Votre recherche

L’innovation sociale connaît un regain d’attention tant du côté des acteurs socio-économiques et des responsables publics que des chercheurs. Nouvelle réponse à des besoins non ou mal satisfaits ou expérience alternative visant à des changements sociaux, ce concept polysémique donne lieu à de multiples interprétations. Ce numéro ambitionne d’analyser les conditions d’émergence, les modalités et les obstacles à la généralisation de l’innovation sociale et au changement d’échelle de pratiques innovantes et de mieux comprendre leur portée plus ou moins transformatrice de la société ainsi que leurs formes de banalisation et de récupération par les entreprises et les pouvoirs publics.

Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology

The aim of this research is to explore the dynamics and impact of open social innovation, within the context of fab labs and makerspaces. Using an exploratory methodology based on 12 semi-structured interviews of fab lab founders belonging to The Centres for Maker Innovation and Technology (CMIT) programme – a network of 170 fab labs located in Eastern Europe – this research explores the impact of an adopting an open approach in relation to the different stages of social innovation (prompts, proposals, prototypes, sustaining, scaling and diffusion, systemic change) as well as social impact. The main results of this study are that while the CMIT programme provided each fab lab with similar initial conditions (identical funding, objectives and rules), the open social innovation approached adopted enabled to give birth to a wide diversity of fab labs, each being very well adapted to the local environment, social needs and constraints and able to deliver social impact in just a matter of years; a result that would be hard to achieve with a centralised top-down approach. The study identified three types of CMITs – Education, Industry and Residential – which could be similar or different depending on the stage of social open innovation. Furthermore, this paper discusses the main difficulties social entrepreneurs encounter as a part of the open social innovation process, as well as means to overcome them. In this respect, this study adds to the literature on fab labs by providing more comprehensive view of the challenges faced by fab labs (and makerspaces) founders, as well as suggestions of strategies enabling to ensure their long-term sustainability.

L’article tente dans une première partie de produire un classement des pratiques de recherche partenariale ayant cours dans les universités au Québec. Sans être une investigation systématique, elle puise dans diverses disciplines des sciences sociales et dans divers domaines de recherche. Deux tendances semblent se dessiner, l’une plus proche de la vision émancipatrice et l’autre plus axée sur les stratégies d’innovation sociale. La réflexion se poursuit par l’exposition, en seconde partie d’article, de trois nouveaux enjeux engendrés par l’essor de la recherche partenariale au sein de l’institution universitaire : la tension avec la recherche traditionnelle, la démarcation du savoir universitaire des autres types de savoirs et, enfin, l’éthique de la recherche.

Social innovations (SIs) frequently bring previously unrelated actors, ideas, and practices together in new configurations with the goal of addressing social needs. However, the dizzying variety of definitions of SI and their dynamic, exploratory character raise dilemmas for evaluators tasked with their evaluations. This article is based on a systematic review of research on evaluation, specifically an analysis of 28 published peer-reviewed empirical studies, within SI contexts. Given that design considerations are becoming increasingly important to evaluators as the complexity of social interventions grows, our objectives were to identify influences on design of evaluations of SI and clarify, which SI features should be taken into account when designing evaluations. We ultimately developed a conceptual framework to aid evaluators in recognizing some differences between SI and conventional social interventions, and correspondingly, implications for evaluation design. This framework is discussed in terms of its implications for ongoing research and practice.

The innovation journey is a process model distinguishing between the initiation, developmental and implementation/termination period of innovations; it looks at drivers and barriers, like innovation managers, investors, setbacks, adaptation, infrastructure. We operationalize this model to apply it to the process of social innovation. Eighty-two cases are re-analysed in a secondary analysis using qualitative comparative analysis to assess how social innovations develop and to investigate if they resemble the ‘innovation journey’ of innovations in technology/business.

<p>Social innovations bring about novel ways to address societal challenges and ultimately aim at creating social impact by improving the condition of individuals, communities, and the planet. We define “social impact” as improvements in wellbeing, quality of life, life satisfaction, or living standards or, in an inverse view, reductions in social needs or hindrances that deprive one of the capability to live a good life. Assessing the extent of the social impact created by a given social innovation is essential to assess the relevance and the efficiency of the social innovation, to monitor it, and, ultimately, replicate and diffuse it. Yet assessing social impact is a complex process. This chapter maps the current knowledge on social impact assessment to allow researchers and innovators alike to make sense of the multiplicity of approaches currently available and to overcome the challenges associated with their implementations, particularly when it comes to promote inclusion of the most disenfranchised. The authors review the main approaches to assessing social impact and discuss the challenges associated with social impact assessment. Building upon this analysis, they propose a model that relates stages and needs in the innovation cycle with relevant social impact assessment approaches. They finally discuss future research directions that could help social impact assessment better drive social innovation and impact. </p>

La mesure de l’impact social est devenue un sujet majeur dans le débat relatif au financement de l’innovation sociale. Plusieurs rapports de référence ont été publiés dans ce sens. Ces travaux récents, en s’inscrivant tous dans le cadre logique de la gestion axée sur les résultats (GAR), également appelée « théorie du changement », renouvellent la construction d’une relation problématique : le lien causal et la mesure de sa preuve. À partir d’une approche institutionnaliste de l’innovation sociale, cet article expose les impasses de la GAR dans l’évaluation des innovations sociales et souligne que d’autres voies sont possibles. Les auteurs proposent ainsi de placer l’aspiration sociale au cœur du processus d’évaluation.

Upon election in 2015, the Justin Trudeau Liberal government announced its intention to transform government operations by bringing nonprofit and private sector partners into the center of public sector decision making through new structures such as Policy Hubs and Innovation labs. These collaborative arrangements were intended to yield the benefits of Michael Barber’s theory of deliverology by breaking through the public sector aversion to risk and change and by creating new spaces for devising effective solutions to the increasingly complex social and economic challenges facing government. A preliminary examination of the use of policy hubs and innovation labs in Canada between 2015 and 2020 indicates that the results have been mixed for the nonprofit sector partners. Collaborative relations have offered nonprofit sector partners new opportunities and access to influence policy decisions. However, this influence also poses risks to their independence, legitimacy and effectiveness as policy advocates. Both public and nonprofit sector partners in PILs should heed certain cautions in choosing future partnerships or they may find their ability to achieve meaningful policy change is limited.

The Public Health Agency of Canada’s Innovation Strategy (PHAC-IS) was established amid calls for diverse structural funding mechanisms that could support research agendas to inform policy making across multiple levels and jurisdictions. Influenced by a shifting emphasis towards a population health approach and growing interest in social innovation and systems change, the PHAC-IS was created as a national grantmaking program that funded the testing and delivery of promising population health interventions between 2009 and 2020.

There has been global growth in the number of social innovation initiatives launched in the university sector over the last decade. These initiatives aim to address complex social problems and to promote institutional change. This surge is occurring without a well-developed empirical knowledge base. This article provides a comprehensive description and analysis of the landscape of social innovation initiatives in the Canadian university sector. Findings show that nearly half of Canada’s 96 universities are associated with at least one initiative; many are interdisciplinary and emphasize collaborative problem-solving with sectors outside the university; and government agencies and charitable foundations are the most common funding sources. Findings suggest there is room for growth and for linking and clustering initiatives. The article concludes with directions for future research. RÉSUMÉLa dernière décennie a été marquée par une croissance mondiale du nombre d’initiatives d’innovation sociale lancées dans le secteur universitaire. Ces initiatives visent à résoudre des problèmes sociaux complexes et à induire des changements institutionnels et systémiques. Cette poussée de l’activité d’innovation sociale se produit sans une base de connaissances empiriques bien développée. Nous y contribuons en fournissant une description et une analyse complètes de toutes les initiatives d’innovation sociale auxquelles participe le secteur universitaire canadien, de leurs caractéristiques et du paysage qu’elles constituent. Résultats notables: près de la moitié des 96 universités canadiennes sont associées à au moins une initiative; de nombreuses initiatives sont interdisciplinaires et mettent l’accent sur la résolution de problèmes en collaboration avec des secteurs extérieurs à l’université; Les agences gouvernementales et les fondations caritatives sont les sources de financement les plus courantes. Les résultats suggèrent: il existe un potentiel de croissance de l’innovation sociale dans le secteur; il y a moins de liens internes et de regroupement d’initiatives que ne le recommande la théorie de l’innovation; l’accent mis sur la collaboration extérieure rejoint la «troisième mission» des universités, qui existe depuis longtemps, mais les innovateurs sociaux ont des objectifs, des méthodes et des processus distincts pour mener à bien cette mission. Nous concluons avec les orientations pour les recherches futures. Keywords / Mots clés: Universities; Higher education; Social innovation; Community engagement; Service mission; Social change; Canada / Universités; Établissements d’enseignement supérieur; Innovation sociale; Engagement communautaire; Mission de service; Changement social; Canada

This paper performs a critical analysis of the financial instruments that can be employed to fund social innovation, with a specific focus on social tech start-ups that develop and deploy technology-driven solutions to address social needs in a financially sustainable manner. The paper analyses how these start-ups can access financing, the barriers to financing that these organisations experience and the financial instruments that are most suitable to address their financial needs. Social tech start-ups have many points of overlap with high-tech start-ups in terms of the barriers they encounter to financing in different lifecycle stages. Still, the institutional solutions that are commonly exploited by high-tech start-ups for growth are not enough to support social tech start-ups to scale. Therefore, we introduce the concept of SII and discuss its potential contribution to the social tech finance landscape. Then, using the case of social tech start-ups as paradigmatic of the broader problem of financing mechanisms for social innovation, we formulate a research agenda, including directions for research and theoretical development in the field of SII.

Co-editor of this issue David Peacock interviews Stephen Huddart (President and CEO) and Chad Lubelsky (Program Director) of the McConnell Foundation, a historic supporter of postsecondary education across Canada. McConnell’s investments in community service-learning, social entrepreneurial and innovation activities and social infrastructure programs and dialogues have made them a significant partner for many Canadian higher education institutions. Yet not all community-campus engagement scholars and practitioners, and Engaged Scholar readers, may have heard McConnell articulate for itself its aims and goals for Canadian higher education and society. This interview canvasses the scope of McConnell’s work and interests in community-campus engagement, and sheds light on the actions of an influential private actor in the postsecondary sector.

The Social Innovation Fund (SIF) - funded by Scottish Government and the European Social Fund - adopts a ‘public venture capital’ model to support socially innovative organisations. This article critically explores the use of public venture capital programmes to fund and grow the social economy through the case study of Heavy Sound Community Interest Company. We conclude that, while SIF funding helped Heavy Sound to scale-up an effective intervention in the short term, further significant scaling might undermine the project’s success and long-term sustainability was not assured. We call for further research into the long-term consequences of public venture capital programmes coming to an end, including coordinated evaluation of the SIF.

Inspired by recent calls for a transformation of management scholarship, we conduct a scoping review of empirical studies during 1998–2015 on the phenomenon of social innovation within organizations. Social innovations are novel solutions that address social problems and create value for society as a whole. We make several problem-based observations and suggest how the social innovation phenomenon can be empirically grounded and contextualized to make future research intellectually relevant and meaningful for practice. We propose that the way forward lies in using abduction as a logic of discovery, adopting complexity theorizing, and using set-theoretic analytical methods to reflect multiple realities. The application of these three methods will help link theory and research methods with practice, thereby improving the ability of research to tackle managerial and societal issues and hence strengthening management scholarship.

Although healthcare managers make increasingly difficult decisions about health innovations, the way they may interact with innovators to foster health system sustainability remains underexplored. Drawing on the Responsible Innovation in Health (RIH) framework, this paper analyses interviews ( n=37) with Canadian and Brazilian innovators to identify: how they operationalize inclusive design processes; what influences the responsiveness of their innovation to system-level challenges; and how they consider the level and intensity of care required by their innovation. Our qualitative findings indicate that innovators seek to: 1) engage stakeholders at an early ideation stage through context-specific methods combining both formal and informal strategies; 2) address specific system-level benefits but often struggle with the positioning of their solution within the health system; and 3) mitigate staff shortages in specialized care, increase general practitioners’ capacity or patients and informal caregivers’ autonomy. These findings provide empirical insights on how healthcare managers can promote and organize collaborative processes that harness innovation towards more sustainable health systems. By adopting a RIH-oriented managerial role, they can set in place more inclusive design processes, articulate key system-level challenges, and help innovators adjust the level and intensity of care required by their innovation.

Les recherches en éducation s’enracinent profondément dans la réalité complexe des phénomènes d’enseignement et d’apprentissage, convoquant les acteurs de la recherche et de l’éducation à appréhender cette complexité dans un travail commun. L’inscription de ce travail dans une perspective participative ou collaborative nécessite une intelligibilité accrue des processus collaboratifs à l’oeuvre et des défis qu’ils posent aux différents acteurs. Nous proposons dans cet article un modèle théorique des processus de collaboration fondé sur une construction épistémologique et méthodologique croisant des cadres théoriques issus de l’anthropologie, de la psychologie, de la philosophie, de la didactique et des sciences du langage, avec pour ambition de créer une meilleure intelligibilité des processus à l’oeuvre dans les recherches participatives en éducation.

This essay revisits the historical development of a concept – tecnologia social – as one avenue for discussing alternatives to post-development, arguing that the Western-based historical path of technology development is one of the main sources of growing human impoverishment, social inequalities and economic dependency. The concept of tecnologia social points towards political processes that create opportunities to redefine the arrangements among social groups, artefacts and methods used in everyday life, particularly for production and consumption. Because the post-development debate has been criticised for formulating a sound and strong critique to mainstream development but failing to propose concrete empirical alternatives, we seek to foster the debate through the Latin American concept of tecnologia social.

This article explores how health innovation designers articulate are and responsibility when designing new health technologies. Towards this end, we draw on Tronto’s ethic of care framework and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) scholarship to analyse interviews with Canadian health innovators (n ¼ 31). Our findings clarify how respondents: 1) direct their attention to needs and ways to improve care; 2) mobilise their skill set to take care of problems; 3) engage in what we call ‘care-making’ practices by prioritising key material qualities; and 4) operationalise responsiveness to caregivers and care-receivers through user-centred design. We discuss the inclusion of health innovation designers within the care relationship as ‘caremakers’ as well as the tensions underlying their ways of caring and their conflicting responsibilities.