"What makes your case different with other countries? The case sound similar with any other innovation stories."
It was the second time I got the same question and I could response by saying that the formal and informal institutions were different and also the values were different, but then I chose to save the answer for later. I am not sure that I can answer the question without going to a debate between actor-network theory and construction of technology. Scholars from the latter tend to accuse the former as only being interested for innovation in the making and not after a closure or stabilization. Scholars from the former, on the other hand, tend to accuse the latter as doing black-boxing since there is nothing stable; things are always in a constant negotiation. As an actor-network theorist, my response for that question will be, "What do you mean by being similar? Define similarity."
I had a long conversation with one of the audiences after I finished my presentation. We discussed about methodology and framing. It was quite a refreshing conversation since we tried to opening the black-box behind different comments/questions that I got in the seminar. He described my approach as using bottom-up approach where lacuna is created through showing similarity, while the person who asked my the question was using a top-down approach where lacuna is created through showing difference. The key is to find a balance between these similarity and difference.
I guess in front of scholars with different ontology/epistemology background, it is better to have a seminar on what is research.
Self-critique: my presentation is way too ambitious. First, it offers innovation as practice (trying to combine practice theory and process approach); second, it tries to contribute to STS by offering valuation and thirdly, it tries to contribute to valuation studies by offering a conceptualization of crossing. I can make four papers out of this single presentation, each of which has its own literature.
What I like about my presentation: I understand what I am presenting, which usually is not the case :D