prospects for transformative innovation policy€¦ · conference report 2. 3 the inspirational...

PROSPECTS FOR TRANSFORMATIVE

INNOVATION POLICY

CONFERENCE REPORT 2017

This report documents and conveys the activities, insights and outcomes from the Transformative Innovation Policy

Consortium (TIPC) 2017 Conference.

The creation of TIPC came in answer to the need for fresh directions for science, technology and innovation (STI) policies

towards outcomes that sustainably enhance societies. Based around the Frame 3 perspective on Transformative Innovation Policy (TIP),

the Consortium and its partners are shaping the agenda in experimenting with and developing alternative frameworks, methods and metrics for STI policy to use these in reaching new societal achievements.

The 2017 inaugural conference was the pinnacle of activities for TIPC founding members’ pilot year. The two-day event, hosted by the South African Department of Science & Technology (DST)

and the National Research Council (NRF), provided a focal point to assess and examine, with wider partners, the range of co-created research and

analysis completed in the member countries over this initial period. This exploratory year set the benchmark for testing ideas and rationales,

to begin exploring and identifying new policy thinking and practices in STI based on this shared learning with stakeholders.

Further, demonstrating the promise made in this first year, all members unanimously committed to extending the vision

and work to a full 5-year programme. By expanding the narrative and knowledge around TIP, new pathways and partnerships can be forged.

In breaking new ground, the prospects for TIP and its exponents, are exciting and challenging. The 2017 conference showed the energy,

potential and commitment to building this new knowledge-base and to growing the constituency around Transformative Innovation

Policy and Frame 3 thinking for STI and wider society.

SUMMARY

CONFERENCE REPORT

2

3

The inspirational keynote address was given by the Honourable Minister of South Africa’s Department of Science and Technology, HE Naledi Pandor. She conveyed a powerful message and reproach on action for transformation. Some key messages included:

• South Africans are getting tired of conversations on ‘transformation’ as this has not directly benefited the public. Society is demanding transformative actions with tangible change.

• There is a need to transform research institutions in order to conduct research that is inclusive with a diversity of gender and race to expand scientific knowledge and understanding.

• TIPC should be focused on research that supports change. Policies do not transform societies, actions do.

• Transformative Innovation Policy must focus on new thinking in innovation policy and practice.

• There cannot be anything worse than hope held out and hope not realised.

• Plans such as National Development Plan, STISA-2024 are key building blocks for advancing Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, despite good policies and plans put in place by most of our countries, these policies and plans are not properly implemented.

• SDGs recognise that ending poverty must go hand-in-hand with addressing environmental challenges.

• We have to move away from frameworks, plans, policies towards action. TIPC is part of this orientation.

• Key challenges were posed as TIPC moves into the next phase of its work. This includes strengthening the available set of indicators and metrics, adopting a stronger gender lens in the analytical and conceptual work of the TIPC, strengthen capacity-building and expanding the available pool of policy experts with an understanding of the dynamics of innovation and its interface with the wide variety of socio-technical systems.

HE Naledi Pandor, Minister from the South African Department of Science and Technology

OPENING ADDRESS BY STI MINSTER

CONFERENCE REPORT

MESSAGE FROM TIPC FOUNDER, JOHAN SCHOT

“At the culmination of our exciting exploratory year, it was a delight to welcome a great cross-section of delegates to our inaugural TIPC conference.

This event was the finale to our pilot programme of activities for the Transformative Innovation Policy Consortium’s founding members. We have started to test ideas and rationales; built strong, productive relationships; and most crucially, have begun to identify the directions to go and the difficult questions to ask. We may be a long way from the answers, but the exploration for fresh policy thinking and practice in Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) has commenced with commitment and rigour. While daunting on one level, it is the distance we have to travel that is the most thrilling part.

Our vision is an essential one. We know building new knowledge, and the associated narratives and frameworks, is complex. Yet, we know too that our current systems of provision for our basic needs are not fit for the task ahead. We need to experiment, research, evaluate, disseminate, write and communicate new STI practice that supports developing the world sustainably. Together, over the two-day conference we debated and discussed to start adding new layers of knowledge to our emerging theory of Transformative Innovation Policy.

The inaugural 2017 conference was indeed engaging and enriching. With the full five-year programme ahead, we are now commencing the next chapter in our exciting and promising TIPC story.“

Johan Schot, Director of Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU),

Professor of Sustainability Transitions and History of Technology, University of Sussex

4

“The TIPC partnership is important for the University of Sussex. This collaboration builds upon long-standing relationships. SPRU challenges; it’s been genuinely interdisciplinary in its research and teaching; and it has made people think differently about science and technology. I believe that TIPC is a natural extension to this, and can only make the teaching and research of

Sussex and all our partners much better.”

Address to TIPC Conference from University of Sussex’s Vice Chancellor,

Adam Tickell

4 5

CONFERENCE REPORT

SNAPSHOT OF DAY 1

OPENING REMARKSDr Aldo Stroebel, Executive Director Strategic Partnerships, National Research Foundation of

South Africa

KEYNOTE ADDRESSThe Honorable Minister, HE Naledi Pandor,

South African Department of Science and Technology. A summary is outlined above.

ADDRESS BY UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX, UK

Professor Adam Tickell, Vice Chancellor. A summary is outlined above.

PLENARY 1The Transformative Innovation Policy

Consortium: insights and results from the pilot programme and future plans: Professor Johan Schot, Director of Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex (Outlined below)

PLENARY 2Discussion with founding members from South

Africa, Norway, Finland, Colombia, Sweden

PARALLEL SESSION 1ASouth Africa: Technology for rural education

and development

PARALLEL SESSION 1BFinland: Low-carbon and smart mobility solutions

for passenger transport

OVERVIEW OF THE EXPLORATORY YEAR INSIGHTS

The opening plenary sessions at the conference were an outline of the findings and insights from TIPC’s first year. The first was delivered on behalf of the Consortium by Professor Johan Schot, Director of the Science Policy Research Unit, the mobilizing coordinator of the Consortium. The second plenary session involved particular insights from the founding members. Here is an overview of the TIP insights, characteristics and conclusions.

The approach to Transformative Innovation Policy is emerging.

• Societal Challenges (SDGs) are the starting point.

• Need for Transformative Change and Sustainability Transitions.

• Challenge led/mission oriented programs, transition management, strategic niche management policies, various forms of participatory technology assessment, innovation for inclusive development, frugal innovation, grassroots innovation, responsible research and innovation.

1B

PARALLEL SESSION 2A Colombia: Productive transformations in coffee

production

PARALLEL SESSION 2BNorway: Responsible research and innovation

practices in Biotechnology for Innovation

PARALLEL SESSION 2CSweden: Challenge-driven innovation initiatives

1A

2B

2C

2A

6

Presentations from the conference and other information on TIP available at www.transformative-innovation-policy.com

CONFERENCE REPORT

Overview of policy activities from the perspective of the 3 frames of innovation. In country training (2 days) on the main

ideas and co-develop five page study of your country’s current STI policies. Build your country and SPRU team.

Review with the shared learnings from the cohort’s case studies for further TIP analysis. Shortlisting and selection of the case study for each country’s Transformative Innovation Learning History (TILH).

Conduct in-country TILH with workshops and evaluations. Analysis of case study, preparation of

final report and discussions on next stage.

Further analysis, learning and coproduction of knowledge within the Consortium cohort.

If appropriate, design and implementation of 5 year TIP exploration ‘lab’ incorporating the 5 central strands of

the TIPC central approach.

CO-CREATION METHODOLOGY

Co-creation between researchers and policy-makers is central to developing TIP knowledge and approach. The first stage pilot year has involved workshops, country reviews, and Transformative Innovation Learning Histories (TILH) with co-produced timelines, actor maps and TILHs that give multiple-voices and perspectives.

DEMONSTRATORS OF TIP

These have been the Country Reviews and Transformative Innovation Learning Histories (TILHs) for each founding member.

These were:

• Tekes, Finland: Smart, low-carbon mobility solutions for passenger transport.

• Research Council of Norway: Responsible Research & Innovation (RRI) in Biotechnology for Innovation.

• Department for Science & Technology, South Africa: Cofimvaba’s Technology and Rural Education for Development (Tech4Red).

• Vinnova, Sweden: Challenge-driven Innovation (CDI).

• Colciencias, Department of Science, Technology & Innovation, Colombia: Inclusive Innovation in the coffee sector .

6 7


CONFERENCE REPORT

DIRECTIONALITY: Did the policy suppose non-neutrality or were a wide range of technological options

considered and did it address which social and environmental issues they would provoke? Did the project and policy consider the non-neutrality of technology?

SOCIETAL GOAL: Did the initiative focus on grand societal challenges such as those encompassed

in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals?

SYSTEM-LEVEL IMPACT: Does the initiative address change on the level of socio-technical systems?

Does it have wide impact?

LEARNING AND REFLEXIVITY: Does the project allow for ‘second order’ or ‘deep’ learning?

Is the opportunity for this embedded within the policy and project?

CONFLICT VS CONSENSUS: Were differences in opinion between stakeholders acknowledged and encouraged?

INCLUSIVENESS: Have civil society actors and/or end-users been included?

A NEW NARRATIVE – THE TIPC EXPLORATORY YEAR HEADLINE INSIGHTS

• It is a non-linear policy process and there is a need for pro-active policy engagements over a number of years with lots of uncertainty & processes with layering & fragmented policy mixes that involve a mixture of bottom-up and top-down activities.

• There is a question over bounded experiments vs engaged open-ended policy experiments. There will be no simple scaling up ‘solution’, instead it will be mobilization of learning, networks, connections and expectations.

• Challenges have to be open-ended, allowing for opening-up, tensions, conflicts & then closing down of certain pathways to allow for acceptable sustainable pathways to emerge.

• Agency matters. Human resources are important and it will be key people that keep the transformative process going and on-direction.

• Transformation is an identity-changing process and involves the formation of new routines and a new framing of problems.

• There is a need for evaluation for transformative change, which de-centers the policies or in other words evaluation that puts policy in the context of larger transformative change processes. There is a need for a new type of programme theory and metrics.

• Elements of all three frames are present in all the five founding member countries, but Frame 3 misses a strong narrative and a consistent whole-of-government approach (policy mixes).

• Many policies do not address socio-technical system change, but, for example, find green or inclusive business opportunities, or concentrate on altering one element such as transforming the research system.

• An important question is how to move from identifying challenges to transformation? This is a fundamental question.

DEVELOPMENT OF OPEN STANDARDS

The pilot year has begun to develop TIP framework and standards with the case study criteria being based on a number of factors. The initial criteria developed includes these elements:

8


CONFERENCE REPORT

SNAPSHOT OF DAY 2

3A

9


WELCOME TO DAY 2Zooming out to explore prospects for Transformative

Innovation Policy – Joanna Chataway (SPRU, University of Sussex) and Imraan Patel,

Department of Science and Technology (South Africa)

PARALLEL SESSION 3A:Revisiting science, technology and innovation: country reviews from a transformative change

perspective

PanellistsJohan Schot, (Chair), Director of SPRU, Professor in History of Technology and Sustainability Transition Studies, University of Sussex, UK

Michael Lim, Policy Review Section, Science, Technology and ICT Branch, UNCTAD-DTL Opening statement on on UNCTAD framework for science, technology and policy Reviews

Michal Miedzinski, UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources

Jenifer Muwuliza, Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Uganda

Anteneh Senbeta, Ministry of Science and Technology, Ethiopia (tbc)

SUMMARY OF SESSION:

Michael Lim presented the STIP review process. More inclusiveness means longer timeframe and costs. There’s always the need for trade-offs.

The main presentation question was: why revise the STIP framework (by UNCTAD)?

• A new international development architecture – Agenda 2030, SDGs, and Sustainable Development.

• The Framework remains traditional.

• How can we target SD? SDGs? How can we make IP more inclusive, sustainable?

• We need to overcome limits of current understanding.

• There is a need to be informed by new thinking.

Michal Miedzinski from UCL’s Institue for Sustainable Resources gave a presentation on www.inno4sd.net The principal question was how do you gather data? The answer was outlined as: collate secondary, use data to consult with key stakeholders prior to workshop and then during workshop.

Key insights:• UNCTAD revision, long and detailed. UCL review

framework is lean but risks losing details useful for political buy-in and effectiveness. What balance would be right?

• Important for reviews to consider looking at sociotechnical systems alongside national level review.

• Indicators and data may never be as sophisticated as we want them to be. As a result, need for mixed methods approach.

• Issues of comparability, since different countries focus on different goals, targets, e.g. selectivity in SDG goals. Is comparability really necessary since the STIP review are meant to e.g. stimulate discussions, policy change and investments decision?

CONFERENCE REPORT

3C

10


3B

• UNCTAD’s position is that you need growth plus development that is inclusive. Such growth must come with structural transformations; growth alone is seldom possible and effective in addressing major development challenges.

PARALLEL SESSION 3B:R&D investment and transformation

PanellistsEd Steinmueller, (Chair), Professor of Information & Communication Technology Policy, SPRU, University of Sussex, UK

Matthias Weber, Head of Unit Research, Technology and Innovation Policy, Austrian Institute of Technology, Austria

Göran Marklund, Deputy Director General and Head of Operational Development, Vinnova, Sweden

Michael Kahn, Professor Extraordinaire in the Centre for Research on Evaluation, Science and Technology at Stellenbosch University

SUMMARY OF SESSION:

National investments in R&D have traditionally been influenced by strong distinctions between basic and applied research with the former dominated by disciplinary considerations and the latter by Ministry priorities. In the contemporary context, the range of cross-disciplinary issues associated with sustainable development goals, grand challenges, and social needs more broadly have challenged traditional practice.

In discussing these issues, it was noted that the inertia of the current system is indeed strong with entrenched interests favouring current practice. At the same time, research funders are called upon to take a more proactive role in the ‘direction’ of research which raises questions about governance and programme definition. Acknowledgement of the nature of the new challenges is fundamental to beginning to reorient national R&D investments. The balance between the new challenges clearly differs between countries. In some cases, new challenges are also seen as opportunities for fostering

new industries and economic growth. In other countries, there is a gulf between the scientific establishment and the local needs of industry that is difficult to bridge. In all cases, the range of new challenges is proving difficult to reconcile with established practice and research funders’ capabilities suggesting a need to examine international experience in novel programmes and governance arrangements and to construct means of acquiring new capabilities for analysing, planning, and implementing research funding programmes that are relevant to the contemporary context.

PARALLEL SESSION 3C:Social justice and transformations to sustainability:

snapshots of current work

PanellistsAndy Stirling, (Chair), Professor of Science & Technology Policy, SPRU, University of Sussex; Co-Director, STEPS Centre; Sussex Energy Group, UK The STEPS pathways approach: culturing transformation

Bitrina Diyamett, Executive Director, Science Technology and Innovation Policy Research Organisation (STIPRO), Tanzania Innovation and sustainable economic development

Mark Swilling, Professor of Sustainable Development, Stellenbosch University; Academic Director of the Sustainability Institute; Co-Director of the Stellenbosch Centre for Complex Systems in Transition, South Africa Just transitions in Africa

Joanes Atela, Senior Research Fellow, Climate Resilient Economies, African Centre for Technology Studies, Nairobi Transforming pro-poor energy access in Africa

SUMMARY OF SESSION:

The session introduction began with the importance of recognising sustainability to be an inherently political – rather than just a technical – matter. The work of the STEPS Centre was given as an example, which includes concrete ways for innovation policy to respect that

CONFERENCE REPORT

3D4A

11


sustainability is – like progress more generally – typically framed in quite radically different ways. So it is rarely self-evident in any given field, that there can be one ‘most sustainable’ innovation trajectory. There were discussions on the crucial importance to transformative innovation – as to transformation more generally – of shifts in distributed political cultures. It is not enough to rely – as is often implied – on top-down innovation strategies and programmes. The history of past progressive transformations shows, that nothing significant occurs without collective action by social movements – meaning again that transformative innovation is not just a matter for policy but for politics more widely.

PARALLEL SESSION 3D:New perspectives in the evaluation of science,

technology and innovation

PanellistsDiego Chavarro, (Chair) Policy Advisor, Policy Design & Evaluation Unit, Colciencias, Colombia

Jordi Molas-Gallart, Research Professor, INGENIO (Spanish Council for Scientific Research – Polutechnic University of Valencia), Spain, Visiting Fellow, SPRU, University of Sussex, UK

Glenda Kruss Van Der Heever, Deputy Executive Director, Centre for Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (CeSTII), South Africa

Hasa Mlawa, Professor of Technology and Innovation Management, University of Dar es Salaam

SUMMARY OF SESSION:

• It is common to assume that science, technology, and innovation can be all evaluated according to generalist frameworks focused on the production of academic knowledge. The presentations showed that science evaluation, technology evaluation, and innovation evaluation should be treated separately because they are the product of different rationales, involve different stakeholders, require different

capabilities, and respond to contextual variables such as the country in which they are produced. It was clear, then, that the evaluation of these three components of human knowledge requires different evaluation frameworks.

• One point in common in the presentations was the criticism that most evaluations are not fit for purpose. The evaluation of science does not take into account the type and aims of the research being produced, the evaluation of technology transfer does not consider whether it is effectively absorbed or the power relations between the parties, and the evaluation of innovation does not include its relationship to sustainable development. More flexible, inclusive, and creative evaluations are then needed in order to face the challenges of our time.

PARALLEL SESSION 4A:Policy mixes for transformative change

PanellistsFlorian Kern, (Chair) Senior Lecturer, SPRU, University of Sussex; Co-Director, Sussex Energy Group, UK

Sandrine Kergroach, Analyst, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

Edurne Magro, Researcher, Orkestra-Basque Institute of Competitiveness

Mapula Tshangela, Senior Policy Advisor, National Sustainable Development, Ministry of Environment; Researcher, Stellenbosch University, South Africa

SUMMARY OF SESSION:

The presentation covered very complementary perspectives on policy mixes in transformative change from academia, an international organisation (OECD), consulting and policy practice:

• Florian Kern (Chair) introduced the academic background and emerging literature on policy mixes within STI policy analysis as well as in the sustainability transitions literature more specifically

CONFERENCE REPORT

12


4Band why there is a need for analysis to go beyond individual instrument and look at wider policy mixes

• Sandrine Kergroach talked about the policy mix thinking within the OECD and her work on compiling a database of STI policies in member states to collect comparable data and help assess policy mixes (e.g in terms of their instrument interactions and balance of types of instruments over time). She also pointed to the importance of capturing hierarchies, sequencing and connections and the need for a hybrid approach to combine different approaches/ metrics and to reflect qualitative features as well.

• Michal Miedzinski talked about the challenge of evaluating complex policy mixes and the importance of using an appropriate ‘theory of change’ but also pointed to the importance of public sector capabilities required for the design of policy mixes, as well as the dedicated evaluation capacity.

• Mapula Tshangela talked about how in practice the environment ministry try to coordinate with other ministries and place mainstream environmental concerns into their policies and sectoral strategies (e.g. transport or tourism strategy) through coordination mechanisms. The ambition of this work is to avoid contradictions as much as possible.

The discussion covered a range of important topics including:

• At what level of ambition the OECD is pursuing their policy mix work and how this work will feed into STI reviews in the future?

• The importance of the interplay of policy design for the mix, policy mapping and policy evaluation.

• The importance of also mapping unintended consequences of policies to show how ‘side effects’ can do harm and inform policy makers about synergies, trade-offs and conflicts.

• Whether there is any evidence to suggest which types of policies go well together.

• The importance of diversity and the political difficulties of establishing coherent policy mixes.

PARALLEL SESSION 4B:Innovation policies for the informal economy

PanellistsErika Kraemer-Mbula, (Chair) Senior Researcher, South African Research Chair in Industrial Development, University of Johannesburg; Associate Professor Extraordinary, Centre for Research on Evaluation, Science & Technology (CREST), University of Stellenbosch; Researcher, DST-NRF Centre of Excellence in Scientometrics and STI Policy, South Africa

Nonhlanhla Mkhize, Chief Director for Innovation for Inclusive Development, Science and Technology for Social Impact, Department of Science and Technology, South Africa

Philippe Mawoko, Director of the African Observatory for Science, Technology & Innovation (AOSTI), Equatorial Guinea

Glenda Kruss Van Der Heever, Deputy Executive Director, Centre for Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (CeSTII), South Africa

SUMMARY OF SESSION:

This panel discussed the challenges and opportunities that emerge when we include the informal economy in the domain of innovation policies, with the aim of promoting innovation while reducing exclusions and inequality.

• Ms Nonhlanhla Mkhize, from the Department of Science and Technology (DST) described the policy context in South Africa and the existing programmes to support innovation in the informal economy, especially from the perspective of DST.

• Dr Philippe Mawoko, director of the African Observatory for Science, Technology and Innovation (AOSTI), based in Equatorial Guinea, discussed the opportunities and challenges in measuring innovation in the informal economy, in the context of the Science, Technology & Innovation Strategy for Africa (STISA-2024).

CONFERENCE REPORT

13


4C

• Finally, Dr Nazeem Mustapha, from the Center for Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (CeSTII), based at the HSRC, talked about the ongoing efforts that CeSTII is undertaking to establish a framework to measure the various impacts of innovation, especially regarding inclusive innovation and including the informal economy.

The presentations were followed by a rich discussion that raised issues related to the difficulty and yet urgency to capture the various impacts of innovation activities. The panel was organised and chaired by Prof. Erika Kraemer-Mbula, who has recently co-edited the book “The Informal Economy in Developing Nations: Hidden Engine of Innovation?” published by Cambridge University Press in 2016.

PARALLEL SESSION 4C:Policy experimentation

PanellistsJohan Schot, (Chair) Director of SPRU, Professor in History of Technology and Sustainability Transition Studies, University of Sussex, UK

Jonas Torrens, Doctoral Candidate and Research Assistant, SPRU, University of Sussex

Elisa Arond, Lecturer, Universidad de Los Andes; PhD candidate Clark University, USA

Fred Steward, Emeritus Professor, Policy Studies Institute, Westminster University and Visiting Professor at Centre for Environmental Policy at the Imperial College London

SUMMARY OF SESSION:

The session was chaired by Professor Johan Schot. It began with Jonas Torrens from SPRU presenting a research brief about policy experimentation in the context of Transformative Innovation Policy. The brief reviewed different approaches to policy experimentation. It argued that it is essential to move away from the notion of policy experiments initiated solely with the interest of testing and refining policy instruments, and towards ‘Experimental Policy

Engagements’ (EPEs) that comprise the various ways policymakers can initiate, mobilise and steer experimentation in and out of policy.

The brief also identified five modes of Experimental Policy Engagements of relevance to TIPC:

I policy design experiments.

II experimentation within policy mixes.

III creating experimental spaces.

IV supporting and connecting societal experiments.

V developing experimental governance and experimental cultures.

Both discussants agreed with general direction and suggested improvements to the approach. Fred Steward suggested clarifying the distinction between experiments applying codified knowledge to enact changes in society (learning->doing) and experiments aimed at learning from engagements in the real world (learning-by-doing). He shared two examples of EPEs. The Big Green Challenge which elicited 500 submissions of projects with a potential for systemic change, shaping an experimental space (III), and the Climate KIC programme, that connected projects in eco-innovation, making them experimental and systemic (IV).

Paula Kivimaa suggested examining the kinds of learning, flexibility and transformative potential of theses EPES; considering the multi-level aspects of experimentation (e.g. how experiments in cities inform national processes); assessing whether experimentation is being used to promote change or distracting from necessary policy change; to examine the regulatory issues associated with adopting an experimental agenda. The Q&A session identified promising avenues for investigation:

• What are the strategies to ensure inclusion in experiments?

• How to assess different experiments regarding their potential for learning and potential for transformation?

• How to avoid the risk of developmental bubbles, in which the presence of experiments inflates expectations?

CONFERENCE REPORT

14


4D

5A• What is the role of researchers and consultants in

promoting these experiments? What are the risks associated with this kind of co-creative processes in the diverse contexts TIPC is present?

This fruitful discussion will inform the next stage of this briefing and the research proposal. The working Research Brief discussed is available at: www.transformative-innovation-policy.net/publications/roles-of-experimentation-in-transformative-innovation-policy/

PARALLEL SESSION 4D:National systems of innovation transformation

PanellistsImraan Patel, (Chair) Deputy Director General, Socio-Economic Innovation Partnerships, Department of Science & Technology, South Africa

Mlungisi Cele, Acting CEO, National Advisory Council on Innovation. South Africa

Rasigan Maharaj, Chief Director, Institute for Economic Research on Innovation, Tshwane University of Technology; Node Head, DST/ NRF Centre of Excellence in Scientometrics and Science, Technology and Innovation Policy,

Arie Rip, Professor of Philosophy of Science and Technology in the School of Management and Governance of the University of Twente

SUMMARY OF SESSION:

The snapshot for this session will be available online at the 2017 Conference pages shortly at www.transformative-innovation-policy.net

PARALLEL SESSION 5A:Innovation for inclusive development

PanellistsJoanna Chataway, (Chair) Professor of Science & Technology Policy, SPRU, University of Sussex, UK

Nonhlanhla Mkhize, Chief Director for Innovation for Inclusive Development, Science and Technology for Social Impact, Department of Science and Technology, South Africa

Rasigan Maharaj, Chief Director: Institute for Economic Research on Innovation, Tshwane University of Technology, Node Head: DST/ NRF Centre of Excellence in Scientometrics and Science, Technology and Innovation Policy,

Andy Stirling, Professor of Science & Technology Policy, SPRU, University of Sussex; Co-Director, STEPS Centre; Sussex Energy Group, UK

SUMMARY OF SESSION:

We need to be clear about the terms of ‘inclusion’. Inclusion is assumed to be positive but if the broader institutional environment is dysfunctional/negative, is inclusion always the answer? On the other hand, inclusion can have a profound impact, so the process of inclusion is not static.

As the point above indicates, the relationship between inclusion and transformation isn’t clear. What kind of criteria can we develop to understand the extent to which inclusion is transformative?

CONFERENCE REPORT

15

5B

5C


PARALLEL SESSION 5B:Capability building and training for transformative

innovation policy and policymaking

PanellistsChux Daniels, (Chair), Research Fellow in Science Technology and Innovation; Teaching Fellow in Innovation Studies, SPRU, University of Sussex, UK; Member of the African Union Commission M&E Committee on Science Technology and Innovation Strategy for Africa 2024

Roselida Owuor, Deputy Director of Research, National Research Foundation, Department of Research, Science and Technology, Ministry of Education, Kenya

Flora Tibazarwa, Programme Director, Southern African Innovation Support Programme II, University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Michael Lim, Policy Review Section, Science, Technology and ICT Branch, UNCTAD, Switzerland

David Walwyn, Professor, Graduate School of Technology Management, Department of Engineering and Technology Management, University of Pretoria , South Africa

SUMMARY OF SESSION:

• TIP is about strengthening innovation policy formulation, implementation and governance in order to stimulate and achieve transformative change (TC) that is sustainable and inclusive.

• Operationalising TIP as a way of achieving TC requires capabilities. This requirement for capabilities leads to a few questions: a) What capabilities would researchers, policymakers and innovation performers need to formulate, implement and govern innovation policies in order to achieve transformative change? b) How can we organise to build such capabilities, or design the relevant training; and measure the outcomes?

• Currently capabilities and capacity-building are used, in the majority of the cases, as though synonymous to the skills of individuals, i.e. individual capabilities. Such conceptualisations ignore organisational (or institutional)

capabilities that are external to individuals but rather reside at the level of organisations or institutions.

• For TIP and TC to be successful, we need to move the capabilities discourse, research, existing frameworks, and capacity-building beyond individual and organisational capabilities and also look at how we can better connect capabilities at the system level. This will involve linking, in a collaborative manner, the capabilities of various actors and networks across multiple innovation and sociotechnical systems.

• Operationalising capabilities at systems level highlights the importance of governance issues?

PARALLEL SESSION 5C:Upscaling experimentation

PanellistsPaula Kivimaa, (Chair), Senior Research Fellow, Centre on Innovation and Energy Demand (CIED), SPRU, University of Sussex, UK

Mark Swilling, Stellenbosch University, South Africa

Tuomo Alasoini, Tekes – the Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation

SUMMARY OF SESSION:

This session was chaired by Paula Kivimaa from SPRU. The introduction comprised of the following elements:

• Attention to experimentation is increasing in academic literature as well as in policy practice.

• Hidden agenda of experimentation? Desire to learn or fig leaf for little change?

• Variety of reported outcomes of experiments.

• Four important processes in embedding experiments: Scaling up, replication, circulation, institutionalisation.

Discussant Professor Mark Swilling from Stellenbosch University, South Africa observed:

• Urban population will double: what are the resource implications?

• Theory of change.

CONFERENCE REPORT

14


5D• Inclusive social learning is important.

• Plus role of entrepreneurial state/governance; report will come out from the United Nations.

• ‘Futuring experimentation and transformative urban governance’: chapter handbook on anticipative systems thinking.

• Futuring community and experimentation people don’t talk to each other; can they be connected?

• Futuring: forecasting, foresight, anticipatory thinking group.

• ‘Radical incrementalism’ as a means of transformative change: holding intention to transformation but also acupuncture: what do we do tomorrow?

• Institutional engagement of stakeholders is important.

• Uneasy with the notion of upscaling, replication is better.

Discussant Tuomo Alasoini from Tekes –the Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation discussed:

• 3 perspectives used in talk: transition management, workplace development, institutional entrepreneurship.

• For reflexive governance interested in upscaling there are four critical policy areas:

– Niche development (deepening, broadening and scaling-up)

– Niche regime interactions – Regime destabilisation – Reflexivity to landscape development

• Resource mobilisation is important.

• Paradox of embedded agency – Institutional entrepreneur: agents who initiate changes that break with the prevailing institutional logic within a given context are important.

Final reflections:

Are current funding instrument applicable? Should we have more flexibility in how you allocate funding for experiments? How long is a particular actor is involved?

PARALLEL SESSION 5D:Can regional innovation policy

facilitate transitions?

PanellistsMatias Ramirez, (Chair), Senior Lecturer in Management, SPRU, University of Sussex, UK

Claudia Obando Rodriguez, Research Assistant and PhD candidate in Science Technology & Innovation, SPRU, University of Sussex, UK

Elise Husum, Director of Department for Regional Research and Innovation, Research Council of Norway

Edurne Magro, Researcher, Orkestra-Basque Institute of Competitiveness

SUMMARY OF SESSION:

• Regional innovation policy lies at the centrepiece of attempts to achieve modes of investment in science, technology and innovation that are more responsive to local needs. Regional policy and transformative innovation are therefore closely bound, particularly in many low and middle-income economies where significant regional variations in levels of wealth and development raise demands for more inclusive impacts from STI investments.

• It is important that regional innovation policy does not limit itself to the promotion of high-tech industries, which tend to concentrate in existing wealthy regions. By contrast, regional policy should capture diversity and contrasts demonstrating the richness of regional differences. Built into the approach, should be the fact that regions are at different stages of development (variety, institutional, capacity of regional government).

• Regional innovation policy involves understanding the constraining factors that emphasize path dependency, the needs of the inhabitants, the local infrastructure, the type of local actors and the specific social challenges, such as overcoming exclusion, pollution, crime, drugs, health access, drought or natural disasters.

• The region can be a critical space for transformative change. It is a place to exhibit and mobilize localized assets and resources, where new niches can be more easily identified.

• Regions should be seen as “spaces” that can be impacted by multiple policies with their own objectives and rationales.

CONFERENCE REPORT

CONCLUDING OUTCOMES OF THE 2017 PILOT YEAR AND CONFERENCE

FULL TIPC PROGRAMME COMMITMENT CONFIRMED

The significant outcome of the pilot year, and conference, was the decision by all Consortium partners to extend their commitment to pushing the boundaries of understanding on Transformative Innovation Policy (TIP) by confirming their membership of the 5-year programme. Founding members were unanimous in their desire to embark on the next stage of this key international partnership. Taking place across its global partners and due to commence in March 2018, the TIPC 5YP ‘Transformative Lab’ will comprise of four key components outlined in the infographic below. Building upon the approach taken in the pilot year strong communications will run through the programme.

THE NARRATIVE & CONSTITUENCY ON TIP BUILDS

Momentum is starting to build behind the need to develop and use a different approach to science, technology and innovation policy practice. The debate and discourse is slowly starting to expand. New methods that can support transformative change to sustainable societies, that reach the aims embodied in the Sustainable Development Goals, are on the agenda for many governments and international organizations.

The 2017 TIPC conference was part of the first step in uniting academia and policymaker actors to grow their cooperation and body of knowledge in this area. What is central to TIPC is the idea of action-driven research which is co-produced, tested and implemented. TIPC is not a consultancy – it is a cognitive research space which looks to transform our understanding, method of knowledge production and, therefore, to give a fuller understanding.

This knowledge and capability will then be used in other spaces and places to support transformative change. TIPC wants to look at how knowledge is produced and whose knowledge it is. TIPC will work across perspectives and viewpoints to challenge assumptions and received-understandings that inform the incumbent framework used in innovation policy, TIPC’s aim is to experiment with innovation and policy that is inclusive, grassroots, ‘poor’, informal or local from both the Global South and the Global North. GROWING INTERNATIONAL AND LOCAL RESEARCH NETWORKS

A central aim of TIPC is to work with local researchers and to help facilitate this a meeting was held with representatives of established research networks including EU SPRI, Globelics and Sustainability Transitions Research Network (STRN). This will increase participation in debate, knowledge-building and distribution. NEW PARTNERS TO JOIN THE 2018 COHORT FOR EXPLORATORY MEMBERS

TIPC’s first year has ignited interest in other parts of the world with enquiries from various countries to join the Consortium. During the pilot year, TIP workshops were held for potential members in Latin America and Africa, and there are ongoing discussions with innovation agencies in Europe and Asia around membership. During the conference the representatives from Panama confirmed a strong interest in undergoing a pilot phase and since the conference CONACYT, the National Council of Science and Technology in Mexico has confirmed it will work with SPRU on an exploratory TIPC programme starting in November 2017.

15

RESEARCH AND KNOWLEDGE

COPRODUCTION

POLICY EXPERIMENTATION

WITH DEMONSTRATORS

TRAINING, SKILLS AND

CAPABILITIES

EVALUATION AND DEEP LEARNING

COMMUNICATION

S ENGAGEMENT

NETW

ORKS

IM

PACT

TIPC

CONFERENCE REPORT

TO SEE OUR CONFERENCE SOCIAL MEDIA STORY PLEASE VISIT

#TIPC2017Conf on Twitter and https://storify.com/TIPConsortium/

tipc-conference-prospects-for-transformative-innov

for a snapshot of activity

16

“Commitment from all the initial members to this further 5-year programme until 2022, is a great next chapter in the TIP narrative and journey. Crucially, the founding members recognise that science, technology and innovation policy

needs to respond to societal aims like the SDGs. We currently have no ‘recipes’ for implementation, hence the need to experiment with new solutions. Our 5YP Transformative Lab is about policy experimentation for transformative change. This is new territory and central to TIPC. This new cognitive space is designed for mutual learning between international governments and organisations who

want to take up the challenge of implementing Transformative Innovation Policy, to bring about true system change.”

Johan Schot

17

EXPLORE FURTHER

CONFERENCE REPORT

CONTACTSPRU (School of Business, Management and Economics)University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9SL United Kingdom

EMAIL [email protected]

WEBSITEtransformative-innovation-policy.net

TWITTER@TIPConsortium

prospects for transformative innovation policy€¦ · conference report 2. 3 the inspirational...

Documents