Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37974362›Full record

ArticleSocial studies of science2024

Governing beyond the project: Refocusing innovation governance in emerging science and technology funding.

Robert Dj Smith, Stefan Schäfer, Michael J Bernstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social studies of science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Robert Dj SmithUniversity of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5814-6032
Stefan SchäferResearch Institute for Sustainability-Helmholtz Centre Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4446-2069
Michael J BernsteinAustrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-7980-0489

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/M018040/1European Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article analyses how a recent idiom of innovation governance, 'responsible innovation', is enacted in practice, how this shapes innovation processes, and what aspects of innovation are left untouched. Within this idiom, funders typically focus on one point in an innovation system: researchers in projects. However, the more transformational aspirations of responsible innovation are circumscribed by this context. Adopting a mode of critique that assembles, this article considers some alternative approaches to governing the shared trajectories of science, technology, and society. Using the idea of institutional invention to focus innovation governance on four inflection points-agendas, calls, spaces, evaluation-would allow funding organizations and researchers to look 'beyond the project', developing new methods to unpack and reflect on assumed purposes of science, technology, and innovation, and to potentially reconfigure the institutions that condition scientific practice.

Indexed as

ScienceTechnologyInventionsOrganizational Innovationexperimental collaborationinnovation governanceinstitutionsresearch fundersresponsible innovationthe project form

Identifiers

PMID37974362
PMCPMC11118785

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.