In the 1990s, the topics of development and poverty, once dominated by development economists, appeared on the radar of management, organizational studies and innovation scholars. A huge variety of terms, some historical like ‘appropriate technology’ and some others totally new like ‘frugal innovation’, ‘Jugaad innovation’ and ‘inclusive innovation’ began to populate the business and management literature. Concurrently, the field of development studies became progressively hybridised with elements from business and innovation studies. This thesis contributes to the analysis of this ‘cross-pollination’ between the discourses of development and the discourses of Innovation. The research discusses how the meaning of innovation, an interpretively flexible and contested ‘buzzword’ with the capacity to shelter multiple political agendas, is constructed within the discourses and practices of development to support and further the values and interests of those actors who employ it. By telling the stories of four different communities of practitioners in Bangladesh and India, this thesis validates, on one hand, some of the conclusions of the extant literature concerning innovation in resource-constrained environments. On the other hand, it provides original insights about the construction of the discourse of innovation and technical change in situated practices. The cases confirm that innovation can and does spring from resource-constrained conditions, where it is often driven and shaped not only by malfunctioning formal and informal institutions, market mechanisms and a weak private sector, but also by traditional knowledge, empathy and cultural motives. At the same time, the findings reveal that technological innovation is neither necessary nor sufficient to reverse the causes of poverty and exclusion, historically major targets for development. In certain circumstances, innovation can even reinforce unequal power relationships by favouring those who already enjoy privileged positions in the community. In three of the four cases analysed, the discourse of innovation attempt to transform the social practices of ‘the beneficiaries’, promoting all the features typical of neoliberal agenda such as competitiveness, ownership, productivity, efficiency and market-oriented production, while at the same time dismissing pre-existing or alternative subsistence patterns of life and nonmarketable solutions. These dynamics present within an emergent, hegemonic discourse of ‘Inclusive business’, which is inspired by the desire to include people within the framework of the market economy, fighting the informal economy and, ultimately, erasing subsistence. What emerges from the research is that discourses of social justice and political transformation have been marginalised, if not completely neglected, in discourses of innovation and development. The thesis, however, describes that the meaning of innovation in the context of development remains contested. There exist countervailing voices that, despite being a minority, have and continue to open up the debate about the value of innovation and technological change as an instrument for social transformation.

This dissertation project explored the privileging of knowledge production in science and technology as a Canadian national economic, political and social strategy. The project incorporated the relationship between nation-state knowledge production and how that knowledge is then systematically evaluated, prioritized and validated by systems of health technology assessment (HTA). The entry point into the analysis and this dissertation project was the Scientific Research and Experimental Design (SR&ED) federal tax incentive program as the cornerstone of science and technology knowledge production in Canada. The method of inquiry and analysis examined the submission documents submitted by key stakeholders across the country, representing public, private and academic standpoints, during the public consultation process conducted from 2007 to 2008 and how each of these standpoints is hooked into the public policy interests and institutional structures that produce knowledge in science and technology. Key public meetings, including the public information sessions facilitated by the Canada Revenue Agency and private industry conferences, provided context and guidance regarding the current pervasive public and policy interests that direct and drive the policy debates. Finally, the “Innovation Canada: A Call to Action Review of Federal Support to Research and Development: Expert Panel Report,” commonly referred to as “The Jenkins Report” (Jenkins et al., 2011), was critically evaluated as the expected predictor of future public policy changes associated with the SR&ED program and the future implications for the production of knowledge in science and technology. The method of inquiry and analytical lens was a materialist approach that drew on the inspiring frameworks of such scholars as Dorothy Smith, Michel Foucault, Kaushik Sunder Rajan, Melinda Cooper, and, Gilles Deleuze. Ultimately, I strove to illuminate the normalizing force and power of knowledge production in science and technology, and the disciplines and structures that encompass it and are hooked into it where the privileging of such knowledge becomes hegemonic within and by the regimes of knowledge production that created them.

This dissertation project explored the privileging of knowledge production in science and technology as a Canadian national economic, political and social strategy. The project incorporated the relationship between nation-state knowledge production and how that knowledge is then systematically evaluated, prioritized and validated by systems of health technology assessment (HTA). The entry point into the analysis and this dissertation project was the Scientific Research and Experimental Design (SR&ED) federal tax incentive program as the cornerstone of science and technology knowledge production in Canada. The method of inquiry and analysis examined the submission documents submitted by key stakeholders across the country, representing public, private and academic standpoints, during the public consultation process conducted from 2007 to 2008 and how each of these standpoints is hooked into the public policy interests and institutional structures that produce knowledge in science and technology. Key public meetings, including the public information sessions facilitated by the Canada Revenue Agency and private industry conferences, provided context and guidance regarding the current pervasive public and policy interests that direct and drive the policy debates. Finally, the “Innovation Canada: A Call to Action Review of Federal Support to Research and Development: Expert Panel Report,” commonly referred to as “The Jenkins Report” (Jenkins et al., 2011), was critically evaluated as the expected predictor of future public policy changes associated with the SR&ED program and the future implications for the production of knowledge in science and technology. The method of inquiry and analytical lens was a materialist approach that drew on the inspiring frameworks of such scholars as Dorothy Smith, Michel Foucault, Kaushik Sunder Rajan, Melinda Cooper, and, Gilles Deleuze. Ultimately, I strove to illuminate the normalizing force and power of knowledge production in science and technology, and the disciplines and structures that encompass it and are hooked into it where the privileging of such knowledge becomes hegemonic within and by the regimes of knowledge production that created them.