discourses . . . [that] may eventually force the incumbent regimes to change
their models, and/or lead to autonomous experimentation with new sociotechnical arrangements.
Where the former, insertion view positions grassroots innovation as generating
appropriable object solutions (technological artefacts or social innovations), often
accompanied by a desire to select and scale up those that look promising under
prevailing institutions of science, technology and innovation, the latter, more political view interprets grassroots innovation as an attempt to recast institutional
priorities through mobilizations that entail a politics-of-doing, and whose awkward -
ness or unfamiliarity to elite institutions underscores how the latter exclude and
marginalize many people and perspectives in innovation. Such ‘technological agit
prop’, as Mike Cooley once called it, suggests not just why but how institutions
need to change. An alternative way of framing grassroots innova tion arises, which
is to view it as expressing a grassroots politics of sustainability through the processes
of practical reasoning.
Note that politics is involved in both forms of encounter. Insertion generates
a politics through the particularities of its selective approach to grassroots innovation,
just as responses to political approaches to grassroots innovation generate a wider
politics too. One can see this in the appropriate and alternative technology move -
ments in the 1970s. One can glimpse it today in maker movements for grassroots
fabrication. Pressures to conform and provide solutions on elite terms, and grassroots reactions to the criteria and norms of any appropriations to scale are argued
to underpin the politics of grassroots innovation. And one can witness a push back
or resistance to this in attempts to mobilize alternative principles for innovation,
such as commons-based peer-production, and renewals of practice that recuperate
more holistic grassroots solutions following selective insertion, such as in some forms
of agroecology. Indeed, one can argue that a dialectical relation between these two
positions is what drives grassroots innovation movements over time. It is also likely
to shape any future green transformations from below.
Inserting the grassroots into mainstream innovation
Policy interest has returned to grassroots innovation in recent years against a
backdrop of growing attention to inclusive innovation. The OECD (2012), World
Bank (2012) and many national governments have produced reports, held events
and set up initiatives to try to promote models for more inclusive innovation. Levels
of attention have been paid to innovation beyond more formalized institutions and
systems – a situation not seen since appropriate technology in the 1970s and 1980s,
and when the OECD had its own Centre for Appropriate Technology, like many
other organizations.
Aspirations for supporting grassroots ingenuity and promoting innovation
processes that empower have to be unpacked into questions about empowering
for whom, to do what and why, questions about the credit or recognition for
110 Adrian Smith and Adrian Ely
their models, and/or lead to autonomous experimentation with new sociotechnical arrangements.
Where the former, insertion view positions grassroots innovation as generating
appropriable object solutions (technological artefacts or social innovations), often
accompanied by a desire to select and scale up those that look promising under
prevailing institutions of science, technology and innovation, the latter, more political view interprets grassroots innovation as an attempt to recast institutional
priorities through mobilizations that entail a politics-of-doing, and whose awkward -
ness or unfamiliarity to elite institutions underscores how the latter exclude and
marginalize many people and perspectives in innovation. Such ‘technological agit
prop’, as Mike Cooley once called it, suggests not just why but how institutions
need to change. An alternative way of framing grassroots innova tion arises, which
is to view it as expressing a grassroots politics of sustainability through the processes
of practical reasoning.
Note that politics is involved in both forms of encounter. Insertion generates
a politics through the particularities of its selective approach to grassroots innovation,
just as responses to political approaches to grassroots innovation generate a wider
politics too. One can see this in the appropriate and alternative technology move -
ments in the 1970s. One can glimpse it today in maker movements for grassroots
fabrication. Pressures to conform and provide solutions on elite terms, and grassroots reactions to the criteria and norms of any appropriations to scale are argued
to underpin the politics of grassroots innovation. And one can witness a push back
or resistance to this in attempts to mobilize alternative principles for innovation,
such as commons-based peer-production, and renewals of practice that recuperate
more holistic grassroots solutions following selective insertion, such as in some forms
of agroecology. Indeed, one can argue that a dialectical relation between these two
positions is what drives grassroots innovation movements over time. It is also likely
to shape any future green transformations from below.
Inserting the grassroots into mainstream innovation
Policy interest has returned to grassroots innovation in recent years against a
backdrop of growing attention to inclusive innovation. The OECD (2012), World
Bank (2012) and many national governments have produced reports, held events
and set up initiatives to try to promote models for more inclusive innovation. Levels
of attention have been paid to innovation beyond more formalized institutions and
systems – a situation not seen since appropriate technology in the 1970s and 1980s,
and when the OECD had its own Centre for Appropriate Technology, like many
other organizations.
Aspirations for supporting grassroots ingenuity and promoting innovation
processes that empower have to be unpacked into questions about empowering
for whom, to do what and why, questions about the credit or recognition for
110 Adrian Smith and Adrian Ely