SI as changing social relations, involving new ways of doing, knowing, framing and organizing, and theorizes transformative social innovation (TSI) as the process of SI challenging, altering, or replacing dominant institutions in a specific social-material context

According to Srinivasan (2019),1 the way people in the global South use and experience digital technologies could help bring a different understanding to tech innovation and its applications in the real world and the ways in which they are built for and by users.

La organización transfeminista de hackers Coding Rights

Unfortunately for design justice practitioners, this literature reveals a long-term shift away from hacklabs and hackerspaces as explicitly politicized spaces at the intersection of social movement networks and geek communities.14 Instead, start-up culture and a neoliberal discourse of individual technical mastery and entrepreneurial citizenship have largely come to dominate hackerspaces,15 even as city administrators have leveraged the popularity of technological solutionism to create municipal “innovation labs.”

At the end of the day many of us that are innovators always find ourselves busy with the next thing we are innovating and rarely look around at the context. To be expected to look beyond the context to other forks is too much for any sane individual. because all of the forks are using trunk based development and are moving targets.

a situation has emerged wherein the present arrangements tend to sustain the interest of established stakeholders, inhibiting wider access to scholarly research and experimentation with new forms of scholarship and scholarly communication. These arrangements are predisposed to be repetitive and conservative instead of being open to alterity. In this sense, they continue to reproduce what can be perceived as essentializing aspects of the book, which include a fetishization of both the author and the book-object.

El sueño de una Colombia competitiva y a la vanguardia lo lograremos medianteel aumento sustancial de las inversiones públicas en educación, ciencia, tecnologíae innovación: en el 2019, por ejemplo, escalamos a la posición 57 en el rankingde competitividad de la wef y llegamos a ser la cuarta economía en Latinoamérica,pero necesitamos llegar a ser la primera. De ser así, el sector privado entrará confuerza a impulsar mayores inversiones para la innovación y el desarrollo.Como bien lo plantean los expertos, la oportunidad de transformar al paísdesde ejes transversales requiere partir de nuestras propias potencialidades:

Durante los años 60 se centró la atención en la innovación educativa. Previamente, yo la había denominado como la era de la “adopción” de la reforma porque la meta era importar innovaciones como si inundar el sistema con ideas externas produjera las ansiadas mejoras. Esta fue una época optimista. La preocupación, al menos en los Estados Unidos, era que los logros científicos del Oeste estaban quedándose detrás de los logros Rusos, y que una amplia estrategia a escala nacional pronto corregiría el problema. Las arcas federales se abrieron para realizar las mayores reformas curriculares (PSSC Physics, Chem Study, Chemistry, Nuevas Matemáticas), innovaciones tecnológicas (enseñanza por medio de la TV., máquinas de enseñanza), así como innovaciones organizativas (escuelas abiertas, programas flexibles y enseñanza en equipo)

Las ca-racterísticas clave de esa cultura innovadora son una actitud colectiva positiva hacia los procesos de cambio y una forma especial de ser y actuar en conjunto desarrollando estrate-gias novedosas para dar respuesta a los problemas planteados y trabajar por mejorar día a día

Innovación educativa con uso de TIC como un proceso en el que la práctica educati-va, con la mediación de TIC, se reconfigura para dar respuesta a una necesidad, expectativa o problemática, desde lo que es pertinente y particular de un contexto, propiciando la dispo-sición permanente al aprendizaje y la generación de mejores condiciones en las realidades de los actores educativos.

Innovation always occurs against a larger social and cultural backdrop because "all participants [in collective design] bring gendered, racial, and class-based assumptions to the designing process" (p. 37). Diversity in collective design may helpindividuals imagine better together, as we all bring different assumptions about technology.

“performance of innovation” (Balsamo, 2011) described how individuals collaboratively design technology in public settings. According to Balsamo, technology design emerges from a collaborative and cultural process that she terms "technoculture." Innovations are not objects, but like technology they are, “assemblages of practices, materialities, and affordances” (Balsamo, 2011, p. 8). Through performance and embodied action, technocultural innovation has a “dual logic”: the expression of the technological imagination and cultural reproduction.

Critiquing such claims as sensationalist, recent work identifies a problem of demarcation by which people control access to technical agency and who counts as innovative (Irani, 2015; Lindtner, 2015), illuminating differ-ent and multiple hacking histories. Gabriella Coleman (2011), for example, compares the protest movement Anonymous and the whistle-blowing project WikiLeaks to clarify the varying political sensibilities and practices from which hacking develops

For a technology to evolve in accordance with users’ needs, aiding social and economic development, the focus must move beyond mere adoption. When users appropriate technology and make it their own, new uses and innovations emerge. The appropriation process is a contest for control over a technological system’s configuration, as users, designers, and manufacturers battle over who can use that technology, at what cost, under what conditions, for what purpose, and with what consequences. This confrontation, we argue, constitutes a powerful innovation mechanism.

François Bar, Matthew Weber, and Francis Pisani advocate for a cul-tural model of technological appropriation drawn from Latin America. Appropriation draws attention to how users interpret, manipulate, and repurpose technology in creative and unexpected ways. Their cycle of evolution suggests cultural mechanisms of appro-priation: baroquization, creolization, and cannibalism. This new vocabulary to understand technological appropriation un-moors the notion of “hacking” from Western modernity. It encourages us to think about how users and cultures are central to a technology’s life-cycle. Beyond just signaling difference, Bar, Weber, and Pisani suggest that innovation on the periphery is a powerful process that merits consideration.

The emphasis on innovation is also vis-ible in Tim O’Reilly’s (2010) influential notion of “government as platform,” which positioned systems of governance as being similar to technical systems, subject to con-stant observation and tweaking to improve inefficiencies. He applied a biological model to government, where “information produced by and on behalf of citizens is the lifeblood of the economy and the nation” (O’Reilly, 2010: 14).