Mariano Fressoli

When grassroots innovation movements encounter mainstream institutions: implications for models of inclusive innovation

Grassroots innovation movements (GIMs) can be regarded as initiators or advocates of alternative pathways of innovation. Sometimes these movements engage with more established science, technology and innovation (STI) institutions and development agencies in pursuit of their goals. In this paper, we argue that an important aspect to encounters between GIMs and mainstream STI institutions is the negotiation of different framings of grassroots innovation and development of policy models for inclusive innovation. These encounters can result in two different modes of engagement by GIMs; what we call insertion and mobilization. We illustrate and discuss these interrelated notions of framings and modes of engagement by drawing on three case studies of GIMs: the Social Technologies Network in Brazil, and the Honey Bee Network and Peoples Science Movements in India. The cases highlight that inclusion in the context of GIMs is not an unproblematic, smooth endeavour, and involves diverse interpretations and framings, which shape what and who gets included or excluded. Within the context of increasing policy interest, the analysis of encounters between GIMs and STI institutions can offer important lessons for the design of models of inclusive innovation and development.

Technologies for social inclusion in Latin America. Analysing opportunities and constraints; problems and solutions in Argentina and Brazil

Brazil and Argentina have managed to grow almost continuously since 2003 and to sustain partial improvements in a number of social indicators: poverty, unemployment, access to basic services, and primary education. At the same time, Argentina and Brazil have increased their R&D expenditure and set new priorities as regards training of human resources in Science and Technology. However, this scenario contrasts with the persisting inequality in income distribution, as well as with the persisting structural shortcomings (decent housing, transport, access to sanitation services, power and environmental problems, etc.). This contrast raise questions over the relation between S&T policy strategies and its effects on social inclusion: Are current welfare policies sufficient for eliminating social exclusion? Which role does Science and Technology policy play in solving social problems? And, more importantly: Is it possible to propose alternative social-inclusion strategies? Is it possible to turn locally generated scientific and technological knowledge into feasible solutions for the region? This paper will undertake a critical analysis of the strategies for fighting social exclusion currently applied in Latin America with regard to Science and Technology policy and the local production of technologies aimed at social inclusion.

Theoretical and policy failures in technologies and innovation for social inclusion: the cases of social housing, renewal energy and food production in Argentina

The relationship between technology, innovation and social inclusion has recently acquired new relevance in social development forums and institutions. Nowadays it is possible to find a diversity of new concepts, approaches and initiatives of inclusive innovation. However, it is not clear how to avoid the failures of previous experiences in the development of technology for social inclusion. Two kinds of common failures in Latin America can be identified as theoretical and policy failures. The former is mainly based on the use of linear models of innovation and old technology transfer conceptions that tend to reduce poverty and social exclusion to a technical problem. The latter is associated with this problem but also adds the difficulties of lack of human resources, discontinuity of funding, and inability of social development institutions to conceive or sustain long-term strategies based on learning improvements. The chapter works on cases from Argentina in the areas of social housing, renewal energy and food production in order to understand: 1) what kinds of theoretical problems practitioners face; 2) how practitioners recognize the limitations and failures of their approaches and policies; and 3) what kinds of strategies practitioners attempt to implement to overcome these emerging issues.

Systematizing benefits of open science practices

Open science aims at the creation of public scientific goods by means of sharing outputs and widening and facilitating collaboration, in one or many of the different research stages. There are many beneficial aspects of open science that have been claimed in the literature, such us improving research efficiency, accelerating creativity, democratizing knowledge and empowering stakeholders. These claims are normally based on anecdotal experiences. In this paper we aim at organizing the extant literature on benefits of open science, in an attempt to build a bi-dimensional framework that relates characteristics of openness with benefits to be expected. The first dimension accounts for the characteristics of the collaboration, while the second for aspects of access to shared outputs. In the conclusion, we briefly illustrate our framework using evidence from four Argentinean open science initiatives.

Potentialities and constraints in the relation between social innovation and public policies: some lessons from South America

Fil: Gordon, Ariel. Universidad Nacional de Quilmes. Departamento de Economia y Administracion; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas; Argentina