Suchergebnisse

AbstractScience and technology (S&T) have long been seen as key for development. This paper considers the issue of capacity building in the light of recent reconceptualization of the role of science and technology in development. Reconceptualization suggests that science and technology are better seen as key elements of innovation systems, which are themselves the means of gaining value from knowledge creation; and, that innovation, knowledge and development are tightly knit elements of a system of organisations and institutions that must function coherently for improved knowledge and innovation systems to emerge. Developing such systems requires linkages of many types. The paper describes and discusses the conceptual basis for capacity building interventions, using partnership‐based capacity building initiatives in new agricultural technologies from Mali and Egypt. The empirical analysis from both countries shows evidence of research capacity building in the form of recruitment, training of scientific staff and provision of research infrastructure. Unsurprisingly, given the S&T knowledge base, the Malian case illustrates the difficulty of moving beyond basic forms of research capacity building. In Egypt, with significant S&T capacity, there is evidence of organizational and institutional innovation towards broader knowledge, and innovation system development in agri‐biotechnology. The role of partnerships, and government as 'systems‐builder', are shown to be important. Lessons are drawn from these (and other) cases about the relationship between partnerships, S&T and innovation capacity building. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Abstract
Global shortages of critical equipment and supplies induced by COVID-19 forced countries to rapidly build and ramp up their indigenous testing and production capacities. However, the many ways in which institutional and organizational change occurred has not been sufficiently captured. Building domestic capacity requires the leveraging and repurposing of existing domestic scientific and technological capabilities, coupled with intensified global outreach to new and existing partners and suppliers. Using the framework of institutional variety, this paper looks at two facets of the UK's COVID emergency industrial response: (1) building its laboratory testing capabilities and (2) for increasing production of personal protective equipment; assessing the institutional capacities and relations that were leveraged in this regard. It uses these findings together with observations of 'innovation processes under emergency conditions' and the potential uses of a 'critical equipment policy' to sharpen some of the recommendations made in the UK's post-COVID Research and Development Roadmap.

AbstractThis special issue on the global and the local in engineering and development builds on an earlier JID Policy Arena on reflexive engineering. It extends our thinking by elaborating the notion of 'liquid engineering', which sees engineering and development as messy and improvisational, a borderland hybrid space, composed of objects and practices, and as reflexive and evolutionary. A set of research articles explore this in different ways using a set of case studies, and the policy arena that follows examines liquid engineering in the context of development practice. All the articles suggest that development engineering is at its most successful when embedded locally and informed by global standards flexed or adapted to local conditions. The local through the integration of relevant case studies can then also shape global practices in useful ways. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Recent academic and policy debate on innovation indicates that there has been some shift from a more traditional systems approach to ecologies and ecosystems. The latter are concepts transferred from the world of biology to the social world in order to explain the evolutionary nature of interrelations between different individuals, their innovative activities, and their environment. We evaluate the concept of knowledge ecology and the theory of innovation ecosystem on two fundamental grounds; firstly, on the grounds of theoretical plausibility and conceptual consistency; secondly, on empirical grounds of the case of public–private interrelations of biotech innovation in Cambridge. The argument is that the concept of knowledge ecology and the theory of innovation ecosystems can lead to problems of reductionism and functionalism. This is due to their development in abstraction from more grounded analysis of historical processes of the social division of labour. Knowledge and innovation need to be looked at in the context of historically founded processes of socioeconomic development.