘doing inclusion’, (2) illustrating how facilitators of inclusion processes perform balancing acts when confronted with these challenges, and (3) reflecting on what the unfolding dynamics suggests about the politics of stakeholder inclusion for societal transformation. In doing so, we analyze the transdisciplinary FIT4FOOD2030 project (2017–2020)—an EU-funded project that aimed to contribute to fostering EU R&I systems’ ability to catalyze food system transformation through stakeholder engagement in 25 Living Labs. Based on 3 years of action-research (including interviews, workshops and field observations), we identified four inherent political challenges to ‘doing inclusion’ in FIT4FOOD2030: (1) the challenge to meaningfully bring together powerful and marginalized stakeholders; (2) combining representation and deliberation of different stakeholder groups; (3) balancing diversities of inclusion with directionalities implied by transformative efforts; and (4) navigating the complexities of establishing boundaries of inclusion processes. We argue that by understanding ‘doing inclusion’ as a political practice, necessitating specificity about the (normative) ambitions in different inclusion settings, facilitators may better grasp and address challenges in transdisciplinarity for transformation.
EU expert institutions delivering policy advice about the promise of emerging technologies, help frame the issues that technologies might address. Their assumptions about European contexts for technology futures therefore warrant critical attention. Drawing on current theoretical work in science and technology studies, archival research and interviews with policy actors, this article examines the European Commission's recently established European Technology Platforms. It focuses in particular on the industry stakeholder group advising the Commission on carbon capture and storage, a technology with implications for several industry and policy sectors. The paper demonstrates how expert-produced technology scenarios build on assumptions (1) about the polities the technology is thought to serve, and (2) the political priorities that it might address. By showing how such assumptions affect on-going technology development efforts, the paper suggests ways for sociotechnical dynamics to be better appreciated within EU units for technology planning.
The apparent, if uncertain, rejection of neoliberalism manifested by the election of Donald Trump in the US (alongside the slim, but clear majority for Brexit in the UK, and a growing racist and protectionist nationalism across Europe) necessitates renewed analysis of the future of both promises of technical fixes to climate change, such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM) (in this chapter collectively referred to as climate engineering), and the potential future hegemonic political regimes that may replace neoliberalism. Drawing on a cultural political economy analysis of the co-evolution of political regimes and promises of technical fixes to climate change (Markusson et al. 2017), we here discuss what the current moment of radical destabilisation might augur. The election of Trump indicates a potential unsettling of an established dynamic whereby promises of technical fixes to climate change co-evolved with, and imperfectly supported, the neoliberal power regime and its preferred marketbased solutions to the climate change problem. We identify two key and interacting dialectics, between neoliberalism and illiberalism, and between continued neoliberal (but illiberally challenged) US hegemony and budding China-centred liberalism 2.0. Both these dialectics appear conducive to prolonged attention to the promise of climate engineering, as talk and research, or even as limited deployment.
Food systems are not fit for purpose, transgressing planetary boundaries, causing unhealthy consumption patterns and are rife with inequality. Research and Innovation (R&I) are central to tackling these food systems challenges, yet R&I systems are equally not fit for purpose, often lacking systemic and participatory approaches to food systems transformation. Therefore, there is a need for novel R&I approaches that adopt systemic and more participatory methods to engage with a wider range of food systems stakeholders. However, the lack of competencies and tools concerning novel R&I approaches for food systems transformation is a key hindrance to the deployment of such approaches in practice. These competencies and tools are vital for guiding and supporting food systems stakeholders dedicated to contributing to its transformation whether they are policymakers, researchers or citizens. This article presents the tangible results of the European (EU) Horizon 2020 funded FIT4FOOD2030 project. As a response to the challenges food and R&I systems face as well as the gap in competencies and tools surrounding these issues, the project has developed a growing online hub of Tools for Transformation applicable to a broad range of transformation challenges and contexts (e.g. food, health or energy) and a Sustainable Food Systems Network to equip food system stakeholders with practical hands‐on materials to ‘do’ food systems transformation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.