Innovation is one of those words that many people – academics, businesspeople, policymakers, students, workers… – use in conversations, both formal and informal; an idea that seems to be part of our culture. Innovations undeniably change our lives and society; airplanes, for example, were invented and became innovations when these inventions revolutionized transportation. The same can be said of the telephone (the old-fashioned landline) or its more modern version, the cell phone, and, of course, the most recent smartphone, which began to emerge in the 1990s, but which, from the first decade of our century until now, has already reached its fifth generation. These devices have changed and continue to irreversibly change the way people interact and interact with the world.
“Innovations, products of technological change, result from clashes and negotiations between stakeholders: inventors, producers, users, and governments [...]. The adoption of new technological devices by society is a relationship of mutual shaping, in which technology accommodates, but also transforms, existing social practices. The use of these innovations is a complex construct of habits, beliefs, and procedures embedded in cultural codes.” [1].
Once the complexity of innovations is established, what we predominantly see is an explosion in the application of an innovative idea, often with slogans that diverge considerably from the quote above. This is the case with Rio Innovation Week. [2]The success of the 2025 edition solidified the event "as a global benchmark in innovation, technology, and business." In 2026, we will also have São Paulo Innovation Week. [3], whose promotional material promises: “The best global technology and innovation festival lands in one of the most powerful cities in the world.” Campinas also has its “innovation week,” and I imagine that innovation weeks must exist in other corners of Brazil as well.
Innovation is present in universities, where we have innovation and entrepreneurship courses (the "engine of innovation") in the curricula, in addition to innovation agencies. The most recent developments seem to be "University 4.0" and "fourth-generation university." The first, in short, according to Google's AI, "is the evolution of higher education aligned with the Fourth Industrial Revolution, focusing on personalized learning, artificial intelligence (AI), big data, and active methodologies." The fourth-generation university, again appealing to the summary of this University 4.0 (AI) tool, "represents the most recent evolution of higher education, where the institution ceases to be merely a center for teaching or research and becomes a catalyst for regional innovation ecosystems." These are seductive slogans, so why not adopt them?
Regarding Industry 4.0, there is a vast body of literature proposing solutions; as for the fourth generation, it has been adopted as a vision by universities worldwide. It all seems promising, but something should be discussed more thoroughly. On the one hand, the university is given an identity based on the Industry 4.0 model. The fourth-generation university transforms the university into something within an ecosystem. [4] And nobody asks about the impact of this on university autonomy. Perhaps even more astonishing is the simplification of the complex history of the university to justify this so-called fourth generation. The first generation was focused solely on teaching, the second would have research as its central pillar, the third is the "entrepreneurial university," and the fourth, an "evolution" in which the university "orchestrates an ecosystem."
The university is still a space for critical thinking, but it's difficult to find critical discussions about this set of events, initiatives, and models. Doesn't innovation have disadvantages, for example? What we call innovation without much reflection, is it actually real innovation? Isn't innovation in danger of becoming an end in itself or an ideology? It's good to remember that asking questions doesn't offend. I can't give an answer to these questions, only share the discomfort of how concepts and precepts are being adopted without raising questions. But they do exist, albeit in the minority, and in this context we find an intriguing book from which I borrow the title above: Empty innovation – causes and consequences of society's obsession with entrepreneurship and growth (“Empty Innovation – Causes and Consequences of Society’s Obsession with Entrepreneurship and Growth”), by Swedish sociologist Olof Hallonsten. The book describes an important problem, using a wide range of critical literature: the extent to which a series of chained initiatives actually promotes... real innovation, instead of a empty innovationwhich looks innovative, but isn't (innovationism).
Anyone interested can access the book freely. [5]I believe this discussion is worthwhile to avoid falling into the trap of doing more of the same, and that with simple metrics we can convince ourselves that we are doing what is not actually being done. Long live innovation, when it is real.
This text does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Unicamp.
[1] Text adapted from an article by sociologist Amparo Lasen in which she compares the emergence and
uses of cell phones compared to landline phones.
[2] https://rioinnovationweek.com.br/
[3] https://saopauloinnovationweek.com.br/
[4] https://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/understanding-the-4th-generation-university
[5] https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-31479-7
Cover photo:
