The perm “pretends” to reform innovation but leaves its linear core in tact

(Brice, Ideology, engine or regime. Styles of critique and theories of innovation.. Benoît Godin, Gérald Gaglio, Dominique Vinck. Handbook on Alternative Theories of Innovation 2021, Edward Elgar, pp.369-386, 2021. hal-03442298)

These considerations bring us back to the notion of critique. While the critique of the “religion” or the “myths” targets an overly simple discourse that misrepresents the reality of innovation processes and does not question the means and ends of innovation, the numerous approaches presented as alternatives show that this critique can stem from the actors of innovation and/or can be integrated in their theories or practices. This is an impetus for further critical works that adopt a similar style as that of the “myths” of innovation, as their purpose is to uncover the extent to which the self-proclaimed alternatives question the basic tenants of the dominant version of innovation. For instance, Joly identifies the persistence of the linear model behind alternatives models of innovation (Joly 2017), Edquist laments that “linearity still prevails” (Edquist 2014), and critics of the European program of “responsible research and innovation” question the eventual effects on the structural dominance of competitiveness objectives (de Saille 2015). These accounts can be read as further attempts at displaying a kind of “bluff” (Ellul 1988), whereby innovation would only pretend to be reformed. But these works can also lead to further reforms of innovation. One could then try to differentiate between authors according to the degree to which they are “reformists”, possibly in relation to their proximity with the actors of innovation in public bodies or private companies. One could possibly isolate “critics” from “reformers”, the former being more interested in challenging the current state of affairs and the latter more concerned with integrating alternative approaches from within. Such an attempt at sorting out reformers and critics is the approach undertaken in a recent collective volume that discusses the various processes through which innovators are actively made (Wisnioski et al. 2019). While there is a clear value in this distinction, it is also striking that the boundary that separates those groups is not always clear. Being a critic of innovation by pointing to its exclusion effects on people leads to calls to integrate these people as potential innovators (Cook 2019). In turn, self-proclaimed “reformists” seeking to include more women and people of color in innovation are also critics of current innovation discourses and practices (Sanders and Ashcraft 2019). Pointing to the need to making maintainers might lead others to rethink what it means to be an innovator, for example by introducing an “ethics of care” in the formal training of scientists and engineers (Russel and Vinsel 2019). The porosity of the line between critique and reform is at the heart of the style of critique of innovation that questions the ideology of innovation. One conclusion this can lead to is that this critique is meant to be continuously exercised: as proponents of innovation might be convinced that the simple version relies on myths, one should then question the calls for “democratization”, “openness” or “responsibility” and confront them with the reality of innovation practices. This is of course a continuation of a critique meant as an exercise in truth telling. But it also means that one delves ever further into innovation processes, and ultimately participates in refining them.