Читать книгу Innovation in Sport. Innovation Trajectories and Process Optimization онлайн

49 страница из 54

Often described as irrational, transient and related to the lack of knowledge of positive effects or anxiety about new things (“neophobia”) (Bauer 2017), resistance to innovation can take on many other meanings. There is indeed rationality in the arguments of actors who do not adhere to innovation (Godin and Vinck 2017), which Cañibano et al. (2017) state very simply through the concept of “novation”: some actors formulate non-innovative strategies and succeed in implementing them. They therefore have “good reasons”, entirely rational, for not adhering to, not using, and ultimately not appropriating an innovation. The conception of rationality is here open to the pursuit of goals and to the engagement of plural actions, including those that push to innovate, and those that lead to the absence of innovation, even if this clashes with the contemporary call to innovate permanently and in every respect.

Provided that the choices that led to non-adoption are considered to be sensible and well-founded, resistance can be considered an asset that can contribute to the innovation process (Bauer 2017). Not adopting an innovation is indeed an adaptive strategy that it is important to understand as such (Kimberly 1981) in order to be able to alter the trajectory in question, or to energize other projects. Studies on this subject are few and far between (Thomas et al. 2017) and do not sufficiently reveal the actions of resistance. However, an in-depth analysis of resistance to innovation, also known as “re-innovation”, allows us to make sense of it (ibid.). The rejection of certain technologies, for example, carries messages, identifications and meanings in relation to hegemony or domination-based rationale. It is not only an act of non-consumption, to be approached from a strictly economic angle, but also a question of alignment and coherence compared to a vision of the world and a set of values.