Stronger Together: Frameworks for Interrogating Inequality in Science and Technology Innovation

21 Pages Posted: 1 Nov 2018

See all articles by Thomas Woodson

Thomas Woodson

Stony Brook University

Logan Williams

Inclusive Research by Design SM Logan Williams Consultancy Services

Date Written: September 1, 2018

Abstract

Over the past two decades undone science and inclusive innovation were developed to explain knowledge silos, and technology and development for marginalized communities. The undone science framework describes the systematic neglect of scientific issues that impact marginalized groups. Inclusive innovation framework emphasizes the need to produce innovations that directly benefit marginalized groups. Despite the similar goals of the frameworks, the undone science and inclusive innovation theoretical communities have not interacted with each other, and as a result, the insights from each framework fail to help other disciplines improve opportunities for marginalized groups. This paper compares the frameworks and shows how they can help development scholars and practitioners create better policies for marginalized groups. Because the frameworks emphasis slightly different issues, we believe that these two theoretical frameworks are stronger together.

Keywords: poverty, inequality, inclusive innovation, undone science, undone technology, science and technology policy, international development

Suggested Citation

Woodson, Thomas and Williams, Logan, Stronger Together: Frameworks for Interrogating Inequality in Science and Technology Innovation (September 1, 2018). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3264086 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3264086

Thomas Woodson (Contact Author)

Stony Brook University ( email )

100 Nicolls Rd
Stony Brook, NY 11794
United States

Logan Williams

Inclusive Research by Design SM Logan Williams Consultancy Services ( email )

Cumberland, MD
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
104
Abstract Views
939
Rank
407,434
PlumX Metrics