The paper discusses how we can understand critique within innovation studies. We only rarely see explicit notions of critique in innovation research and social innovation research. In this sense we find no equivalent to the management approaches calling themselves Critical Management Studies (CMS) (Fournier and Grey, 2000; Alvesson and Willmott, 1992) within innovation research. The chapter discusses the implications of the lack of systematic discussions of the notion of ‘critique’ for social innovation research. It also shows that we, nevertheless, do find some research approaches that share features with different kinds of explicitly critical thinking – even if they do not use the word critique very often and even if the contributions do not constitute a field of critical innovation research as such (see Dey and Steyaert, 2012). The few critical attempts rather seem to be different approaches that do not necessarily relate to one another. In this chapter, the critical approaches in social innovation and entrepreneurship studies are systematized and discussed in relation to different types of critique. The chapter is a conceptual chapter and a survey of critical innovation and entrepreneurship literature.
Before the categorization of different types of critical research, the paper briefly discusses how we can characterize non-critical innovation studies as opposed to critical innovation studies (Fournier and Grey, 2000). Inspired by Critical Theory in the Frankfurt School tradition as well as Critical Management Studies, non-critical innovation theory is categorized as accepting a mainstream idea of innovation and working in technical and economic terms without regards for the political, ethical and normative dimensions of the concept. Further, non-critical innovation research ignores the political and societal implications of its own theoretical conceptualizations, thereby obscuring the performative dimensions of research theories and concepts. This is elucidated and discussed in the paper.
In the categorization of critical innovation research, two different lines of critical thinking are outlined and related to existing social innovation (and social entrepreneurship) research. One Foucauldian, post-structuralist line of critique and one associated with Frankfurt School Critical Theory, namely a Habermasian approach, with an explicit normative content and a focus on the rational justification of norms. On the basis of the categorization, the paper discusses how these approaches represent different conceptions of ‘critique’ which have different implication for innovation research as a scientific field.
Lastly, the paper briefly discusses the implications of the different critical approaches for the field of social entrepreneurship and social innovation in terms of systematic normative justification and emancipatory potential as well as societal diagnosis. All themes that are central within social science and philosophical discussions of the role and potentials of critical social science.
References:
Alvesson, Mats and Hugh Willmott (eds.) (1992): Critical Management Studies. London, UK, Newbury Park, CA, USA: Sage Publications.
Dey, Pascal and Chris Steyaert (2012): “Social Entrepreneurship: critique and the radical enactment of the social”. Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 8, Issue 2: 90-107.
Fournier, Valerie and Chris Grey (2000): “At the Critical Moment: Conditions and Prospects for Critical Management Studies”. Human Relations, Vol. 53. no.1:7-32.
