Beyond the diffusion paradigm

What does Actor-Network (ANT) have to say about knowledge or technology

diffusion?

Anselmo Matusse1
(ansma348@student.liu.se)

Introduction
Innovations or eco-innovations are portrayed as having the potential for promoting
sustainability and economic growth simultaneously (Foxon & Andersen 2009; Foxon et al.
2005; Kemp & Pontoglio 2011; Zhu et al. 2014; Faucheux & Nicola 2011; Bergquist &
Sderholm 2011; OECD 2011; Machiba 2010; Hertzman et al. 2014; Triguero et al. 2013;
Carrillo-Hermosilla et al. 2010; Lundin & Serger 2014; Halila & Horte 2006; Andersen 2008;
Jacobsson 2008; Lombardi & Laybourn 2012), and a growing number of authors have been
seeking to analyze the diffusion process of innovation because a rapid absorption and
domestic diffusion would, normally, result in a more productive and competitive national and
global economy (Edquist & Lundvall 1993, p.31 my italic).
Therefore, there have been a number of studies advocating a knowledge transfer mostly from
rich countries to poor countries (i.e., Saad 2000). The UNFCCC, for example, is one of the
strongest advocates of knowledge transfer from rich to poor countries (UNFCCC 2015). This
view of technology or knowledge transfer or diffusion has been growing mostly in the area of
green innovations as these are seen as having the potential to mitigate climate impacts while
securing economic growth. This is portrayed as a step forward towards a more or less
egalitarian and sustainable globe.
This positivistic view of knowledge transfer or diffusion is highly contested by some authors.
These authors emphasize the highly situated ethos of knowledge, technology, science and
innovation, in which these entities instead of being portrayed as existing out there and
coming out of nowhere are framed as effects of social relations (Flyvbjerg 2001; Brodn
2012; Haraway 2007; Latour 1999; Latour 2007a; Snyder et al. 2013; Brodn 2013; Foucault
1972; Sismondo 2009; Fairclough 2003; Bijker et al. 1987; Geertz 1973; Goffman 1959;
Kuhn 2012) or material symbiotic as John Law (1986a) would argue. Thus, they are deeply
rooted in the social relations (understand in the ANT sense) that gave rise to them.
The purpose of this paper is to debunk this transfer paradigm using Actor-Network Theory
ANT), as the knowledge transfer paradigm conceals power relations around knowledge
production and use, Yehia (2007) defends a need for decolonizing knowledge; the transfer
paradigm does not account for the complexity knowledge production and use. As Law (2006,
1

Masters Student in Science for Sustainable Development, Linkping University, Research Skills 1, 7.5
Credits, fall 2014

p.49) argues, there are series of negotiations behind knowledge or technology passing
process.
Methods and materials
I resorted to qualitative research. The data was collected through literature review of previous
studies on diffusion of innovation and eco-innovation.
Hart (1998, p.13) defines literature review as
the selection of available documents on the topic, which contain information, ideas, data, and
evidence written from a particular standpoint to fulfill certain aims or express certain views on
the nature of the topic and how it is to be investigated, and effective evaluation of these
documents in relation to the research being proposed.

I used the scholar Google search bar and Linkping University database to search for articles,
with the entries: diffusion of innovation, knowledge transfer, or diffusion of ecoinnovation/green-innovations/environmental innovations. I also resorted to snowball
procedure in which after reading a text, I identified some authors that were being referenced
and were related to my topic. This procedure allowed me to gather texts from different
disciplines, which confirmed the interdisciplinary character of this subject.
Some parts of this text (i.e. the theoretical framing) were produced from my work in my
masters thesis. It was from this work that I got interested in this topic.
In the text, I used transfer and diffusion, interchangeably (a definition is given below),
however, Stewart (1987) raises a discussion about the difference between transfer and
diffusion, a debate beyond the scope of this paper.
Data analysis

I analyzed the data first by coding the texts according to the framing of innovation transfer,
which I then compared how each text framed transfer or diffusion: The result of this exercise
were categories such as linear models, systemic models and ANT. In this case, using Harts
words, I focused on the ideas behind knowledge transfer from different perspectives; and as I
read a text I categorized it using the three categories mentioned earlier.
Ethical issues

As this work is a result of literature review my major ethical concern had to do with
plagiarism, therefore, I sought to refer to the authors where the ideas being used in the text
were not mine.
Limitations

The major limitations, I faced when producing this text are related to lack of familiarity with
ANT theory. ANT approach was somehow new to me and I had the task of both understating
it and applying it in a specific area, diffusion studies.
I also tried to keep the discussion general, without reference to a specific case study.
However, I tried to bring previous ANT studies on diffusion of innovation and show ANTs
potential in this field. Future studies would require a more specific and grounded approach,
like Madeleine Akrichs (cited by Law 2006), so as to show how the translation process is
carried out in reality. One of the purposes of this study is to encourage further studies in that
sense.
2

Theoretical framework: following the ANT

Actor-Network theory or sociology of translation is a thought provocative approach that
rather than a homogenous corpus of knowledge, consists of a heterogeneous network of
materials which overlaps with other intellectual traditions a Diaspora, according to Law
(1999, 2008). ANT has spread, and as it has spread it has translated itself into many things
that are new and different from one another (Law 1999, p.10). With some translations still
loyal to the original project of ANT - translated and others moving astray - tradutore.
The ANT grew out of the science studies, in which science was seen as a social product. ANT
practioners while agreeing with this claim, they take a rather radical view of what accounts
for social. The social, instead of an ingredient, an attribute that can be singled out as
distinctive feature, in Latours words, seems to be diluted everywhere and yet nowhere in
particular (2007a, pg. 2). What the previous sociology took for social or as an explanatory
cause is, in fact, an effect of a heterogeneous network of materials (Law 1992; Latour 2007a;
Latour 1996), associations, connections, assemblies or bundles.
The social, according to Latour (2007a, p. 1), now designates two entirely different things:
first, a movement during a process of assembling; and second, a specific type of ingredient
that is supposed to differ from other materials. While distancing himself from the later
perspective, Latour (2007a, p. 2), sets out on a project of going back to its original meaning
and making it able to trace connections again reassembling the social (my italics) this
projects brings non-human agency or the missing masses (Latour 1992) back to the picture.
This is one of the biggest sources of contentions amongst critiques of ANT. I will come back
to this later.
In this case, the non-humans, the objects, the artefacts, etc., are not a context upon which
human actions takes place, malleable beings to be manipulated into specific interests, they
also have agency. The social is the association, the tying of networks in which humans and
non-humans participate. Therefore, instead of the reductionist or essentialist approaches of
studying the humans or the non-humans, ANTs solution is another reductionist approach.
For the ANT approach all is network (Latour 2007a) or heterogeneous networks of materials
(Law 1992). There is nothing else other than the networks and their effects (Latour 2007a).
According to Law (1992), the task of sociology is to characterise these networks in their
heterogeneity, and explore how it is that they come to be patterned to generate effects like
organizations, inequality and power. This is a materialist approach, therefore poses much
emphasis on case studies, the social relations and their plaiting, which is clearly denoted by
the ANT slogan follow the actors. ANT looks at actors, agents, organizations,
institutions, machines as heterogeneous networks of materials, effects that are sustained
through relational processes, taking in this way non-essentialist stance.
It is crucial to bear in mind that ANT is not a theory (Law 2008, Latour 2007b), but a toolkit,
a method, or sensitivity in studying the social (Singleton & Law 2013). It aims at describing
processes, leaving explanations to other kinds of sociologies. The focus is on the how
circulations, flows, transformations rather than on the why causes. The why is left to
the other kind of sociology.
Other than the human or non-human divide, this approach also crumbles aprioristic divides
such as far/close, small/large, local/global, micro/macro, centres/peripheries, etc., by
proposing a flat topography, in which those divisions are the effects of the actor-networks. For
ANT, these are relational categories.
3

If everything is network, and networks are constituted by different bits or pieces that are
heterogeneous networks themselves, their durability and mobility or not are then effects of
how these bits and pieces are networked. This means that any social order is in character
(always) precarious, it can be made to sustain or not, and this leads to the idea that things
could always have been otherwise ontological politics (Mol 1999).
According to Callon (1986a, p.24), an actor-world associates heterogeneous entities. It
defines their identity, the roles they should play, the nature of the bonds that unite them, their
respective sizes and the history in which they participate. How is this possible? This
enrolment is achieved through the process of translation.
Czarniawska & Hernes (2005) state that translation is a phenomenon that is not limited to
constructions of macro-actors but necessary to their construction. Translation is a way of
describing movements of different forms (idem, p. 9). And the actor that takes the role of
associating and distributing other actor-networks is called translator or spokesman. The
translator expresses their (actors) desires, their secret thoughts, their interests, their
mechanisms of operation Callon (1986, p 25 my italics). However, this process is always
precarious as it is open to contestation. And when, one of the pieces or bits that is being
assembled refuses to align the whole network might collapse. Callon (1986) speaks of
translation becoming treason, tradutore trahison, once an enrolled entity refuses to enter the
actor-world. Thus, translations cannot be taken for granted.
So, if all translations are open to contestation how come some manage to succeed? Callon
(1986) argues that the actor-world makes itself an Obligatory Point of Passage, which can
be achieved through strategies that range from seduction to pure violence by way of simple
bargaining (p. 26). In this case, the actor-network seeks to render itself indispensable, in a
sense that the enrolled actors feel that have no future out of it. Therefore, in order to make
entities accept a certain spokesman and certain points of passage, some links are necessary
Callon (1986) calls this displacement. In this process, entities are converted into inscriptions
which are then circulated. People, material, objects, money are circulated in order to make
translation effective. In short a translation process takes the following steps, which can be
overlapping in reality, Problematization, Interessement, enrolment and mobilization.
Technology diffusion: previous studies
Previous studies on the rate and direction of the adoption of innovation belong to a multitude
of disciplines ranging from sociology, economics, psychology, anthropology, organization
studies, etc. These took either a linear or a systemic approach. After presenting this, I will
discuss the approach I argue for, which is a network approach in the sense of ANT.
Linear approaches
Diffusion is the process in which innovation is communicated through certain channels over
time among members of a social system (Rogers 1995, p.9). According to this author,
speeding up the rate of diffusion of an innovation is a common problem for many individuals
and organizations. This rate of adoption of innovations depends on the perceived attributes of
the innovation, which according to the author can be the relative advantage, compatibility,
complexity, triability, and observability (Rogers 1995, p. 16). A similar definition is used by
Karakaya et al. (2014). For Karakaya et al. (2014), the diffusion theory focuses on the process
and the conditions at which innovations and ideas become diffused and adopted by
users/customers within wider social networks.
4

This definition presents four moments, namely, what is diffused is considered new for the
individual or adopting unit, second the communication channel through which innovation is
circulated, third, time to get to know and adopt the innovation, and the social system, which is
defined as a set of interrelated units that are engaged in joint problem-solving to accomplish
a common goal (Karakaya et al. 2014, p.393).This system supposedly affects the diffusion
and adoption of innovation. Other than that, also innovativeness of the adopting individuals or
units and the characteristics of the innovation impact the diffusion of innovation. This allowed
Rogers (1995) to identify the following categories of the adopters: innovators, early adopters,
early majority, late majority and laggards.
Other authors, for example, have devised price and past habits of consumers as explanans of
diffusion of innovation, the explanations include social or psychological behaviour, structure
of the markets, buyer behaviour, etc. For example, Chang et al. (2009), in their case study, in
Maharashtra State, India, try to analyse barriers to the adoption of renewable energy
technologies, by examining the perceptions of stakeholders; the purpose was simple, remove
these barriers through policies so the technologies could circulate in the obstructed veins
knowledge production and use.
Another study, focusing more on an international level, by Beise & Rennings (2005), analyses
the relation between environmental regulation on lead markets, in terms of green innovations.
The authors argue as far as globally successful innovation is concerned, it is apparent that
many innovation designs have only become internationally successful after initially being
preferred and adopted in one particular country (p.6). For this to happen, the price, the
regulation, the demand, the characteristic of innovation are crucial. This resounds with
Rogers approach to diffusion of innovation. Schematically the linear model can be described
as follows:
Research

invention

Development

Innovation

Diffusion (Callon 2007)

Systemic approaches
Carlsson (1993), on his case study about automation in Sweden, argues that other than the
usual suspects when dealing with diffusion of innovation, like the ones mentioned above, the
institutional set-up and the presence of linkages between firms and actors are sine qua non
factors. These view is also defended by authors like Lundvall (2009), Lundvall (1992),
Freeman (1995), Nelson (2008), Nelson (1992), Nelson & Rosenberg (1993).
This perspective is also defended by OECD. OECD (2011) seeks ways to induce diffusion of
innovation, and the strategies range from control and command to market instruments. They
also suggest a more systemic view of diffusion of innovation. In this case, it is necessary to
create a nurturing environment - innovation system -, in order to promote the production and
diffusion of innovations, and innovations or knowledge can then be transferred from one
system of innovation to another.
These two approaches although contrasting in the tools and focus the use to explain diffusion
of innovation they both share the same optimism that it possible to explain the causes behind
the low or fast rate of diffusion of innovation, the first focusing on market, behaviour, prices,
regulations and the second, on the system of innovation as a whole, which can be
technological, regional or national. Both approaches are static.
5

These studies even though they claim claiming that they aim to explain the diffusion of
innovation they fail to see their role as performance, in a sense that they help shape the actionnet that leads to removal of barriers to innovation or their visibility.
Other than the systemic view, the other difference between the systemic and the linear models
is that whilst linear models are sure about the step to follow, and what barriers and facilitators
are there for diffusion of innovation or knowledge, the systemic advocates argue that
accounting for diffusion of innovation using systems o innovation approaches is a challenging
situation (Edquist & Jakobsson cited by Lundvall 1992).
There is no knowledge transfer: sociology of translation approach
The ANT approach first does not favour explanations of processes, instead it describes them,
leaving explanations to other kinds of sociologies. For ANT practioners the focus is on
translations, transductions, transformations, flows in which an innovation instead of being
seen as fixed, black-boxed entity is seen as an heterogeneous network of materials, in this
network both human and non-human actors are bundled together, and it is the efficacy of this
bundling that will determine the success of the innovation to be translated by other actors,
then adopted. In this case, instead of transfer or diffusion the word ANT sociologists use is
translation.
For example, Callon (1986b) on his study about electric vehicle of France, describes the
processes through which different actors, like the fuel cells, the towns are translated by
Electricit de France EDF, in order to make a macro-world. It is the bundling of these actors
and the success of strategies used to ensure its mobility and durability that will allow the
electric vehicle to circulate in the streets of France and the world. Similar aspect can be said
about his famous study of the scallops of St. Brieux. Callon (1986a) shows how the
translation of scallops, fishermen and the scientific colleagues is crucial in order to create a
macro-world. Note that the scientists learnt the towlines made of collectors technique from
Japan and they were seeking to translate it to a different context through a series of
negotiations with different actors (human and non-humans), which we now call diffusion;
however this process failed because the researchers did not manage to translate the fishermen,
who betrayed the translation.
For Law (2006, p.49) there is no such thing as technology transfer. Putting in check both
systemic and linear approaches, the author states that technologies do not originate at a point
and spread out, like Beise & Rennings (2005b) argue. For Law (2006), technologies are
passed from hand to hand, and as they pass they are transformed. These transformations can
render them less recognizable. This author uses the example of a successful machine for
compacting forest waste: bark, off cuts, shavings, saw dust, in Sweden, that was meant to be
transferred to Nicaragua. This study was carried out by Madeleine Akrich, and it showed the
transformations that the machine had as it was being passed, a process that involved a series
of negations between human and non-humans actors. In this approach it is possible to note
that instead of looking at the channels of communications through which a solid circulates,
the technology also shapes the communication channels, is shaped by it, and shapes other
actors in the same fashion different actors shape.

Beyond knowledge transfer: concluding remarks

6

From the brief discussion carried out in this text it is possible to conclude that there is no
technology, innovation or knowledge transfer, instead we have is a series of negotiations and
respective transformations of technology, knowledge or innovation as it is passed hand in
hand. This entails serious theoretical, methodological, ontological and political implications,
ones that led Yehia (2007) to speak of decolonization. If knowledge is highly localized, and if
ontological politics entails different performances of reality, how is that some performances
come to be successful and others not? What room is left for the receiving-end (i.e., poor
countries) to perform knowledge, technology or innovation? And how is this sustainable?
Therefore, in this text I argue for the need to go beyond the knowledge transfer paradigm and
seek to trace different transformations of knowledge, innovation or technology as it is
negotiated and passed.

References
Beise, M. & Rennings, K., 2005a. Lead markets and regulation: A framework for analyzing
the international diffusion of environmental innovations. Ecological Economics, 52(1),
pp.517.
Beise, M. & Rennings, K., 2005b. Lead markets and regulation: a framework for analyzing
the international diffusion of environmental innovations. Ecological Economics, 52(1),
pp.517. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800904002599 [Accessed
October 10, 2014].
Bijker, W., Hughes, T. & Pinch, T., 1987. The Social Construction of Technological Systems.
The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: or How the Socioly of Science and the
Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other, pp.1749.
Brodn, V., 2012. Aiding research capacity for development: tensions and dilemmas.
International Journal of Contemporary Sociology, 49(49). Available at: http://liu.divaportal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:515021.
Brodn, V., 2013. Aiding science: Swedish research aid policy 1973-2008,
Callon, M., 1986a. Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the
Scallops and the Fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In J. Law, ed. Power, Action and Belief: A
New Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge, pp. 196233.
Callon, M., 1986b. The sociology of an actor-network: The case of the electric vehicle.
Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: Sociology of science in the real world,
pp.1934.
Callon, M., 2007. What Does It Mean to Say That Economics Is Performative? Do
Economists Make Markets?: On the Performativity of Economics, pp.311357.
Carlsson, B., 1993. Technological systems and economic policy: the diffusion of factory
automation in Sweden -F.
Chang, S.B., Lai, K.K. & Chang, S.M., 2009. Exploring technology diffusion and
classification of business methods: Using the patent citation network. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 76(1), pp.107117. Available at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S004016250800053X [Accessed October 4,
2014].
Czarniawska, B. & Hernes, T., 2005. Actor-network Theory and Organizing, Malm:
Copenhagen Business School Pres. Available at:
http://books.google.se/books/about/Actor_network_Theory_and_Organizing.html?
id=xZePQgAACAAJ&pgis=1 [Accessed January 31, 2015].
Edquist, C. & Lundvall, B.-., 1993. Comparing the Danish and Swedish Systems of
Innovation. In National Innovation Systems A Comparative Analysis. pp. 265298.
8

Fairclough, N., 2003. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research, Available
at: http://books.google.se/books/about/Analysing_Discourse.html?
id=V4SOkoy2vEIC&pgis=1 [Accessed January 10, 2015].
Flyvbjerg, B., 2001. Making social science matter: why social inquiry fails and how it van
successd again, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Foucault, M., 1972. THE ARCHAEOLOGY of knowledge and the discourse on language
Tavistock ., New York, NY.
Freeman, C., 1995. The National System of Innovation in historical perspective. , (March
1993), pp.524.
Geertz, C., 1973. The interpretationof cultures - Selected essays,
Goffman, E., 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Available at:
http://books.google.se/books/about/The_Presentation_of_Self_in_Everyday_Lif.html?
id=Sdt-cDkV8pQC&pgis=1 [Accessed March 30, 2015].
Haraway, D., 2007. Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the
Privilege of Partial Perspective. Femimist studies, 14(3), pp.575599.
Hart, C., 1998. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research
Imagination, Available at:
http://books.google.se/books/about/Doing_a_Literature_Review.html?
id=tc8LS6qa_KIC&pgis=1 [Accessed April 9, 2015].
Karakaya, E., Hidalgo, A. & Nuur, C., 2014. Diffusion of eco-innovations: A review.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 33, pp.392399. Available at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1364032114001051 [Accessed July 15,
2014].
Kuhn, T.S., 2012. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition,
University of Chicago Press. Available at: https://books.google.com/books?
id=3eP5Y_OOuzwC&pgis=1 [Accessed March 30, 2015].
Latour, B., 1999. For David Bloor and Beyond: A Reply to David Bloor s Anti-Latour.
Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci, 30(1), pp.113129.
Latour, B., 1996. On actor-network theory. A few clarificaitons plus more than a few
complications. Soziale Welt, 25, pp.116 (369381). Available at: http://www.brunolatour.fr/sites/default/files/P-67 ACTOR-NETWORK.pdf.
Latour, B., 2007a. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, OUP
Oxford. Available at: https://books.google.com/books?id=7ZGknQEACAAJ&pgis=1
[Accessed December 17, 2014].
Latour, B., 2007b. Reassembling the Social: an introduction to actor-network-theory,

Latour, B., 1992. Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts.
Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, pp.225258.
Available at: http://www.citeulike.org/group/718/article/3382023.
Law, J., 2008. Actor-network theory and material semiotics. , (April), pp.121. Available at:
http://bookshop.blackwell.co.uk/jsp/id/The_New_Blackwell_Companion_to_Social_The
ory/9781405169004.
Law, J., 1999. After ANT: complexity, naming and topology. The Sociological Review,
47(S1), pp.114. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1999.tb03479.x
[Accessed January 23, 2015].
Law, J., 1992. Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity.
Systems Practice, 5(1), pp.379393.
Law, J., 2006. Traduction/Trahison: Notes on ANT. Convergencia. Revista de Ciencias
Sociales, 13, pp.4772.
Lundvall, B., 2009. Innovation as an interactive process: from user-producer interaction to the
national system of innovation. African Journal of Science, 1(2&3), pp.1034. Available
at: http://www.ajstid.com/abstractlundvall.pdf.
Lundvall, B.-., 2010. National systems of innovation,
Lundvall, B.-., 1992. National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and
Interactive Learning, Available at: http://books.google.com/books?id=iDXGwacw4oC&pgis=1.
Mol, A., 1999. Ontological politics. A word and some questions. The Sociological Review,
47(S1), pp.7489. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1467954X.1999.tb03483.x [Accessed February 8, 2015].
Nelson, R.R., 1992. National innovation systems: A retrospective on a study. Industrial and
Corporate Change, 1(2), pp.347374.
Nelson, R.R., 2008. What enables rapid economic progress: What are the needed institutions?
Research Policy, 37(1), pp.111. Available at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0048733307002314 [Accessed August 7,
2014].
Nelson, R.R. & Rosenberg, N., 1993. Technical Innovation and National Systems. In National
Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. pp. 321.
Oecd, 2011. Better Policies to Support Eco-Innovation, Available at:
http://books.google.de/books?
id=bgjkhYZd9XYC&pg=PA30&dq=intitle:Better+Policies+to+Support+Eco+i
nnovation&hl=&cd=2&source=gbs_api.
Rogers, E.M., 1995. Diffusion of innovations, Simon and Schuster.
10

Saad, M., 2000. Development Through Technology Transfer: Creating New Organisational
and Cultural Understanding, Available at:
http://books.google.se/books/about/Development_Through_Technology_Transfer.html?
id=otXwb6wb_loC&pgis=1 [Accessed April 2, 2015].
Singleton, V. & Law, J., 2013. ANT and politics:working in and on the world. , (September),
pp.118. Available at: http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/59664/.
Sismondo, S., 2009. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies, Available at:
http://books.google.se/books/about/An_Introduction_to_Science_and_Technolog.html?
id=LescwF8FBigC&pgis=1 [Accessed January 22, 2015].
Snyder, R. et al., 2013. Producing Knowledge in the Global South: The Political Economy of
Social Science in Argentina, Colombia, and Peru. SSRN Electronic Journal, (1).
Available at: http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2327889.
Stewart, C.T., 1987. Technology transfer vs. diffusion: A conceptual clarification. The Journal
of Technology Transfer, 12(1), pp.7179.
UNFCCC, 2015. Workshop of the Technology Executive Committee: Strengthening national
systems of innovation in developing countries Covering the entire technology cycle for
climate technology. , (October 2014), p.2014.
Yehia, E., 2007. De-colonizing Knowledge and Practice: A Dialogic Encounter between the
Latin American Modernity/Coloniality/Decoloniality Research Program and Actor.
Tabula Rasa, pp.91108. Available at: http://ramwan.net/documents/05_e_Journal/journal-2/10.Yehia.pdf.

11