| Summary/Abstract |
Over the past two decades, scholars have developed undone science and inclusive innovation to explain knowledge silos, technology and development for marginalised communities. The undone science framework describes the systematic neglect of scientific issues that impact marginalised groups. The inclusive innovation framework emphasises the need to produce innovations that directly benefit marginalised 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 marginalised groups. This article compares the frameworks by examining nanotechnology policy and research in South Africa and shows how the frameworks help create better policies for marginalised groups. Because the frameworks emphasise different issues, policymakers should use both frameworks as opposed to over-relying on one of them.
|