Science, technology and society scholars often use case studies to capture the socio-cultural contexts in which technological innovation occurs and provide analytical descriptions of the complex and dynamic factors shaping technology. However, cases often lack a robust framework for comparing and evaluating the governance of innovation across cultures. The research objective is to compare the results of two case studies for evaluative purposes. The study employs a social network tool to characterize the governance of innovation, while allowing nuanced cultural contexts to develop. The method offers a means to compare and evaluate cultures of innovation based on the sustainable governance criteria of shared learning. In doing so, I address the question: Can cultures of technological innovation be illustrated for comparative and evaluative purposes in case study research?
Methods
I mirrored one methodological component of an investigation of Switzerland’s culture of nanotechnology innovation authored by Wiek and colleagues, while allowing the case study to independently investigate the culture of nanotechnology innovation in metropolitan Phoenix, US. Interviews with 45 key actors yielded 62 organizations named over 900 times. The interview method captured the number of actors another actor named (activity) and the number of times an actor group was named (passivity). Summing the activity and passivity quantities creates a robust agent network analysis that frames cultures of innovation.
Results
The case study in Switzerland illustrated the cultural importance of academia (20.9), industry (16.9), and government regulators (10.3). In Phoenix, government funding and support (18.5), academia (16.3), and industry (15.2) comprised the top three actor groups. And while both cultures align with Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz’s ‘triple helix’ of innovation the Phoenix culture is attuned to the rewards offered by funders, while in Switzerland the culture is more cognizant of risk management administered by government regulators. In neither culture is there a demonstrated connection between government funding agencies and government regulatory agencies. This disconnect is a key evaluative criterion of sustainable governance - awareness and connection of all the other actors engaged in nanotechnology innovation. This missing link in the social network highlights a lack of shared learning, a key feature of sustainable governance.
Conclusion
The risk orientation of Switzerland and the reward orientation of Phoenix are unique, yet neither demonstrates a culture of shared learning. The networks illustrate mutual recognition of key actors, which creates a strong visual element for a comparison between case studies. The method offers a repeatable and quantifiable social framing of the cultures of innovation; without constraining the nuanced approaches enlisted by case study research. The method can additionally evaluate shared learning – a critical component of sustainable governance.