Three arguments against ‘soft innovation’

Towards a richer understanding of cultural innovation

Bibliographic Data

ID12340653
AuthorsBen Eltham (0000-0003-4639-460X, Centre for Policy Development, P.O. Box K3, Haymarket, 1240, Australia., corresponding author)
Year2012
Volume19
Issue5
Pages537-556
Publication date2012-03-07
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueInternational Journal of Cultural Policy (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1028-6632 • E-ISSN: 1477-2833
PublisherRoutledge (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/10286632.2012.658044
OpenAlexW2069305337
LanguageEN
Citations received4
References cited103

n\t\t\t\t\tThis paper critiques recent research on innovation in the cultural and creative industries. In particular, this paper examines Paul Stoneman’s idea of ‘soft innovation’ as a jumping off point for discussing theories of cultural innovation more broadly. Three critiques are advanced. Firstly, soft innovation is a theoretical perspective that has developed from neoclassical economics, and is therefore vulnerable to criticisms levelled at neoclassical explanations of economic behaviour. Secondly, the theory of soft innovation can be criticised for being contin- gently inaccurate: the observed reality of cultural industries and marketplaces may not reflect the theory’s premises. Thirdly, because soft innovation defines the significance of an innovation in terms of marketplace success, it implies that only high-selling cultural products are significant, a difficult claim to substantiate. This paper concludes by arguing that our understanding of innovation in the cultural sphere can benefit from a multi-disciplinary approach grounded in the full gamut of human creativity.\n\t\t\t\t

Creativity · Discipline · Economics · Epistemology · Neoclassical economics · Perspective (graphical · Positive economics · Social science · Sociology · Art History and Market Analysis · Cultural Industries and Urban Development · Psychology · Social and Cultural Dynamics · Social Psychology