Understanding Responsible Innovation in Small Producers’ Clusters in Vietnam through Actor-Network Theory

Abstract

Innovation is increasingly recognised as an alternative for poverty alleviation in developing countries. However, cases of innovation in small producers' clusters in Vietnam imply negative externalities that conflict with today's notions of sustainable and inclusive development. This article analyses how small producers innovate while taking environmental and social considerations into account through an interactive societal process towards a community network, conceptualised as responsible innovation. Existing multifaceted theoretical insights do not provide sufficient basis to construct and test explanations. We apply a grounded theory involving Actor-Network Theory (ANT) to seek explanations as to why some small producers behave opportunistically while others acknowledge responsibility for the negative externalities. ANT enables us to see the critical details of the network creation process, including the agenda of the key actors, push and pull factors, the type of innovation, and the informal institutional context. L'innovation est de plus en plus reconnue comme une alternative pour le soulagement de la pauvreté dans les pays en développement. Cependant, des cas d'innovation chez des petits groupes de producteurs au Vietnam ont eu des externalités négatives qui sont en conflit avec les notions contemporaines de développement inclusif et durable. Cet article analyse comment des petits producteurs ont réussi à innover tout en tenant en compte facteurs sociales et environnementales, à travers un procès sociale interactif qui les a amené à construire un réseau communautaire -ce qu'on conceptualise comme de la innovation responsable. Les aperçus multidisciplinaires courants n'offrent assez de bases pour construire et tester des explications. Nous avons donc applique Actor-Network Theory (La Théorie de l'Acteur -Réseau; ANT) pour expliquer pourquoi des petits producteurs agissent de forme opportuniste, pendant que d'autres prennent responsabilité pour les externalités négatives. L'ANT nous permet de voir les détails critiques de la création du réseau, y inclus l'agenda des acteurs principales, les facteurs qui font avancer et ceux qui trainent, le type d'innovation, et le contexte institutionnel informel.

Limits to responsible innovation

“…The two approaches share some important interests and ANT can be useful to deepen our understanding of RI. For example, Voeten et al (2013) have used ANT to provide detailed understanding of why some innovators acknowledge responsibility where others do not. They argue that ANT helps to study informal institutions and the role of materiality, by which they mean the (non-intentional, for nonhumans obviously do not have intentions) behaviour of everything that is material, in network development.…”

A felelősségteljes innováció és a jövő kutatógenerációja

“…E két tényező vélhetően egymással párhuzamosan jelenik meg. A fejlődő országokban (például Kína, Indonézia, Vietnám) végzett, az RRI gyakorlati alkalmazására irányuló vizsgálatok végkövetkez-tetése saját kutatásunk szempontjából is rendkívül fontos: figyelembe kell venni a kulturális, társadalmi és politikai környezetet az RRI bevezetése során (Macnaghten et al, 2014;Setiawan -Singh, 2015;Voeten et al, 2015). Ennek következtében a STIR alkalmazása előtt is fontos ismerni a fejlett és a kevésbé fejlett országok közötti különbséget, így a következőkben e különbségekre világítunk rá.…”

Risk Classification and Municipal Policing in Canada: Altered Practice and Innovation

“…While its name lends itself to a possible theoretical lens, actor network theory (ANT) is widely viewed as a method for doing social science research (Callon, 1986a(Callon, , 1986b(Callon, , 1999Callon & Latour, 1981;Latour, 1987Latour, , 1996Latour, , 1999Latour, , 2005Latour & Woolgar, 1979;Law, 1991Law, , 1992Law, , 1999Voeten et al, 2015). I take up ANT in this dissertation from a middle ground between these two perspectives.…”

“…The following details of ANT are derived from a combined reading of its creators, Michel Callon and Bruno Latour (Callon, 1986a;Callon & Latour, 1981;Latour, 1987), and of those who contributed to its further development (Harvey, 2003;Latour & Woolgar, 1979;Law, 1992;Voeten et al, 2015;Wei, 2014;Wolf & Fukari, 2007;Zheng, 2017). Drawing on core concepts and assumptions from the social influence of science and technology, Michel Callon and John Law (1989) employ the actor network approach to understand the heterogeneous and interrelated character of social and technical components.…”

“…This approach corresponds to Latour's (2005, p. 10) characterization of nonhumans: "[t]hey have to be actors and not simply the hapless bearers of symbolic projection." ANT scholars refer to human actors and non-human actors jointly as 'actants'; that is, any person or any 'thing' that can generate, intentionally or otherwise, an action (Callon, 1986a;Latour, 1987Latour, , 1996Latour, , 2005Law, 1992;Voeten et al, 2015;Zheng, 2017). Additionally, ANT scholars consider the ways in which networks of relations comprised of actants are: (i) arranged, (ii) how they emerge and come into being, (iii) how they are constructed and maintained, (iv) how they compete with other networks, and (v) how they are strengthened and sustain themselves over time.…”