organic food and rainwater harvesting, traditional medicines, manufacturing, free
software, and others. Today, campaigners for a knowledge commons, campesino
rights, socially just sustainability transitions, and so forth evoke emblematic grassroots
innovations also. The travails but also possibilities of grassroots innovations in tune
with movement aims point to both critique and alternative at the same time. This
dual feature of grassroots innovation movements allows them to switch between
insertion and mobilization strategies and vice versa, or even combinations, in ways
that not only respond to the context, but also as a deliberate attempt to retain
autonomy and exercise influence (Fressoli et al., 2014).
Shifting power relations are thus significant for grassroots innovation: the power
to do innovation and power over innovation agendas (cf. Holloway, 2002).
Insertion involves power relations between the grassroots and innovation
institutions through the way grassroots novelties are selected and developed. Who
is in control of these processes? What principles are in play over decisions and
selections? This can be articulated as questions of mobilizing for more democratic
innovation.
Drawing on grassroots debate and experience as presented in this chapter, then,
a democratizing innovation agenda would address the opening up and
transformation of innovation institutions towards deeper and more meaningful
grassroots participation. Practically, that means thinking of more democratic arenas
for establishing research agendas, funding decisions, universities, research institutes,
venture and investment capital, training and skills programmes, prototyping
infrastructures, marketing, and so forth. It also means building networks and
coalitions between these arenas, where the potential can be demonstrated through
acts, amplified by lobbying, and win influence through alliances. These are political
challenges about opening up innovation systems and making systems accessible to
citizens.
What this means, in our view, is that even as we witness the gradual reorientation
of dominant techno-economic paradigms and sociotechnical regimes towards a lowcarbon agenda, or some other international priority mediated by markets, such as
resource efficiency and the circular economy, the wider sustainability of such ‘topdown’ activity will not go uncontested. We may see an unfolding of ‘clean
technology’ promoted by large investors, corporations and entrepreneurial states,
and an attempt to install a co-evolving framework for sustainable development by
elites. However, if we look carefully enough, then we will also notice it is
accompanied by a more unruly, anarchic and messier exploration of everyday
sustainabilities involving the kind of practical reasoning evident in grassroots
innovation. Indeed, the latter may continue to be the fount of genuinely creative
sustainability solutions, just as it has been in the past.
The practical challenges for these grassroots innovation mobilizations remain
considerable and uncertain. One practical possibility arising from some grassroots
initiatives suggests lobbying for a scaling down of innovation systems (cf. scaling
up of innovations), and providing innovation facilities and institutions where
people live. This has been attempted a little with science shops and technology
116 Adrian Smith and Adrian Ely
software, and others. Today, campaigners for a knowledge commons, campesino
rights, socially just sustainability transitions, and so forth evoke emblematic grassroots
innovations also. The travails but also possibilities of grassroots innovations in tune
with movement aims point to both critique and alternative at the same time. This
dual feature of grassroots innovation movements allows them to switch between
insertion and mobilization strategies and vice versa, or even combinations, in ways
that not only respond to the context, but also as a deliberate attempt to retain
autonomy and exercise influence (Fressoli et al., 2014).
Shifting power relations are thus significant for grassroots innovation: the power
to do innovation and power over innovation agendas (cf. Holloway, 2002).
Insertion involves power relations between the grassroots and innovation
institutions through the way grassroots novelties are selected and developed. Who
is in control of these processes? What principles are in play over decisions and
selections? This can be articulated as questions of mobilizing for more democratic
innovation.
Drawing on grassroots debate and experience as presented in this chapter, then,
a democratizing innovation agenda would address the opening up and
transformation of innovation institutions towards deeper and more meaningful
grassroots participation. Practically, that means thinking of more democratic arenas
for establishing research agendas, funding decisions, universities, research institutes,
venture and investment capital, training and skills programmes, prototyping
infrastructures, marketing, and so forth. It also means building networks and
coalitions between these arenas, where the potential can be demonstrated through
acts, amplified by lobbying, and win influence through alliances. These are political
challenges about opening up innovation systems and making systems accessible to
citizens.
What this means, in our view, is that even as we witness the gradual reorientation
of dominant techno-economic paradigms and sociotechnical regimes towards a lowcarbon agenda, or some other international priority mediated by markets, such as
resource efficiency and the circular economy, the wider sustainability of such ‘topdown’ activity will not go uncontested. We may see an unfolding of ‘clean
technology’ promoted by large investors, corporations and entrepreneurial states,
and an attempt to install a co-evolving framework for sustainable development by
elites. However, if we look carefully enough, then we will also notice it is
accompanied by a more unruly, anarchic and messier exploration of everyday
sustainabilities involving the kind of practical reasoning evident in grassroots
innovation. Indeed, the latter may continue to be the fount of genuinely creative
sustainability solutions, just as it has been in the past.
The practical challenges for these grassroots innovation mobilizations remain
considerable and uncertain. One practical possibility arising from some grassroots
initiatives suggests lobbying for a scaling down of innovation systems (cf. scaling
up of innovations), and providing innovation facilities and institutions where
people live. This has been attempted a little with science shops and technology
116 Adrian Smith and Adrian Ely