Prometheus

Critical Studies In Innovation

Special Issue

Call for Papers

Special Issue: Reimagining the Critical in Innovation Studies Journal: Prometheus – Critical Studies in Innovation

This Special Issue, ‘Reimagining the Critical in Innovation Studies’, seeks to spur a discussion on the history, present and future of critical innovation studies. It aims to provide a platform for critically minded scholars, practitioners and civil society activists to exchange knowledge, broaden the critical discourse, and reshape the research agenda in a more critical yet socially impactful way than hitherto.

Guest editors

Thanos Fragkandreas, University of Westminster; Birkbeck University of London. Email: fragkat@westminster.ac.uk
Helen Lawton Smith, Birkbeck University of London. Email: h.lawton-smith@bbk.ac.uk
Theo Papaioannou, Open University. Email: theo.papaioannou@open.ac.uk

Special Issue information: background and aims

Contemporary societies, from the Global North to the Global South, face numerous challenges (Lawton Smith and Leydesdorff, 2014; Kuhlmann and Rip, 2018; Isakensen et al., 2022; Voegtlin et al., 2022). These include global warming, growing inequalities, aggressive military operations resulting in frequent wars, prolonged economic crises, increasing urbanisation, housing crises, declining birth rates, ageing populations, rising obesity and health costs, and growing dissatisfaction with political institutions.

Traditionally, the field of innovation studies has been among the most prolific in producing knowledge for addressing societal challenges (Fagerberg et al., 2011; Lundvall, 2013; Martin, 2016a; Soete, 2019; Fragkandreas, 2022). However, contemporary innovation studies appear to be facing a ‘social relevance deficit’ (Martin, 2016a; Soete, 2019). They seem somewhat ill-equipped to identify the underlying structural causes that perpetuate many of the socio-economic challenges of our time. It is not an exaggeration to state that most contemporary innovation studies offer neither groundbreaking analytical insights nor promising practical implications that could make a significant difference in people’s lives. In this regard, contemporary innovation studies can hardly help us envision an environmentally and socially just world.

Previous contributions have attributed this lack of social relevance to various factors. These include the (Kuhnian) maturity of the field (e.g. Steinmuller, 2013), intellectual lock-ins due to past successes (Fagerberg et al., 2013; Martin, 2016a), the influence of donors and sponsors in shaping the research agenda (e.g. Godin, 2004; 2009; 2012), the rise of superstar scholars who shape the research agenda in self-referential ways (Macdonald and Kam, 2011; Martin, 2016a, pp. 434–435), a ‘publish or perish’ culture in contemporary academia (Martin, 2016b), the increasing use of formal-deductivist methods in innovation research (Martin, 2016a; Fragkandreas, 2023), and a general lack of critical thought and research in the field (Godin and Vinck, 2017).

Although each of these factors have contributed to the gradual decline in the social relevance of innovation studies, this special issue revisits the question of critical innovation studies. We believe this is necessary for at least two major reasons.

Firstly, previous contributions (e.g. Godin and Vinck, 2017) seem to have, in our opinion, wrongly portrayed the field of innovation studies as being overly uncritical. While it is true that innovation scholars have for several decades adopted, either explicitly or implicitly, ‘a naively Schumpeterian view’ (Dosi, 2013, p. 127), wherein innovation contributes, in one way or another, to economic progress (Freeman and Luca, 2001; Fragkandreas, 2017; Papaioannou and Srinivas, 2019), one must not overlook the fact that the field of innovation studies was born out of outspoken critique and opposition to the dominant paradigms in both academia and policy in the mid–late 20th century (Lundvall, 2004, 2007; Asheim et al., 2011; Fagerberg et al., 2011).

Secondly, we agree with Godin and Vinck (2017) and others (e.g. Perez, 2013; Flanagan and Uyarra, 2016; Fragkandreas, 2023) that creating relevant knowledge for addressing societal challenges presupposes an explicitly critical stance towards existing socio-economic structures, concepts, theories, methods, discourses and practices. To put it differently, generating knowledge that benefits society at large requires contemporary innovation scholars to deliberately embrace the original ‘critical spirit’ of the field.

This special issue seeks to reignite interest in critical innovation studies. It aims to provide a platform for critically minded scholars, policymakers and activists to exchange knowledge on how innovation studies can reinvent itself in a critical, yet socially relevant and impactful way. Prometheus, with its long history of publishing critical innovation studies (Hall, 2003), is undoubtedly the ideal journal to host a much-needed discussion on the past, present and future of critical innovation studies.

We welcome papers of all types (i.e. conceptual, methodological, empirical) using either or both qualitative and/or quantitative methods and data on innovation. Submitted papers may cover one or more of the following topics:

  1. Societal Challenges: We invite papers that provide critical insights into the underlying causes of grand societal challenges and/or offer solutions to achieve environmental and social justice (Papaioannou, 2011; 2024). We are particularly interested in papers that a) consider innovation not only as a solution but also as part of the problem, acting as one of the underlying causes of social challenges (Soete, 2013; Fragkandreas, 2022); and b) explore strategies employed by privileged, less privileged, and marginalised groups to cope with the effects and consequences of societal challenges (Lawton Smith and Owalia, 2023; Lawton Smith, 2023).
  2. Unpacking the Critical in Existing Concepts and Frameworks: Since its inception in the late 1950s, the field of innovation studies has seen the rise and fall of several conceptual models, frameworks and theories, such as the linear model, science push and market pull models, innovation systems, clusters, industrial districts, triple-helix, open innovation, socio-technical transitions, and innovation ecosystems (Rothwell, 1994; Moulaert and Sekia, 2003; Fagerberg et al., 2012). We welcome papers that provide critical insights into these concepts, theories and methods. We also encourage papers seeking to reorient existing concepts and theories, or to advance new theoretical and methodological avenues.
  3. Essence and Genealogy of the Critical: What does it mean to be critical in innovation studies? Critical social science has a long and intellectually rich pedigree, drawing from several philosophical traditions such as critical realism, critical theory, feminism, Marxism, post-structuralism and postmodernism (Sayer, 2009; Benton and Craib, 2010). We invite contributions that seek to clarify the origins and reconceptualise the meaning of the critical in contemporary innovation studies.
  4. Alternative Types and Theories of Innovation: In recent years, new concepts and frameworks have emerged to help us understand the varied nature and multilevel effects of innovation (Godin et al., 2021). These include common innovation, dark innovation, green innovation, inclusive innovation, social innovation, responsible innovation, and educational innovation. We welcome papers that critically assess these new concepts and theories,
    examine their originality, challenge dominant views and policy discourses, and explore the role non-academic actors (e.g., policymakers) play or could play in disseminating these alternative concepts, theories and practices.
  5. Academic Autonomy: In recent years, universities worldwide (especially in the US and UK) have adopted Fordist (hierarchical and centralised) structures, top-down planning, reduced local autonomy for departments, and performance measures for research and teaching (Martin, 2016b). While this development goes against the contemporary business practice (for instance, the innovation management literature stresses the numerous benefits of flatter organisational structures, hierarchies, and local autonomy), it has also created an unfriendly environment for critical innovation research and pedagogy. We welcome papers that provide insights into the experiences and challenges to academic autonomy that
    innovation scholars face, and which offer avenues for critical innovation studies in the current academic landscape.
  6. Synergies: Over the past two decades, there has been a noticeable migration of innovation scholars from various interdisciplinary research centres and departments (e.g., heterodox economics, geography, development studies and sociology) to academic positions in business and management schools. This confirms that, unlike two decades ago when
    innovation was barely taught at most business schools, innovation is an essential subject in contemporary business studies; however, it also raises the question: Why have innovation scholars not yet joined forces with critical management scholars (Alvesson et al., 2009), given that the latter are among the most active critical scholars in the social sciences? We welcome papers that shed light on the migration of innovation scholars, and discuss the possibilities of creating synergies between innovation studies and critical management studies.
  7. Teaching Critical Innovation Studies: One of the least discussed subjects in innovation studies is ‘innovation pedagogy’, i.e. the effectiveness of how innovation theories and research findings are taught in the classroom. This issue is particularly acute whenconsidering critical innovation studies. The latter tend to be ‘theory-heavy’, often using rather obscure language (Spicer and Alvesson, 2024), and having little practical application. However, this does not mean that ‘theory-heavy’ work lacks significant practical implications (Regele, 2023). We welcome papers that problematise the delivery of critical innovation theories in the contemporary classroom, and/or share best practices on effectively teaching critical innovation concepts and theories within and beyond the classroom.

If you have enquiries, including questions about appropriate topics, please contact the guest editors, Thanos Fragkandreas (fragkat@westminster.ac.uk), Helen Lawton Smith (h.lawton-smith@bbk.ac.uk), and Theo Papaioannou (theo.papaioannou@open.ac.uk).

Hybrid workshop

To help authors prepare their manuscripts for submission, the guest editors will organise a dedicated hybrid workshop for selected papers in London (Thursday, 5th March, 10 am-2pm, University of Westminster).

Presentation of a paper at the workshop is not a precondition for submission to the Special Issue.

Authors interested in taking part in the workshop are encouraged to submit an extended abstract of a maximum of 300 words by the 31st of December 2024. The submission should include the title of the paper, author names, institutional affiliations, and an email address for each author.

Extended abstracts should be sent to Thanos Fragkandreas (email: fragkat@westminster.ac.uk).

Submission procedure

Papers should be submitted as email attachments to the general special issue editor, Martin Meyer (martin.meyer@abdn.ac.uk). Prometheus does not use an automated manuscript submission system and authors should feel free to contact the general editors at any time. For more information on how to submit your paper, please read the Guidelines for Contributors (http://www.prometheusjournal.co.uk/submissions/).

Time scale (tentative)
  • Initial paper submission: 31 October 2024
  • Final paper submission: 30 May 2025
  • Projected publication date: TBC
Keywords

Critical innovation studies, innovation studies, innovation, societal challenges

References

Alvesson, M., Bridgman, T., and Willmott, H. (Eds.). (2009). The Oxford Handbook of Critical Management Studies. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Benton, T. and Craib, I. (2010), Philosophy of Social Science: The Philosophical Foundations of Social Thought, 2nd ed, Red Globe Press, New York.
Dosi, G. (2013) Innovation, evolution and economics, in J. Fagerberg, B. R. Martin and E. S. Andersen, eds, ‘Innovation Studies: Evolution and Future Challenges’, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 111-133.
Godin, B. (2004). The new economy: what the concept owes to the OECD, Research Policy, 33(5), 679-690.
Godin, B. (2009) National innovation system: The system approach in historical perspective. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 34(4), 476-501.
Godin, B. (2012). “Innovation studies”: the invention of a specialty, Minerva, 50(4), 397-421.
Godin, B., and Vinck, D. (Eds.). (2017). Critical Studies of Innovation: Alternative Approaches to the Pro-Innovation Bias. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Godin, B., Gaglio, G., and Vinck, D. (Eds.). (2021). Handbook on Alternative Theories of Innovation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Hall, P. (2003) Innovation: principles, processes and policy. a review of the contribution of Prometheus in its first 20 years, Prometheus, 21(4), 497-508.
Fagerberg, J., Fosaas, M., Bell, M., and Martin, B. R. (2011) Christopher Freeman: social science entrepreneur. Research Policy, 40(7), 897-916.
Fagerberg, J., Fosaas, M., and Sapprasert, K. (2012) Innovation: Exploring the knowledge base.Research Policy, 41(7), 1132-1153.
Fagerberg, J., Martin, B. R., and Andersen, E. S. (Eds.). (2013). Innovation Studies: Evolution and Future Challenges, Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Flanagan, K., and Uyarra, E. (2016). Four dangers in innovation policy studies–and how to avoid them. Industry and Innovation, 23(2), 177-188.
Fragkandreas, T. (2017) Innovation paradoxes: a review and typology of explanations. Prometheus, 35(4), 267-290.
Fragkandreas, T. (2022) Three decades of research on innovation and inequality, Prometheus, 38(2), 147-193.
Isaksen, A., Trippl, M., and Mayer, H. (2022). Regional innovation systems in an era of grandsocietal challenges: reorientation versus transformation. European planning studies, 30(11), 2125-2138.
Kuhlmann, S., and Rip, A. (2018). Next-generation innovation policy and grand challenges. Science and Public Policy, 45(4), 448-454.
Lawton Smith, H. (2023). Women entrepreneurs: positioning equality, diversity and inclusion leadership in times of crisis. CIMR Working Papers, (66).
Lawton Smith, H., and Leydesdorff, L. (2014). The Triple Helix in the context of global change: dynamics and challenges. Prometheus, 32(4), 321-336.
Lawton Smith, H., and Owalla, B. (2023). Mapping ethnic minority women entrepreneurs’ support initiatives: experiences from the UK. In: Women’s Entrepreneurship Policy (pp. 103-122). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Lundvall, B.-A. (2013), Innovation Studies: A Personal Interpretation of ‘The State of the Art’, in J. Fagerberg, B. R. Martin and E. S. Andersen, eds, ‘Innovation Studies: Evolution and Future Challenges’, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 20–70.
Macdonald, S. and Kam, J. (2011), ‘The skewed few: People and papers of quality in management studies’, Organization 18(4), 467–475.
Martin, B. R. (2016a). Twenty challenges for innovation studies. Science and Public Policy, 43(3), 432-450.
Martin, B. R. (2016b) What’s happening to our universities?. Prometheus, 34(1), 7-24.
Moulaert, F., and Sekia, F. (2003). Territorial innovation models: a critical survey. Regional studies, 37(3), 289-302.
Papaioannou, T., and Srinivas, S. (2019) Innovation as a political process of development: Are neo- Schumpeterians value neutral?, Innovation and development, 9(1), 141-158.
Papaioannou, T. (2024). Directing innovation towards just outcomes: the role of principles and politics, Journal of Responsible Innovation, 11(1), 2312623.
Perez, C. (2013), Innovation systems and policy for development in a changing world, in J. Fagerberg, B. R. Martin and E. S. Andersen, eds, ‘Innovation Studies: Evolution and Future Challenges’, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 90–110.
Regele, M. D. (2023). Learning research. Prometheus, 39(1), 28-50.
Rothwell, R. (1994). Towards the fifth‐generation innovation process. International Marketing Review, 11(1), 7-31.
Sayer, A. (2009). Who’s afraid of critical social science?, Current Sociology, 57(6), 767-786.
Soete, L. (2013), Is innovation always good, in J. Fagerberg, B. R. Martin and E. S. Andersen, eds, ‘Innovation Studies: Evolution and Future Challenges’, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 133-144.
Soete, L. (2019). Science, technology and innovation studies at a crossroad: SPRU as case study, Research Policy, 48(4), 849-857.
Spicer, A., and Alvesson, M. (2024). Critical Management Studies: A Critical Review. Journal of Management Studies.
Steinmueller, W. E. (2013). Innovation studies at maturity, in J. Fagerberg, B. R. Martin and E. S. Andersen, eds, ‘Innovation Studies: Evolution and Future Challenges’, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp.147-167.
Voegtlin, C., Scherer, A. G., Stahl, G. K., and Hawn, O. (2022). Grand societal challenges and responsible innovation. Journal of Management Studies, 59(1), 1-28.

Prometheus occasionally devotes a whole issue to a single theme (papers from a conference, for instance) and also invites proposals for thematic issues on specific topics. In such cases, an organiser familiar with the papers and their authors works as guest editor in close collaboration with a Prometheus editor. This helps ensure a balance between coverage of the theme and peer review of individual papers. Peer review of special issue papers follows the same procedure as peer review of research papers and is just as rigorous.

Recent special issue topics include:

  • Innovation in China
  • Traditional knowledge, innovation and intellectual property rights
  • Innovation and the futility of patent policy
  • Examining the Triple Helix
  • Revisiting Mode 2 learning
  • Innovation in the world’s wine industry