Papers by Effie Amanatidou
How would Responsible Innovation (RI) develop if it could be uncoupled from its aim to drive econ... more How would Responsible Innovation (RI) develop if it could be uncoupled from its aim to drive economic growth? Could such a conceptual development be conceived as Responsible Stagnation (RS)?The aut...
The concept of ‘social innovation’ faces as many opportunities as risks. It has the chance to get... more The concept of ‘social innovation’ faces as many opportunities as risks. It has the chance to get established as a valid approach of strategic action in challenge-driven policies or to remain a ‘buzzword’ or ‘catchword’ in the policy discourse when attention needs to be placed in non-technological innovation. It can become a recognised type of innovation or remain the ‘other’ category following more ‘mainstream’ types of innovation. It can offer a new way of understanding and broadening the concept of innovation to better acknowledge the social reality or remain a fuzzy or unclear type of innovation. It can bridge different policy and academic communities or it can stay a contested concept with some communities defending the ‘social’ part and others the ‘innovation’ part of the concept. The EU-SPRI Exploratory study on Social Innovation Futures aspires to bridge the increasing distance between the ways social innovation is understood within policy and scholarly communities, and the mainstream of science, technology and innovation studies, as well as to examine the different ways in which the notion has been used in practice and isolate the underlying innovation processes involved (Benneworth et al., 2015). The different types of fuzziness surrounding the concept of social innovation can form four main groups: a) fuzziness between normative-policy goals and objective-scholarly understanding, b) fuzziness in the actual ontological foundations of the way social innovation is used between different disciplinary communities, c) fuzziness in the extent to which these concepts are concerned with innovation strictu sensu, and d) fuzziness inherent in different innovation studies traditions that themselves use the term ‘social’. (ibid.) In response to this fuzziness the literature review 2 aims to shed some light in better understanding social innovation as a coherent innovation concept analysing it through the lenses of a classic innovation studies, starting from that of innovation systems. In the first instance it seems that the technological innovation system (Carlsson and Stankiewicz, 1991; 1995) might be the most relevant approach to social innovation with the term ‘technology’ encompassing a knowledge field, or a product or artefact, or a set of related products and artefacts aiming to satisfy a particular function, such as health care or transport.
Project funded under the Socioeconomic Sciences and Humanities 3.2.14 Our modes of energy supply ... more Project funded under the Socioeconomic Sciences and Humanities 3.2.14 Our modes of energy supply and use are threatening the survival of humankind .
The experimental group survey was sent to 16.414 potential respondents. Overall 3.809 FP6 partici... more The experimental group survey was sent to 16.414 potential respondents. Overall 3.809 FP6 participants answered to the experimental participation survey. The survey was sent to 16.414 email addresses / potential respondents (gross sample size) of which 915 were considered as bounced or refused. Overall 3.809 respondents (net sample) answered the survey of which 89% reached the end. The response rate is thus 23,2% (or 24,5% without the bounced). The average response time was approximately 31 minutes. We conducted response and non-response analysis. The response analysis was performed on the distribution over all subgroups outlined in Annex 3. The nonresponse analysis can be found in Annex 5. 3.5 Quality of the database Some responses from the participants allowed us to correct some project / participant's information included in the original database 3. Role in the project: less than 1% of the respondents corrected the information included into the database. Nature of the organization: 5,9% of the respondents corrected the information included into the database. Legal status is a field that is relatively problematic field as 10% of the respondents corrected this information. It might be the case that similar institutions have different legal status in different Member States. It seems that this category needs to be redefined for a better monitoring. Nature of organization and legal status both included an "other" and an "undefined" 4 category. These "others" were partially specified (170 nature of organization and 179 legal status). 3 These corrections will be provided to the European Commission. 4 Legal status only.
Welcome to the March issue of the Technology Innovation Management Review. We welcome your commen... more Welcome to the March issue of the Technology Innovation Management Review. We welcome your comments on the articles in this issue as well as suggestions for future article topics and issue themes.
Luxembourg Office For Official Publications of the European Communities 2008 Report No Isbn 978 92 79 05125 8, 2008
Report of the ERA Expert Group LEGAL NOTICE Neither the European Commission nor any person acting... more Report of the ERA Expert Group LEGAL NOTICE Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information. The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu).
Bristol University Press eBooks, Apr 26, 2022
RePEc: Research Papers in Economics, Mar 1, 2018
The R&I Observatory country report 2017 provides a brief analysis of the R&I system cover... more The R&I Observatory country report 2017 provides a brief analysis of the R&I system covering the economic context, main actors, funding trends & human resources, policies to address R&I challenges, and R&I in national and regional smart specialisation strategies. Data is from Eurostat, unless otherwise referenced and is correct as at January 2018. Data used from other international sources is also correct to that date. The report provides a state-of-play and analysis of the national level R&I system and it's challenges, to support the European Semester.JRC.B.7-Knowledge for Finance, Innovation and Growt
RePEc: Research Papers in Economics, 2017
The 2016 series of RIO Country Reports analyse and assess the policy and the national research an... more The 2016 series of RIO Country Reports analyse and assess the policy and the national research and innovation system developments in relation to national policy priorities and the EU policy agenda with special focus on ERA and Innovation Union. The executive summaries of these reports put forward the main challenges of the research and innovation systems.
In this chapter we explore in more detail the kinds of already-existing types of innovation which... more In this chapter we explore in more detail the kinds of already-existing types of innovation which fulfil the criteria of restraint, living gently, and paying serious attention to the ethics involved in collective circulation of seemingly beneficial innovation. We draw here upon examples from both over- and under-consuming nations, and from economies in crisis as well as those which presently appear to be more stable. We make the claim that innovation needs to be viewed more broadly than traditional, Schumpeterian definitions that have become obsolete due to their inability to embrace and acknowledge social relations, as well as social, environmental and ethical responsibility in the process of innovation.
Policy Press eBooks, Jul 1, 2020
Innovation is generally considered to be the antidote to economic stagnation. But while the coupl... more Innovation is generally considered to be the antidote to economic stagnation. But while the coupling of ‘responsible' and 'innovation’ has been much discussed, that of 'responsible stagnation' has gone largely unexplored. In this book, we take this concept seriously as a means to question the political economy of science, technology and innovation, both as policy and as process, and the problems which arise from unquestioned emphasis on innovation as the means to increase GDP. The book argues that examining what 'responsible stagnation' might contribute opens new space in the growing global discussion about RI, incorporating innovation in non-market oriented processes, goods and services which have strong societal benefit but do not necessarily contribute to GDP. It examines the conundrum of diminishing productivity returns and increased environmental and social hazards associated with attempts to increase GDP, and how taking a growth-agnostic approach contributes to recalibrating innovation around responsibility as its focal point. Drawing on insights from ecological and steady state economics, Science and Technology Studies, and social innovation across the world, this interdisciplinary group of scholars questions how the growth paradigm shapes and limits the innovation space, and how decoupling innovation from growth points toward myriad possibilities for facilitating human well-being in more environmentally and socially responsible ways.
Being Human During COVID-19
EU Commission: H2020, 2018
Uploads
Papers by Effie Amanatidou
BMR 2022 is the first attempt to comprehensively monitor partnerships using a set of common indicators and to analyse their contribution to EU policy objectives and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (Chapter 2). It also provides a country-by-country snapshot of the performance of the 27 EU Member States, Iceland, and Norway (Chapter 3), as well as the performance of each European Partnership (Chapter 4).
The 2022 edition of the Biennial Monitoring Report on European Partnerships has been drafted by the Commission Expert Group on support of the strategic coordinating process for partnerships, in very close cooperation with the Common Missions & Partnerships Service at the Common Policy Centre of DG Research and Innovation.
The BMR is the result of a genuine co-creation process between the Expert Group, the members of the Partnership Knowledge Hub, and partnerships themselves, and the Commission Steering Committee, under the supervision of Common Missions and Partnerships Service – Marnix Surgeon (Deputy Head of Unit), Aleksandra Kordecka (Head of Unit) and Minna Wilkki.
Maria Leek was responsible for the overall coordination of drafting of the report, providing support to the Expert Group.