Votre recherche

Recent years have seen a surge of interest in prefigurative politics, which refers to the political strategies that model a future society on a micro level and aim to instantiate radical social change in and through practice. While most previous studies have focused on defining the concept and categorizing various types of prefiguration, this paper contributes by investigating under what circumstances prefiguration leads to revolutionary social change. The paper takes an original approach to these issues by turning to transition studies and the socio-technical change literature. This field focuses on the technical equivalence of prefiguration: namely, the relationship between small-scale niche innovations and large-scale technological transitions. Through theoretical discussions and empirical illustrations, this paper presents a typology of five transition pathways through which prefigurative strategies may result in a range of social change outcomes from reformative to revolutionary transformation.

Innovation in the forest sector is a growing research interest and within this field, there is a growing attention for institutional, policy and societal dimensions and particular when it comes to the question of how to support innovativeness in the sector. This Special Issue therefore focuses on governance aspects, relating to and bridging business and political-institutional-societal levels. This includes social/societal factors, goals and implications that have recently been studied under the label of social innovation. Furthermore, the emergence of bioeconomy as a paradigm and policy goal has become a driver for a variety of innovation processes on company and institutional levels. Our article provides a tentative definition of "innovation governance" and attempts a state-of-art review of innovation governance research in the forest sector. For structuring the research field, we propose to distinguish between organizational/managerial, policy or innovation studies. For the forestry sector, specifically, we suggest to distinguish between studies focusing on (i) innovative governance of forest management and forest goods and services; on (ii) the governance of innovation processes as such, or (iii) on specific (transformational) approaches that may be derived from combined goals such as innovation governance for sustainability, regional development, or a bioeconomy. Studies in the forest sector are picking up new trends from innovation research that increasingly include the role of societal changes and various stakeholders such as civil society organizations and users. They also include public-private partnership models or participatory governance. We finally should not only look in how far research approaches from outside are applied in the sector but we believe that the sector could contribute much more to our general scientific knowledge on ways for a societal transformation to sustainability. • We sketch the state-of-knowledge in innovation governance in the forest sector. • We provide a definition and possible categorizations of innovation governance. • We discuss recent research avenues, including social innovation and bioeconomy. • We assess how this Special Issue contributes to our scientific knowledge. • We discuss state of art, research gaps and possible future research directions.

L’innovation sociale est largement considérée comme vertueuse. Cependant, le consensus qui semble régner en la matière vient de ce que les représentations et les pratiques englobées sous ce terme recouvrent un faisceau très diversifié d’approches et de réalités. Cette polysémie permet à de nombreux auteurs de se ranger sous une même bannière alors qu’ils ont des références et des orientations distinctes, voire divergentes. L’éloge unanime de l’innovation sociale ne saurait donc faire illusion. À cet égard, un travail introductif autour de l’innovation sociale a mis en évidence deux acceptions contrastées. La première version, qui peut être qualifiée de faible, aménage le système existant, insiste sur l’importance de l’épreuve marchande et valorise l’entreprise privée dans sa capacité à trouver de nouvelles solutions aux problèmes de société. La seconde version, qui peut être désignée comme forte, affiche une visée transformatrice ; elle prône, en réaction à la démesure du capitalisme marchand, une articulation inédite entre pouvoirs publics et société civile pour répondre aux défis écologiques et sociaux. La première se contente d’une amélioration du modèle économique dominant, l’innovation s’inscrivant dans une perspective réparatrice et fonctionnelle, tandis que la seconde a pour caractéristique un questionnement critique de ce modèle, et a pour horizon une démocratisation de la société.

This chapter shows that there is a possibility of fostering an enabling and innovative multistakeholder partnership for creating sustainable impact and transformative change with local communities. It argues that the collaborative efforts among district administration, educational institutions and civil society groups in supporting innovation and entrepreneurship can play an extremely important role in livelihood security and empowerment of marginalized sections. The chapter outlines the transformation of a marginalized and underdeveloped district of India. It presents a background of the district with a focus on farmers’ distress and discusses the mode of organization of elites and marginalized peoples under welfare and neoliberal regimes. The chapter also outlines the impact that state–university engagement on the communities. The neoliberal regime made the elite-based cooperatives ineffective, as they came under mismanagement and overexploitation by those in power. Neoliberal reform introduced a new vulnerability among Indian farmers, especially in certain states, such as Maharashtra.

Offender mental health is a major societal challenge. Improved collaboration between mental health and criminal justice services is required to address this challenge. This article explores social innovation as a conceptual framework with which to view these collaborations and develop theoretically informed strategies to optimize interorganizational working. Two key innovation frameworks are applied to the offender mental health field and practice illustrations provided of where new innovations in collaboration, and specifically co-creation between the mental health system and criminal justice system, take place. The article recommends the development of a competency framework for leaders and front line staff in the mental health system and criminal justice systems to raise awareness and skills in the innovation process, especially through co-creation across organizational boundaries.

Avec le pr é sent avis, le Conseil conclut – au moins provisoirement – le cycle des travaux introduits en d é cembre 1997 avec la parution du Rapport de conjoncture 1998 : Pour une politique qu é b é coise de l ’ innovation . Cet avis, Innovation sociale et innovation technologique : l ’ apport de la recherche en sciences sociales et humaines traite de deux th è mes certes fort distincts, mais tout de m ê me apparen- t é s. D ’ une part, il attire l ’ attention sur le caract è re essentiel de la contribution des sciences sociales et humaines à la compr é hension des faits et des probl è mes de culture, d ’ organisa- tion et de soci é t é , de m ê me que sur leur r ô le dans la conception et la mise en œ uvre de pratiques sociales novatrices, c ’ est- à -dire d ’ innovations sociales . D ’ autre part, il rappelle que les sciences sociales et humaines ont aussi une contribution non moins essentielle à apporter à la compr é hension et à la gestion de l ’ innovation technologi- que , qui est un processus organisationnel et social, et non seulement technoscientifique. Plusieurs des avis ant é rieurs du Conseil avaient d é j à soulign é que les questions de gestion et d ’ organisation du travail sont au c œ ur du processus d ’ innovation technologique et condition- nent largement son succ è s. Toutefois, le Conseil n ’ avait pas jusqu ’ ici au m ê me degr é insist é sur le r ô le capital de l ’ innovation sociale. Les politiques publiques, l ’ organisation des services sociaux ou l ’ organisation scolaire et la vie p é dagogique sont, parmi beaucoup d ’ autres, sans cesse et à juste titre, des objets de pr é occupation dans la vie civique et les d é bats de soci é t é . Ce sont des domaines en demande d ’ innovations sociales. La pertinence et l ’ efficacit é de ces innovations dans les organisations et les pratiques seront largement fonction de la qualit é de notre compr é hension des ph é no- m è nes de soci é t é et des comportements, c ’ est- à -dire de la vigueur et de la qualit é de notre recours à la recherche en sciences sociales et humaines et de notre succ è s à en valoriser les r é sultats. Dans cet avis, le Conseil est tout à fait conscient de ne pas avoir trait é dans toute son ampleur la question du r ô le de la recherche en sciences sociales et humaines. Son objet est circonscrit (ainsi il ne traite pas des probl è mes de la formation, non plus que du r ô le proprement culturel de ces sciences). Il s ’ attache à fournir un é clairage sur leur contribution à l ’ innovation technologique et à l ’ innovation sociale. C ’ est notre conviction que cette contribution est tout à fait essentielle.