NOvation: Critical Studies of Innovation <p>This journal aims to contribute to rethink and debunking narratives of innovation in STS and STI. We need to look critically at studies of innovation to get better pictures of innovation. The journal questions the current narratives of innovation and offers a forum to discuss a different interpretation of innovation. The journal publishes articles in the following areas:</p> <ol> <li class="show">Critical analyzes of innovation and of studies of innovation;</li> <li class="show">Discourse analysis: deconstructing actors’ rhetoric, policy-makers’ frameworks and scholars’ argumentation;</li> <li class="show">Conceptual history: studying the concepts used in the field, the traveling of concepts among fields (academic and public) and their transformation into catchwords;</li> <li class="show">Intellectual history: documenting and revisiting scholars’ theories;</li> <li class="show">Case studies helping to understand the dynamics and processes of innovation and to rethink current narratives;</li> <li class="show">Contributions to alternative modeling of innovation;</li> <li class="show">Other possibilities will be received by the Editors according to compelling argumentation.</li> </ol> <p>&nbsp;</p> <h2>What topics will the journal seek to cover?</h2> <p>Mainly critical studies, a label that should be understood as wide and plural as possible, which could be unfolded in the next topics:</p> <ul> <li class="show">Conceptual history;</li> <li class="show">Intellectual history;</li> <li class="show">Politics and policies;</li> <li class="show">Science and technology;</li> <li class="show">Economics of innovation;</li> <li class="show">Frameworks and Narratives.</li> </ul> This Journal is hosted by INRS - Institut national de la recherche scientifique en-US NOvation: Critical Studies of Innovation 2562-7147 <div class="_1qH62_aIXP">This Open Access journal is under a Creative Commons License – CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0,&nbsp;that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.</div> X-Innovation <p>Innovation is an old word, of Greek origin, that came into the Latin vocabulary at around the fourth century and into our everyday vocabulary with the Reformation. However, it is only during the second half of the twentieth century that innovation became a fashionable concept and turned into a buzzword. It gave rise to a plethora of terms like technological innovation, organizational innovation, industrial innovation and, more recently, social innovation, open innovation, sustainable innovation, responsible innovation and the like. We may call these terms X-innovation.</p> <p>How can we make sense of this semantic extension? Why do these terms come into being? What drives people to coin new terms? What effects do the terms have on thought, on culture and scholarship and on policy and politics? In this article we offer a conceptual historical analysis of the semantic field of innovation.</p> Benoît Benoît Gerald Gaglio Sebastian Pfotenhauer Copyright (c) 2019 Benoît Godin, Gerald Gaglio, and Sebastian Pfotenhauer 2019-07-06 2019-07-06 I 19 19 Disruptive Innovation and the Idea of Technology <p>From its obscure origins in management theory, disruptive innovation has become one of the concepts used to describe how networked digital technologies and platforms transform industries and institutions. In this paper, I will examine how contested, and at times incommensurable, iterations of disruptive innovation share a similar idea of <em>technology</em>. Drawing upon discourses of disruptive innovation from management theory, institutional policies, and popular culture reveals a shared idea of technology whose characteristics include a reified idea of <em>technology</em>and a horizon of expectations in which fear of falling behind influences ideas about technological change.</p> Darryl Cressman Copyright (c) 2019 Darryl Cressman 2019-07-06 2019-07-06 I 23 23 Social innovations as a repair of social order <p>The paper addresses social innovation both as a mode and as a means of social change. It draws on the recent developments in the sociology of repair to offer a critical reading of pro-innovation discourse on the level of EU policy. It is argued that the practices and concepts of social innovation on the level of EU policy can be fruitfully reframed within a repair narrative, whereas the proliferation of the buzzword social innovation warrants a closer look from an innovation studies perspective. Connecting both repair and innovation studies thus offers a more nuanced understanding of current societal transformations and adds to the conceptual discussion of social change and social order.</p> Cornelius Schubert Copyright (c) 2019 Cornelius Schubert 2019-07-06 2019-07-06 I 27 27 Counterhegemonic Narratives of Innovation <p>From the 1970s onwards, changes in economic theory began to draw attention to the relationship between economic growth and technological innovation. Technological innovation has come to be considered fundamental to boosting international trade, increasing productivity and generating more and better jobs, among other benefits. However, more recent academic narratives began to change through considering the importance of technological innovation for social purposes such as social inclusion and sustainable development. This recovered the concept of social innovation and alongside the development of a plethora of alternative innovation concepts – such as sustainable innovation, open innovation, responsible innovation, green innovation, among other “x-innovation” concepts (Gaglio et al. 2017). Nevertheless, little is known about the extent to which these counterhegemonic concepts emerge and feature in Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI) policy discourses. In this sense, this article aims to understand the use of “x-innovation” concepts and the role attributed to innovation for (allegedly) counterhegemonic purposes in the STI national policies of Iberoamerican countries within the framework of disclosing the specificity of this discourse.</p> Carolina Bagattolli Tiago Brandão Copyright (c) 2019 Carolina Bagattolli, Tiago Brandão 2019-07-06 2019-07-06 I 39 39 Transition or Tradition <p>From the late 1990s, many national policies for research and development (R&amp;D), focusing on innovation, were established in South Korea. In May 2015, the Korean government announced another bold blueprint for R&amp;D innovation emphasizing a serious approach toward overcoming outdated ideas and practices regarding the governance of the science and technology sectors. This emphasized very high expectations for the country, though in the end it brought brutal criticism and bitter disappointment. This paper conducts a critical analysis of the discourse surrounding the notion of national R&amp;D innovation by focusing on the case of the 2015 Government R&amp;D Innovation Plan. Various (un)published papers were examined as mediators to reproduce, construct, and deliver a particular imagination. By analyzing not only the final policy documents but also the initial policy draft, this paper highlights a substantive discontinuity in the formation of the 2015 Government R&amp;D Innovation Plan that illuminates different imaginations of so-called national innovation in terms of R&amp;D. It illustrates a tension occurring in national R&amp;D innovation in South Korea between the desire to reproduce past glory by following previous experiences and a willingness to embody semantic meanings of innovation with novel approaches. This paper reveals a discursive oscillation of imaginations in national R&amp;D innovation which resulted in its conceptual and practical ambiguity.</p> Youjung Shin Hanbyul Jeong Copyright (c) 2019 Youjung Shin, Hanbyul Jeong 2019-07-06 2019-07-06 I 29 29 Business innovation statistics and the evolution of the Oslo Manual <p>After the publication of the fourth (2018) edition of the Oslo Manual, a key methodological reference for producing innovation statistics at international level, a review of the definitions of innovation – or, better, business innovation – used by the community of official statisticians has to be recommended. The main reason for such a review is the need to assess to what extent the current Oslo Manual has benefited from the rich economic and management literature on firms’ innovation produced since the publication of the previous edition in 2005. It should also be pointed out that the current Manual was expected to fix some long-standing issues like that of properly accommodating service innovation in a statistical framework constantly biased towards innovation in tangible goods and technology-related phenomena. This article argues that these challenges have been only partially met. By reviving some concepts used in the past, such as the object-oriented approach to measure innovation, and being especially concerned to make the statistical framework designed to measure business innovation applicable in other sectors of the economy (including individuals and households), some specific features of the business innovation processes may have been neglected. The Manual discusses a wide array of issues regarding the economics of innovation and management practices, however it does not define a new consistent framework able to accommodate the demand for indicators about the influence on business innovation of the ongoing processes of digitalization, servitization or open innovation and, at least partially, to adopt a service-dominant logic.</p> Giulio Perani Copyright (c) 2019 Giulio Perani 2019-07-06 2019-07-06 I 36 36