Traditional ecological knowledge in innovation governance: a framework for responsible and just innovation

Abstract

Change in Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) is not easily understood in terms of Western innovation discourses. In fact, innovations in the sense of modern and growth-oriented technologies are common sources for the erosion of TEK. This article brings together current literatures on TEK and innovation studies in addressing questions about the governance of socioecological change. First, we connect TEK to shifting meanings of 'innovation' that emphasize contributions to societal goals rather than economic growth or technological modernization. Second, we situate these shifts in governance frameworks of 'responsible innovation'. Third, we argue that the case for self-determination of traditional communities also identifies limits of integrating TEK with recent innovation discourses. As change in traditional communities is part of a wider political set of struggles about conditions of change and decolonization, debates about innovation require engagement with underlying social justice issues beyond mainstream debates about responsible governance. ARTICLE HISTORY

Narrative as a resource for inclusive governance: a UK–Brazil comparison of public responses to nanotechnology

“…We argue that narratives provide guideposts not only for the types of epistemic inclusion that are needed in a particular context but also for mechanisms of exclusion that work against a broader interest in responsibility and governance. In particular, we argue that considerations of epistemic inclusion (Ludwig and Macnaghten 2020;Valkenburg et al 2020) must be addressed not just at the point of engaging stakeholders or implementing a deliberative public engagement, but also at the outset of implementing any new or tailored framework for responsible innovation. Indeed, any such framework should itself be opened up to inclusion and responsiveness to best align its goals and practices with the situated context of its implementation.…”

“…In line with these insights, scholars have traced the adaptation of policies, practices and frameworks for responsible innovation across a diverse and rapidly expanding variety of national, cultural and epistemic contexts (Doezema et al 2019;Wittrock et al 2020). In the process, they have argued for the need to attend in particular to various forms of inclusion and exclusion, perhaps most notably epistemic inclusion (Ludwig and Macnaghten 2020;Valkenburg et al 2020). Only by attending to the epistemic and ontological world views and positions of local and lay communities, and their convergences and divergences from dominant scientific, policy and market frames, can a diversity of epistemologies and ontologies be empowered.…”

A cross-dimensional analysis of nanotechnology and equality: examining gender fairness and pro-poor potential in Canada’s R&D landscape

“…Our approach allows for analysis of distributional outcomes of nanotechnology in both an economic dimension (pro-poor) and a social dimension (gender). Furthermore, while early efforts to bring about RI were often discussed as national endeavors, this paper contributes to more recent efforts to take into account consideration of its transnational and global connections (Doezema et al 2019;Ludwig and Macnaghten 2020), as efforts to generate pro-poor technologies that might create benefit for poor communities in one country, could exacerbate inequalities in the STEM workforce in another country.…”

Reinventing responsible innovation

“…In the second research article, Ludwig and Macnaghten (2019) call for adapting and extending 'established frameworks of responsible innovation' so as 'to reflect explicitly on just innovation.' While acknowledging the 'quickly growing literature on responsible innovation beyond Europe' it nevertheless remains the case that 'dominant frameworks of responsible innovation have not been designed with traditional communities in mind.'…”

“…Their resulting synthesis specifies both process and product qualifiers and represents a refinement of the well-known anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity, and responsiveness (AIRR) framework (cf. Ludwig and Macnaghten 2019). To aid in presenting the results of their proposed 'implementation framework,' Fraaije and Flipse develop a chart that graphically represents the logical relations among responsible innovation processes and products.…”