Innovation Economics, Engineering and Management Handbook 1. Группа авторов

Innovation Economics, Engineering and Management Handbook 1 - Группа авторов


Скачать книгу

      Faure, G., Toillier, A., Mathé, S., Triomphe, B., Temple, L. (2019). Evaluación de los sistemas de innovación agropecuaria para el diseño de políticas públicas: una revisión de la literatura. In Sistemas y políticas de innovación para el sector agropecuario en América Latina, Goulet, F., Le Coq, J.-F., Sotomayor, O. (eds). E-papers, Rio de Janeiro.

      Jas, N. (2005). Déqualifier le paysan, introniser l’agronome, France 1840–1914. Écologie & politique, 2(31), 45–55.

      Joly, P.B. (2001). Les OGM entre la science et le public ? Quatre modèles pour la gouvernance de l’innovation et des risques. Économie rurale, 266(1), 11–29.

      Klerkx, L., Aarts, N., Leeuwis, C. (2010). Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems: The interactions between innovation networks and their environment. Agricultural Systems, 103(6), 390–400.

      Labini, P. (2007). Développements scientifiques, innovations technologiques, croissance et productivité. Revue d’économie industrielle, 118, 79–90.

      Mendras, H. (1970). La fin des paysans. Innovations et changement dans l’agriculture française. Armand Colin, Paris.

      Temple, L., Chiffoleau, Y., Touzard, J.M. (2018). Une histoire de l’innovation et de ses usages dans l’agriculture. In Innovation et développement dans les systèmes agricoles et alimentaires, Faure, G., Chiffoleau, Y., Goulet, F., Temple, L., Touzard, J.M. (eds). Éditions Quæ, Versailles.

      Touzard, J.M., Temple, L., Faure, G., Triomphe, B. (2014). Systèmes d’innovation et communautés de connaissances dans le secteur agricole et agroalimentaire. Innovations, 43, 13–38.

      Vanloqueren, G. and Baret, P.V. (2009). How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations. Research Policy, 38(6), 971–983.

      Chapter written by Ludovic TEMPLE.

      4

      Anthropology – Anthropological Aspects of Innovation: Defining Benchmarks

      4.1. Introduction

      In purely academic terms, which is only one criterion among others, innovation is not an anthropological theme. And yet, through the observation of techniques and material culture, anthropology deals with the question of innovations, as authors such as Robert Creswell, Bruno Latour, Pierre Lemonnier, André Leroy-Gourhan, Daniel Miller, Marcel Mauss, François Sigaut or Jean Pierre Warnier have shown. Through the explanations it provides on the problematic links between objects, tools, know-how, humans and their imagination, it produces the intellectual tools that will allow us to understand how new technologies are transforming all societies, whether they are “archaic” or “modern”.

      In 1914, Bronislaw Malinowski, a Polish anthropologist exiled in England, was sent by his university to New Guinea. Because of the advent of World War I, he became stranded in the Trobriand archipelago, in the Pacific Ocean, where he unexpectedly set up an investigation. The location of the investigation was chosen according to the opportunities and constraints of access to the field. Improvising a survey in the face of the emergence of an unexpected change or innovation represented the first and foremost skill of the anthropology of innovation. Its objective is to understand the social logic of both the production of innovations and of their dissemination using a specifically anthropological method.

      Malinowski’s investigation can be considered as one of the first to use an inductive method, i.e. an in vivo method, anchored in real life where nothing is under control, in contrast to in vitro laboratory investigations, where everything is under control in order to search for an independent causal variable. In anthropological investigations, the universes observed are made of stability and instability. The second characteristic of the anthropology of innovation is to know how to create reference points in an unknown and shifting world, thanks to the observation and description of what emerges, without knowing where it will lead the researcher.

      Induction does not mean that the survey is methodless. Anthropology approaches the question of novelty as a “total social fact”, which includes the utilitarian and the imaginary, to use the expression of the anthropologist Marcel Mauss in The Gift (1925). This means that anthropology is not limited to the technical dimension of innovation. It shows that technical rationality is not sufficient to explain the social circulation of an innovation, be it to accept or oppose it.

      Its diffusion depends on the power relations in which it is involved, on who will gain or lose from the implementation of the change, or on the different meanings given to it by the actors. The anthropology of innovation does not postulate technical determinism. On the contrary, it shows that every innovation is embedded in a triple material, social and symbolic dimension. What can vary is the weight that each approach will give to one or other of these dimensions to explain the “success” or “failure” of an innovation.

      Another debate is whether an innovation occurs incrementally or by breakthrough, following the work of Christensen (2002). Very often, we find that a disruptive innovation does not exist, as such, but is the result of a whole aggregation of incremental innovations.

      Very often, the term innovation is associated with invention. It is understood as a moment of creativity, the production of a new idea, a new technology or a new service, individual or collective, as in the departments for “innovation and development” (or marketing), in companies. Conversely, the anthropology of innovation chooses another division of reality, another scale of observation, which shows that innovation is a collective process over time that takes place in a nonlinear and non-mechanical way.

      This is why anthropological and sociological qualitative surveys, such as that of Norbert Alter, will formally distinguish three stages: that of invention, the moment of creation of something new, such as a new molecule in


Скачать книгу