IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v47y2018i1p14-22.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The new production of legitimacy: STI policy discourses beyond the contract metaphor

Author

Listed:
  • Flink, Tim
  • Kaldewey, David

Abstract

Science, technology and innovation (STI) policy is borne by a set of historically contingent concepts, models, and metaphors. From around 1950 to 1980, its language was dominated by the contract metaphor and the linear model of innovation, both of which have catered for beliefs in stability, orderliness, and distinct social roles for scientists and policymakers. While prominent new models of the 1990s (mode 2, post-normal science, triple helix) had challenged the old contract metaphor, they remained experts’ brainchildren. After 2000, in contrast, we observe the emergence and pluralization of several new and powerful concepts. Building on conceptual history and cognitive linguistics, we analyze three of these new concepts: “frontier research,” “grand challenges,” and “responsible research and innovation” (RRI). Whereas the “frontier” and “grand challenges” convey many layered historical meanings, a distinct metaphorical appeal, and have become popularized beyond expert’s communities, the RRI discourse, though the most ambitious one, has not yet shaken off its roots in the bureaucratic structures of the European Commission. Finally, we discuss which conceptual and metaphorical properties enable the career of STI policy discourses in the 21st century.

Suggested Citation

  • Flink, Tim & Kaldewey, David, 2018. "The new production of legitimacy: STI policy discourses beyond the contract metaphor," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 14-22.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:47:y:2018:i:1:p:14-22
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733317301580
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Etzkowitz, Henry & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2000. "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 109-123, February.
    2. Richard Owen & Phil Macnaghten & Jack Stilgoe, 2012. "Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(6), pages 751-760, December.
    3. Andreas Knie & Martin Lengwiler, 2008. "Token endeavors: The significance of academic spin-offs in technology transfer and research policy in Germany," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(3), pages 171-182, April.
    4. Laurens K Hessels & Harro van Lente & Ruud Smits, 2009. "In search of relevance: The changing contract between science and society," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(5), pages 387-401, June.
    5. Rodríguez, Hannot & Fisher, Erik & Schuurbiers, Daan, 2013. "Integrating science and society in European Framework Programmes: Trends in project-level solicitations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1126-1137.
    6. Stilgoe, Jack & Owen, Richard & Macnaghten, Phil, 2013. "Developing a framework for responsible innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1568-1580.
    7. Foray, D. & Mowery, D.C. & Nelson, R.R., 2012. "Public R&D and social challenges: What lessons from mission R&D programs?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1697-1702.
    8. Mowery, David C., 2012. "Defense-related R&D as a model for “Grand Challenges” technology policies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1703-1715.
    9. Cristiano Cagnin & Effie Amanatidou & Michael Keenan, 2012. "Orienting European innovation systems towards grand challenges and the roles that FTA can play," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(2), pages 140-152, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hongryol Cha & Sung-Min Park, 2024. "Organizational Agility and Communicative Actions for Responsible Innovation: Evidence from manufacturing firms in South Korea," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 1345-1372, September.
    2. Thais Assis de Souza & Rodrigo Marçal Gandia & Bruna Habib Cavazza & André Grützmann & Isabelle Nicolaï, 2020. "A Conceptual Proposal for Responsible Innovation," Post-Print hal-03014720, HAL.
    3. Charlotte Rungius & Tim Flink, 2020. "Romancing science for global solutions: on narratives and interpretative schemas of science diplomacy," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-10, December.
    4. Gabriele Angori & Chiara Marzocchi & Laura Ramaciotti & Ugo Rizzo, 2024. "A patent-based analysis of the evolution of basic, mission-oriented, and applied research in European universities," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 609-641, April.
    5. Anders Brostrom & Cornelia Lawson & Mabel Sanchez Barrioluengo, 2024. "Are Scientists Perceived as Credible Experts?," MIOIR Working Paper Series 2024-06, The Manchester Institute of Innovation Research (MIoIR), The University of Manchester.
    6. Sang Do Park, 2022. "Policy Discourse Among the Chinese Public on Initiatives for Cultural and Creative Industries: Text Mining Analysis," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(1), pages 21582440221, March.
    7. Hyunha Shin & Dieter F. Kogler & Keungoui Kim, 2024. "The relevance of scientific knowledge externalities for technological change and resulting inventions across European metropolitan areas," Review of Regional Research: Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft, Springer;Gesellschaft für Regionalforschung (GfR), vol. 44(2), pages 193-209, June.
    8. Chris Tennant & Susan Howard & Sally Stares, 2021. "Building the UK vision of a driverless future: A Parliamentary Inquiry case study," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-14, December.
    9. Helka Kalliomäki & Johanna Kalliokoski & Thomas Woodson & Leena Kunttu & Jari Kuusisto, 2024. "Inclusion as a science, technology, and innovation policy objective in high-income countries: the decoupling dilemma," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(5), pages 795-807.
    10. Stephen Brammer & Layla Branicki & Martina Linnenluecke & Tom Smith, 2019. "Grand challenges in management research: Attributes, achievements, and advancement," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 44(4), pages 517-533, November.
    11. Skupien, Stefan & Rüffin, Nicolas, 2020. "The Geography of Research Funding: Semantics and Beyond," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 24(1), pages 24-38.
    12. Tim Flink, 2022. "Taking the pulse of science diplomacy and developing practices of valuation [The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists’ Work and Relationships]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(2), pages 191-200.
    13. Jürgen Janger & Thomas König, 2020. "Forschungspolitik in Österreich. Zentrale Ansatzpunkte für eine Leistungssteigerung in der Grundlagenforschung," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 66625, January.
    14. Berthoin Antal, Ariane & Rogge, Jan-Christoph, 2020. "Does Academia Still Call? Experiences of Academics in Germany and the United States," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 58(2), pages 187-210.
    15. Maria Bårdsen Hesjedal & Heidrun Åm, 2023. "Making sense of transdisciplinarity: Interpreting science policy in a biotechnology centre," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(2), pages 219-229.
    16. Irwin, Alan & Vedel, Jane Bjørn & Vikkelsø, Signe, 2021. "Isomorphic difference: Familiarity and distinctiveness in national research and innovation policies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    17. Sally Randles & Allison Loconto & Marc Steen, 2024. "Demonstrating the deep institutionalisation of de facto responsible research and innovation (rri) in participatory market contexts: Examples from Bolivia and Netherlands," Post-Print hal-04561780, HAL.
    18. Frolov, Daniil, 2021. "Transplantation of economic institutions: a post-institutional theory (expanded version)," MPRA Paper 108707, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Diercks, Gijs & Larsen, Henrik & Steward, Fred, 2019. "Transformative innovation policy: Addressing variety in an emerging policy paradigm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 880-894.
    2. Fisher, Erik, 2019. "Governing with ambivalence: The tentative origins of socio-technical integration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1138-1149.
    3. Carbajo, Ruth & Cabeza, Luisa F., 2021. "Researchers perception regarding socio-technical approaches implementation in their own research. Thermal energy storage researchers as example," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    4. Wiarda, Martijn & Sobota, Vladimir C.M. & Janssen, Matthijs J. & van de Kaa, Geerten & Yaghmaei, Emad & Doorn, Neelke, 2023. "Public participation in mission-oriented innovation projects," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    5. Robinson, Douglas K.R. & Mazzucato, Mariana, 2019. "The evolution of mission-oriented policies: Exploring changing market creating policies in the US and European space sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 936-948.
    6. Jiqing Liu & Gui Zhang & Xiaojing Lv & Jiayu Li, 2022. "Discovering the Landscape and Evolution of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI): Science Mapping Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-32, July.
    7. Owen, Richard & Pansera, Mario & Macnaghten, Phil & Randles, Sally, 2021. "Organisational institutionalisation of responsible innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    8. Carbajo, Ruth & Cabeza, Luisa F., 2019. "Sustainability and social justice dimension indicators for applied renewable energy research: A responsible approach proposal," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 252(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Vas, Zsófia & Nádas, Nikoletta, 2021. "A felelősségteljes innováció tíz éve az Európai Unió szakpolitikájában [Ten years of fully responsible innovation in the specialist policy of the European Union]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(11), pages 1210-1230.
    10. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold, 2016. "Modeling the effect of responsible research and innovation in quadruple helix innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 126-133.
    11. Reichelt, Nicole & Nettle, Ruth, 2023. "Practice insights for the responsible adoption of smart farming technologies using a participatory technology assessment approach: The case of virtual herding technology in Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    12. Raiteri, Emilio, 2018. "A time to nourish? Evaluating the impact of public procurement on technological generality through patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 936-952.
    13. van Geenhuizen, Marina & Ye, Qing, 2014. "Responsible innovators: open networks on the way to sustainability transitions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 28-40.
    14. Iris Wanzenböck & Koen Frenken, 2018. "The subsidiarity principle: Turning challenge-oriented innovation policy on its head," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1806, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jan 2018.
    15. Glover, Dominic & Poole, Nigel, 2019. "Principles of innovation to build nutrition-sensitive food systems in South Asia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 63-73.
    16. Gianluca Pallante & Emanuele Russo & Andrea Roventini, 2020. "Does mission-oriented funding stimulate private R&D? Evidence from military R&D for US states," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-04097530, HAL.
    17. Carbajo, Ruth & Cabeza, Luisa F., 2018. "Renewable energy research and technologies through responsible research and innovation looking glass: Reflexions, theoretical approaches and contemporary discourses," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 792-808.
    18. Sophie Pellé & Bernard Reber, 2015. "Responsible Innovation in the Light of Moral Responsibility," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-01418017, HAL.
    19. Archibugi, Daniele & Filippetti, Andrea, 2018. "The retreat of public research and its adverse consequences on innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 97-111.
    20. Buhmann, Alexander & Fieseler, Christian, 2021. "Towards a deliberative framework for responsible innovation in artificial intelligence," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:47:y:2018:i:1:p:14-22. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.