Three arguments against ‘soft innovation’

Towards a richer understanding of cultural innovation

Datos Bibliográficos

ID12340653
AutoresBen Eltham (0000-0003-4639-460X, Centre for Policy Development, P.O. Box K3, Haymarket, 1240, Australia., autor de correspondencia)
Año2012
Volumen19
Número5
Páginas537-556
Fecha de publicación2012-03-07
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaInternational Journal of Cultural Policy (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 1028-6632 • E-ISSN: 1477-2833
EditorialRoutledge (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/10286632.2012.658044
OpenAlexW2069305337
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas4
Referencias citadas103

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