We invite theoretical, empirical and methodological contributions that address the following aspects, although papers related to but not directly connected to them will be also considered:

The contribution of artefacts in inverse question-driven innovation

In inverse question-driven innovation discovery is often mediated by the presence of artefacts. For instance, Roentgen discovered x-rays by tinkering with Crookes-tubes and photographic plates (Kevles, 1998); pharmacological psychiatry started with the observation of the unusual reactions of tuberculotic patients when administered the latest antituberculotic drug (Kline, 1970), and the modern industry of organic chemistry originated with the discovery of purple aniline by Thomas Perkins (Garfield, 2002). In all these cases, the discoverers were on the quest of other things but paid attention to the unusual affordances of the artefacts they were tinkering with. The Pasteurian dictum that “chance favors the prepared mind” seems to be mediated by artefacts.

What is the role of artefact-mediated discovery in inverse question-driven innovation? How and to what extent does it contribute to radical innovation, scientific breakthroughs, and technological development?

Institutional processes for inverse question-driven innovation

Most of the institutions that regulate science and technological development are structured to answer direct rather than inverse questions. Moreover, evidence in the pharmaceutical and medical research seem to point out that in the past decades the importance of direct question-driven science and innovation has increased (Leaf, 2013; Scannell, Blanckley, Boldon, & Warrington, 2012), squeezing out unexpected, serendipitous discoveries and causing a decline in pharmaceutical research productivity.

Would a better balance between direct and inverse question-driven research promote a more effective R&D system, so avoiding the conformity that seems to characterize much of existing research (Nicholson and Ioannidis 2012) and at the same time improving creativity and the balance between radical and incremental innovation? And, what are the changes in the nature of institutional procedures and incentive system that are needed to achieve such balance?

The context of inverse question-driven innovation

The increase of complexity, variety and connectivity of modern societies and economic systems generates new opportunities for inverse question-driven innovation. The modern context of innovation in highly diverse and inter-connected systems such as smart cities (and regions) and laboratories is dominated by an increasing tendency toward hybridization of technical and scientific knowledge driven by public and private (including crowd-based) investments. This dynamic generates externalities of all types and ecologies of value, among which we focus on the possibility that increasing interconnected and diverse systems facilitates the discovery of new-to-the-world functions leading to radical innovation.

What type of governance, incentive system and institutional support do we need in such systems in order to facilitate inverse question-driven innovation in such environments?