The Myth of Innovation

The WAG in its endless multifarious stated aims, visions, new directions, renewals and so on  is constantly harping on about ‘innovation’ as being some kind of cure for our social and economic ills. They say we must have: innovative services, innovative thinking, innovative methods, innovative research (duh?). Everything must now be ‘innovative’.  This is all very well but the  plain vanilla ‘missionary’ position, if  done properly (better), should be able to deliver (most of) what we need in terms of basic public sector services. We don’t want ‘innovative public services’, we need public services period. We do not need to innovate the wheel.

It also shows a fundamental lack of understanding where true innovation emanates from. Any analysis of creativity, scientific advance and even engineering ingenuity (Popper, Wilson , Koestler) shows that they rarely emerge out of a vacuum. A genuine ‘innovation’ often emerges in small increments based on people finding better ways of doing or thinking about things. Singular discoveries are extremely rare and unpredictable. Breakthroughs in science and major advances in technology usually come from multi-disciplinary teams of researchers in highly competitive (national) races for military or economic global advantage. The amount of ‘innovative’ or meaningful practical research that can be done in Welsh universities is extremely limited because they cannot hope to afford the tools and brain/manpower employed by Big Pharma for example in drug discovery or by the military in developing weaponry. Welsh university lecturers currently spend a huge amount of time lecturing/teaching leaving little time or incentive to innovate. They are also sometimes very far behind the curve in  actual knowledge or practical application/implementation of cutting edge science and technology. Welsh universities are actually (and should remain) centres/repositories of (past) learning not ‘innovation’ despite calls for more ‘interaction’ with business through so-called technology roll out schemes. Nevertheless, scientific advance  can and is made through universities mainly by ‘thinking’ , writing papers and interacting as a ‘community’. It is these things that should be supported as they are a well recognised route for scientific advance (and regulation by peer review). It is a group or community activity that lays a theoretical framework or platform upon which ‘practical’ innovations can be made and exploited by business.

Therefore, in a round about way, the WAG is correct (in its Economic Renewal Programme) to redirect support back into education and the universities but it is incorrect in supposing that this will stimulate  practical innovation or more help for business in innovating. Those breakthroughs will come when the pressures or incentives are sufficient enough or through the course of actually doing the job in hand.