Running out of STE(A)M: A critical perspective on the political rhetoric of innovation.

Bamborough, CE

Running out of STE(A)M: A critical perspective on the political rhetoric of innovation.

Bamborough, CE

Permalink

Publication Type:: Conference Proceeding
Citation:: Project to Practice: Innovating Architecture, 2016, 9 pp. ? - ? (167)
Issue Date:: 2016-09-30

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Accepted Manuscript versionAdobe PDF (172.19 kB)

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Bamborough, CE https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8339-3465	en_US
dc.date	2016-09-30	en_US
dc.date.issued	2016-09-30	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Project to Practice: Innovating Architecture, 2016, 9 pp. ? - ? (167)	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/109921
dc.description.abstract	The frequent use of the acronym STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Maths) within the rhetoric of the National Innovation and Science Agenda should immediately sound alarm bells for the field of architecture. While some, now and then, include the A (Art), there is a bias toward these four core disciplines and a perception that they provide a means towards “innovation”, and with it “progress” and “growth” through new technology. In Australia the socially facing practice of architecture has found itself navigating the territories of service and construction economies through technologies of shelter, in doing so it is complicit in serving mainly the wealthy, and assisting in the political control of resources. As we enter a post-resource era is the architectural profession making the same mistake by adopting the rhetoric of another capitalist profit driven economic paradigm? In this paper, I wish to assess the political rhetoric behind the innovation economy critically to highlight the assumptions contained within. In response, I will offer alternative approaches based on social use-value and a focus away from consumption and labour as means of value exchange. Through considering peer to peer production, and associated cultures of making, hacking and re-use, as alternative frameworks for political economy, the question is proposed whether architecture should seek to create its own agenda for innovation, rather than adopt the dominant economic model? The paper aims to address the assumptions that surround the rhetoric of innovation in Australian political discourse, question the motivations of this focus, and assess its benefit for architecture.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Project to Practice: Innovating Architecture	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Project to Practice: 9th AASA International Conference	en_US
dc.title	Running out of STE(A)M: A critical perspective on the political rhetoric of innovation.	en_US
dc.type	Conference Proceeding
utslib.citation.volume	9	en_US
utslib.location.activity	Sydney	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Students
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.consider-herdc	false	en_US
pubs.finish-date	2016-10-01	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.start-date	2016-09-30	en_US
pubs.volume	9	en_US

Abstract:

The frequent use of the acronym STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Maths) within the rhetoric of the National Innovation and Science Agenda should immediately sound alarm bells for the field of architecture. While some, now and then, include the A (Art), there is a bias toward these four core disciplines and a perception that they provide a means towards “innovation”, and with it “progress” and “growth” through new technology. In Australia the socially facing practice of architecture has found itself navigating the territories of service and construction economies through technologies of shelter, in doing so it is complicit in serving mainly the wealthy, and assisting in the political control of resources. As we enter a post-resource era is the architectural profession making the same mistake by adopting the rhetoric of another capitalist profit driven economic paradigm? In this paper, I wish to assess the political rhetoric behind the innovation economy critically to highlight the assumptions contained within. In response, I will offer alternative approaches based on social use-value and a focus away from consumption and labour as means of value exchange. Through considering peer to peer production, and associated cultures of making, hacking and re-use, as alternative frameworks for political economy, the question is proposed whether architecture should seek to create its own agenda for innovation, rather than adopt the dominant economic model? The paper aims to address the assumptions that surround the rhetoric of innovation in Australian political discourse, question the motivations of this focus, and assess its benefit for architecture.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/109921