Understanding reflexive systems of innovation: An analysis of Swedish nanotechnology discourse and organization

Abstract

We seek to understand how nanotechnology can contribute to the development of a more sustainable society in general, and to investigate Swedish nanotechnology in particular. On the one hand, the research interest is on how nanoscience can be turned into used products, that is, innovation. On the other hand, we acknowledge that innovation itself is the main producer of risk in modern societies. Inspired by sociology and economics of innovation, we try to capture this by introducing the term ‘reflexive system of innovation’ to denote a system made up of heterogenous elements, such as discursive components (expressions of knowledge and normative and regulative stands) and organizational components (actors and knowledge), evolving in a non-linear way through external influences as well as self re-enforcing and self-regulating processes. We present the evolution of a Swedish nanotechnology system from the 1980s to the present, as it moves through phases characterized by different kinds of discourse and organization. Evaluating the Swedish case against the concept of a reflexive system of innovation, we find advanced academic knowledge production but a lack of interconnectivity between actors, few actors outside the research community entering the system and a weak function of anticipation, guidance and risk handling. Broad national nanotechnology initiatives (NNIs) may be important for the crystallization of the desired processes, but because neither innovation nor risk can be fully contained, an NNI may only be part of the input to a fully fledged reflexive system of innovation in nanotechnology.

Keywords:

• reflexivity
• innovation
• nanotechnology

Acknowledgements

We thank Göran Sundqvist and Duncan Kushnir and two anonymous reviewers, for their comments, which helped us sharpen the text and our argument considerably. This work is part of the project ‘Nanorobust – Societal aspects of nanotechnology: ecological sustainability and social robustness’. Financial support from MISTRA, the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research, as well as additional funding from the Nordic Innovation Centre is gratefully acknowledged.

Notes

1. For similar propositions, see e.g. Kemp, R. and D. Loorbach.

2. The use of the term ‘reflexive innovation’ is not new.

3. The view that discourse and organization are intimately linked in processes in innovation is not a new argument. It has been used in historical studies of innovation.

4. The focus on ‘function’ in the system model is in actor-network theory replaced by a focus on anything that stabilizes network relations. See, e.g. an early contribution by Callon and Latour. or a later overview of actor-network theory in Law, J. and J. Hassard. 1999. For a note on similarities in knowledge strategy between actor-network theory and socio-technical systems theory, see, e.g. Hughes, T. P. 1986. System models as well as the actor-network approach aim to question simplistic assumptions about inside/outside and context/text. Both are empirically focused on historical developments, however the system model carries a larger ambition to say something about the systems yet to be built. On the implication of actor-network theory on social studies and sociology in general, see Latour, B. 2000.

5. For a discussion on implicit non-linearity assumptions in Beck's thesis of risk society, see Lash, S. 2003.

6. We tend to agree with Latour that there are important similarities between actor-network theory and the risk society thesis. ANT analysts, especially Latour, tend to see non-modern continuity where Beck and theorists of modernity see distinct shifts. In other words, the qualities of ‘reflexive processes’ may always have existed, but their role and importance may have increased. In this sense we agree with Beck and Lash that reflexivity appears to increase, especially as the causes and consequences of actions extends in space and narrows in time, when technology connects previously separated spheres.

7. The debate between Drexler and Smalley is a common representation of this broader controversy.

8. On the notion of material culture, see Galison, P. 1997.

9. On the notion of epistemic culture, see Knorr Cetina, K. 1999.

10. The same conclusion is drawn in Glimell, H. 2003.

11. For practical reason we use the approximation 1 Euro = 10 SEK.

12. Authors describe the overall Swedish trend of moving away from ‘contextual’ framing of research towards traditional (old) forms of separation of science and technology.

13. For a description of fundamental research ‘in context’, see M. Gibbons et al.,

14. The search string that was used is fairly long to avoid hits not relevant to nanoscience: TITLE-ABS-KEY(nano*) AND NOT TITLE-ABS-KEY(nanosec* OR nano2 OR nano3 OR "nano//2" OR "nano//3" OR nanomolar OR nanomole* OR nanogram* OR nanopound* OR nanonewton* OR nanounit* OR nano-sec* OR nanotesla* OR nanophthalm* OR nanoliter* OR nanolitre* OR nanovolt* OR nanoamp* OR nanocurie* OR nanofin OR nanowatt* OR nanosomia OR nanoatom* OR nanobar) AND NOT TITLE-ABS-KEY(nanometer W/10 wavelength).

15. From € 5 million in materials consortia to more than € 10 million annually, see Ahlgren, M. and H. J. Franchi.