Between sustainability commitments and anticipated market requirements: Exploring the resilience of the techno-economic innovation paradigm in the midstream of construction research
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5380/nocsi.v0i2.91153Palavras-chave:
Socio-Technical Integration Research (STIR), anticipated market requirements, construction industry, Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), constructive technology assessmentResumo
This article studies ways of dealing with the tension between a commitment to sustainable and responsible research and anticipated market requirements in the midstream of a research process in architecture and construction. Using a slightly modified version of Socio-Technical Integration Research (STIR), we explored the chances of questioning the primacy of the techno-economic innovation paradigm by deliberately provoking reflections through STIR interactions. Our research underlines the difficulties and limitations of challenging an orientation towards values of efficiency and productivity in favour of social and environmental values in the midstream of the research process and examines how the techno-economic innovation paradigm is able to insulate itself against critical questioning. It sheds light at the critical role of the underlying assumption that marketability of prospective outcomes is not one objective amongst others but the precondition for all others and at two argumentative patterns we termed the "lack-of-agency" and the "reconciliation-after-all" pattern.
Referências
Asdal, K. (2015). Enacting values from the sea. On innovation devices, value practices, and the co-modification of markets and bodies in aquaculture. In I. Dussauge, C.-F. Helgesson & F. Lee (Eds.), Value Practices in the Life Sciences and Medicine (pp. 168-185). University Press Scholarship Online.
Braun, K., & Kropp, C. (2021). Schöne neue Bauwelt? Versprechen, Visionen und Wege des digitalen Planens und Bauens. In K. Braun & C. Kropp (Eds.), In digitaler Gesellschaft. Neukonfigurationen zwischen Robotern, Algorithmen und Usern (pp.135-165). transcript.
Bogner, A., Decker, M., & Sotoudeh, M. (2015). Technikfolgenabschätzung und Responsible Innovation. In A. Bogner, M. Decker, & M. Sotoudeh (Eds.), Responsible Innovation. Neue Impulse für die Technikfolgenabschätzung? (pp. 11-28). Nomos.
Burget, M., Bardone, E., & Pedaste, M. (2017). Definitions and conceptual dimensions of responsible research and innovation: A literature review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(1), pp. 1-19. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-016-9782-1
Callon, M. (2002). From Science as an Economic Activity to Socioeconomics of Scientific Research: The Dynamics of Emergent and Consolidated Techno-economic Networks. In P. Morowski & E. M. Sent (Eds.), Science Bought and Sold. Essays in the Economics of Science (pp. 277-317). University of Chicago Press.
Coroamă, V. C., & Mattern, F. (2019). Digital Rebound – Why Digitalization Will Not Redeem Us Our Environmental Sins. Proceedings of the 6th international conference on ICT for Sustainability, ICT4S 2019 (2382).
Delgado, A., & Åm, H. (2018). Experiments in interdisciplinarity: Responsible research and innovation and the public good. PLoS biology, 16(3), e2003921. https://doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2003921
Fisher, E., Mahajan, R. L., & Mitcham, C. (2006). Midstream modulation of technology: governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26(6), 485-496. https://doi: 10.1177/0270467606295402
Fisher, E. (2007). Ethnographic Invention: Probing the Capacity of Laboratory Decisions. Nanoethics 1, 155-165. https://doi: 10.1007/s11569-007-0016-5
Fisher, E., & Schuurbiers, D. (2013). Socio-technical integration research: Collaborative inquiry at the midstream of research and development. In N. Doorn, D. Schuurbiers, I. van de Poel & M. E. Gorman (Eds.), Early engagement and new technologies: Opening up the laboratory. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology (vol 16, pp. 97-110). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7844-3_5
Fisher, E., O’Rourke, M., Evans, R., Kennedy, E. B., Gorman, M. E., & Seager, T. P. (2015). Mapping the integrative field: Taking stock of socio-technical collaborations. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2(1), 39-61. https://doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.1001671
Fisher, E., Konrad, K.E., Boenik, M., Schulze Greiving-Stimberg, V.C., Walhout, B. (2016). Building an Agenda for Socio-Technical Integration Approaches. In D. M. Bowman, A. Dijkstra, C. Fautz, J. S. Guivant, K. Konrad, K., H. van Lente & S. Woll (Eds.), Responsibility and Emerging Technologies: Experiences, Education and Beyond (pp. 43-56). Amsterdam.
Flipse, S. M., Van Der Sanden, M. C., & Osseweijer, P. (2013). Midstream modulation in biotechnology industry: Redefining what is ‘part of the job’ of researchers in industry. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(3), 1141-1164. https://doi: 10.1007/s11948-012-9411-6
Flipse, S. M., & Van De Loo, C. J. (2018). Responsible innovation during front-end development: increasing intervention capacities for enhancing project management reflections on complexity. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 5(2), 225-240. https://doi: 10.1080/23299460.2018.1465168
Gagg, C. R. (2014). Cement and concrete as an engineering material: An historic appraisal and case study analysis. Engineering Failure Analysis, 40(5), 114-140. https://doi: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2014.02.004
Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8-9), 1257-1274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8
Gurzawska, A., Mäkinen, M., & Brey, P. (2017). Implementation of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) Practices in Industry: Providing the Right Incentives. Sustainability, 9(10), 1759. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/10/1759
Jasanoff, S. (2004). The idiom of co-production. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of Knowledge. The co-production of science and social order (pp. 1-13). Routledge.
Joly, P.-B., & Rip, A. (2012). Innovationsregime und die Potentiale kollektiven Experimentierens. In G. Beck & C. Kropp (Eds.), Gesellschaft innovativ. Wer sind die Akteure? (pp. 217-233). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Konrad, K., Rip, A. & Greiving-Stimberg, V. S. (2017). Constructive Technology Assessment–STS for and with technology actors. EASST review, 36(3), 15-19. https://easst.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/review_2017_11.pdf
Kropp, C. (2021). Embedded Humanism: Chancen und Risiken von STIR für eine transformative TA. In R. Lindner, M. Decker, E. Ehrensperger, N. B. Heyen, S. Lingner, C. Scherz & M. Sotoudeh (Eds.), Gesellschaftliche Transformation: Gegenstand oder Aufgabe der Technikfolgenabschätzung (22nd ed., pp. 119-131). Nomos.
Kuzma, J., & Roberts, P. (2018). Cataloguing the barriers facing RRI in innovation pathways: a response to the dilemma of societal alignment. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 5(3), 338-346. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2018.1511329
Lange, S., Pohl, J. & Santarius, T. (2020). Digitalization and energy consumption. Does ICT reduce energy demand? Ecological Economics, 176, 106760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106760
Lee, G., & Borrmann, A. (2020). BIM policy and management. Construction Management and Economics 38 (5), pp. 413-419. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2020.1726979
Lukovics, M., & Fisher, E. (2017). Socio-technical integration research in an Eastern European setting: Distinct features, challenges and opportunities. Society and Economy, 39(4), 501-528. https://doi.org/10.1556/204.2017.004
Manzeschke, A., & Gransche, B. (2020). Aufs Ganze gesehen. In B. Gransche, & A. Manzeschke (Ed.), Das geteilte Ganze (pp. 235-347). Springer Fachmedien.
Mayntz, R. (2015). Technikfolgenabschätzung – Herausforderungen und Grenzen. In A. Bogner, M. Decker & M. Sotoudeh (Eds.), Responsible Innovation. Neue Impulse für die Technikfolgenabschätzung? (1st ed., pp. 29-46). Nomos Edition Sigma (Gesellschaft, Technik, Umwelt, Neue Folge). https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845272825-29
Morozov, E. (2013). To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism. New York: Public Affairs.
OECD (2019). Global Material Resources Outlook to 2060: Economic Drivers and Environmental Consequences. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264307452-en
Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751-760. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs093
Owen, R., Stilgoe, J., Macnaghten, P., Gorman, M., Fisher, E., & Guston, D. (2013). A framework for responsible innovation. In M. Heintz, R. Owen, & J. R. Bessant (Eds.), Responsible Innovation (1st ed., pp. 27-50). John Wiley & Sons.
Phelps, R., & Fisher, E. (2011). Legislating the Laboratory? Promotion and Precaution in a Nanomaterials Company. In S. J. Hurst (Ed.), Biomedical Nanotechnology. Methods and Protocols (pp. 339-358). Human Press.
Prior, M. (1998). Economic Valuation and Environmental Values. Environmental Values, 7(4), 423-441.
Ribeirinho, M. J., Mischke, J., Strube, G., Sjödin, E., Blanco, J. L., Palter, R., Biörck, J., Rockhill, D., & Andersson, T. (2020). The next normal in construction. How disruption is reshaping the world’s largest ecosystem. McKinsey & Company.
Roland Berger (2016). Digitization in the construction industry. Building Europe's road to "Construction 4.0". Roland Berger GmbH.
Schikowitz, A. (2020). Creating relevant knowledge in transdisciplinary research projects – Coping with inherent tensions. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 7(2), 217-237. https://doi: 10.1080/23299460.2019.1653154
Schuurbiers, D. (2011). What happens in the lab: Applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 769-788. https://doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9317-8
Stilgoe, J. (2013). Foreword: Why Responsible Innovation? In M. Heintz, R. Owen, & J. R. Bessant (Eds.), Responsible Innovation. Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society (pp. xi-xvi). Wiley.
Stubbe, J. (2020). Sechs Thesen für gelingende Integrierte Forschung. In B. Gransche & A. Manzeschke (Eds.), Das geteilte Ganze (pp. 197-211). Springer Fachmedien.
Timmermans, J. (2017). Mapping the RRI Landscape: An Overview of Organisations, Projects, Persons, Areas and Topics. In L. Asveld, R. van Dam-Mieras, T. Swierstra, S. Lavrijssen, K. Linse, & J. van den Hoven (Eds.), Responsible Innovation 3 (pp. 21-47). Springer International Publishing.
UN (2019). World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights. UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. ST/ESA/SER.A/423.
UN (2020). Policy Brief: COVID-19 in an Urban World. United Nations.
UNEP (2020). Global Status Report for Building and Construction: Towards a Zero-emission, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector. United Nations Environment Programme.
Von Schomberg, R. (2008). Prospects for Technology Assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In M. Dusseldorp & R. Beecroft (Eds.), Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden, (pp. 39-61). VS Verlag.
Von Schomberg, L., & Blok, V. (2021). Technology in the Age of Innovation: Responsible Innovation as a New Subdomain Within the Philosophy of Technology. Philosophy & Technology, 34, 309-323. https://doi:10.1007/s13347-019-00386-3
Von Schomberg, R., & Hankins, J. (2019). Introduction to the International Handbook on Responsible Innovation. In R. von Schomberg & J. Hankins (Eds.), International Handbook on Responsible Innovation. A Global Resource (pp. 1-11). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Yaghmaei, E., & Van De Poel, I. (2021). Assessment of Responsible Innovation: Methods and Practices. Routledge.
Zhang, L., Balangé, L., Braun, K., Di Bari, R., Horn, R., Hos, D., Kropp, C., Leeistner, P., & Schwieger, V. (2020). Quality as Driver for Sustainable Construction – Holistic Quality Model and Assessment. Sustainability, 12(19), 7847. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197847
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
NOvation é uma revista de acesso aberto sob uma licença Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial-CompartilhaIgual 4.0, que permite que outros compartilhem o trabalho com um reconhecimento (e preservação) da autoria e do direito de propriedade intelectual do autor.
Nesta medida, os autores que publicam nesta revista concordam com os seguintes termos:
1. Autores mantém os direitos e concedem à revista o direito de primeira publicação, com o trabalho publicado sob a Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial-CompartilhaIgual 4.0 que permite [...]
2. Autores têm autorização para distribuição, da versão do trabalho publicada nesta revista, em repositório institucional, temático, bases de dados e em outras obras como capítulo de livro, com reconhecimento da autoria e da publicação inicial na revista;
3. Os trabalhos publicados nesta revista serão indexados em bases de dados, repositórios, portais, diretórios e outras fontes em que a revista está e vier a estar indexada.
Responsabilidade ética dos autores
Esta revista está empenhada em manter a integridade do registo científico.
O consentimento para submissão foi recebido explicitamente de todos os coautores, bem como das autoridades responsáveis – tácita ou explicitamente – incluindo o instituto/organização onde o trabalho foi realizado, antes do trabalho ser submetido
