Votre recherche

notes bibliographiques L'auteur souligne l'importance de l'innovation sociale pour, s'il est possible, échapper à ce qu'il appelle le Niagara historique, à savoir la mondialisation d el'économie et l'emprise de la technoscience.

Tant que l'on ne considère pas dès l'abord, la durée comme constitutant interne de "l'objet sociologique", toute réflexion sur cet objet-phénomène est impossible. La temporalité incluse dans notre perception est une "réalité" de sens commun qui permet à l'imaginaire social de fonctionner comme générateur d'images". Le progrès technique est considéré comme une suite de possibles, de hasards associés qui créent la condition de l'existence d'un objet technique. L'innovation technologique n'est cependant facteur de changement que si une création socio-culturelle se produit autour d'elle.

La multiplication des innovations techno-scientifiques marque de façon toute particulière le monde contemporain. Quel statut doit-on leur accorder? L’espace actuel de la réflexion critique ne les rend-il pas d’emblée suspectes, sujettes à condamnation, coupables d’une perte de lien social et d’humanité? Axées sur l’efficacité, porteuses d’uniformisation et de contraintes à l’expression du subjectif, ces innovations ne sont-elles pas, par nature, déshumanisantes? Dans cet article, l’auteure tente d’ouvrir d’autres espaces de réflexion pour penser les techno-sciences et la façon dont elles interviennent dans le débat sur la déshumanisation et la réhumanisation. Tirant profit d’une recherche à travers laquelle elle a suivi le travail d’invention d’une nouvelle méthode contraceptive, l’auteure fait valoir la portée, mais aussi les difficultés, d’une démarche qui met en doute les frontières apparemment hermétiques et infranchissables entre ce qui relève du monde des choses et ce qui relève de l’humain.

L'inventeur isolé n'existe pas vraiment. Les inventions sont souvent simultanées et collectives. Mieux, avancent les plus récents travaux d'Eric von Hippel, les utilisateurs sont les premiers innovateurs. Certes, leurs conceptions ne forment pas nécessairement des produits : il faut pour cela que l'industrie s'y intéresse. Mais avec les nouvelles formes de contributions permises par l'internet, c'est la forme même de l'innovation qui est transformée. Désormais son paradigme repose sur l'ouverture et la participation. Des formes proches de l'auto-organisation, qui nécessitent une forte adaptation des entreprises pour apprendre à "perdre le contrôle". L'innovation via l'internet montre qu'il n'y a pas d'innovation sans lien social et que l'accélération de l'innovation actuelle est certainement plus à mettre au bénéfice des nouvelles sociabilités que des nouvelles technologies.

Un article de la revue Management international / International Management / Gestiòn Internacional, diffusée par la plateforme Érudit.

Cet article rend compte de la manière dont les organisations internationales pourraient s’approprier la démarche délibérative à l’occasion de leurs efforts de régulation éthique de l’IA en présentant le projet de la délibération internationale intitulée « Dialogue inclusif sur l’éthique de l’intelligence artificielle (IA) » (ODAI) menée par Algora Lab - Université de Montréal et Mila - Institut québécois d’intelligence artificielle. Ce projet délibératif portait sur le premier instrument normatif mondial en éthique de l’IA rédigé par l’UNESCO. L’ODAI se démarque par sa portée internationale, le nombre de personnes consultées et sa réalisation en ligne. Après une présentation du cadre méthodologique et théorique de la délibération sur l’éthique de l’IA, nous opérons une analyse critique du processus et nous proposerons finalement des recommandations pratiques pour de futures délibérations en éthique de l’IA.

Local energy policy agendas require commonly defined desirable future visions and collective agenda-setting to spur collaborative action. However, methods designed for multi-stakeholder engagement often do not sufficiently open up deliberative processes to all voices, and efforts to envision desired futures built from current local energy challenges are usually designed by and oriented towards specialists. With this paper, we aimed to explore how the theoretical strengths of storytelling for supporting local policy processes play out in practice. We contrast what the literature states about the potential of storytelling for solving complex challenges and facilitating collaborative processes to the lessons learnt from actually using storytelling in a set of 17 multi-stakeholder workshops across 17 European countries run as part of the H2020 SHAPE ENERGY project. The workshops were each designed around a tangible local energy policy challenge. We found storytelling has unique strengths in terms of enabling significant (un)learning regarding stakeholder relationships, allowing participants to step into others’ perspectives, keeping hold of diversity, and the use of ‘we’ in stories leading to concrete future initiatives. We also note specific learnings about when these outcomes may not be achieved, for example due to fears, traditions, hierarchical structures, as well as the need for sufficient time for planning, facilitator training and stakeholder invitations. We conclude that as an innovative, playful and flexible methodology, storytelling can undoubtedly be a valuable additional tool for policymakers where there is a desire for deliberative stakeholder involvement, and appetite to tailor approaches to local contexts.

Dans le document de réflexion et de consultation L’université québécoise du futur, Rémi Quirion, le scientifique en chef du Québec, expose les assises nécessaires à une réflexion de plus grande ampleur sur l’avenir des universités au Québec. Ces assises se déclinent en six points : les tendances susceptibles d’influencer les universités du futur; les éléments importants de l’évolution du système universitaire québécois depuis la fin du XXe siècle; une réflexion concernant plusieurs aspects de la mission universitaire, dont les conditions nécessaires à son accomplissement; les préoccupations fondamentales devant l’inspirer (dont trois nouveaux enjeux pour les universités); une synthèse des différents constats sur lesquels fonder les principales pistes d’action susceptibles de concourir à la pertinence continue de l’institution universitaire. Ces pistes sont celles sur lesquelles le gouvernement propose aux Québécois de se prononcer dans le cadre de consultations en cours et ultérieures. Après avoir présenté le contexte de préparation et le contenu du rapport L’université québécoise du futur, nous exposerons les constats et les recommandations qui en sont issues de la part du scientifique en chef.

Context Partnership between patients and health-care professionals (HCPs) is a concept that needs a valid, practical measure to facilitate its use by patients and HCPs. Objective To co-construct a tool for measuring the degree of partnership between patients and HCPs. Design The CADICEE tool was developed in four steps: (1) generate key dimensions of patient partnership in clinical care; (2) co-construct the tool; (3) assess face and content validity from patients’ and HCPs’ viewpoints; and (4) assess the usability of the tool and explore its measurement performance. Results The CADICEE tool comprises 24 items under 7 dimensions: 1) relationship of Confidence or trust between the patient and the HCPs; 2) patient Autonomy; 3) patient participation in Decisions related to care; 4) shared Information on patient health status or care; 5) patient personal Context; 6) Empathy; and 7) recognition of Expertise. Assessment of the tool's usability and measurement performance showed, in a convenience sample of 246 patients and relatives, high face validity, acceptability and relevance for both patients and HCPs, as well as good construct validity. Conclusions The CADICEE tool is developed in co-construction with patients to evaluate the degree of partnership in care desired by patients in their relationship with HCPs. The tool can be used in various clinical contexts and in different health-care settings. Patient or Public Contribution Patients were involved in determining the importance of constructing this questionnaire. They co-constructed it, pre-tested it and were part of the entire questionnaire development process. Three patients participated in the writing of the article.

Social innovation and high-quality agricultural systems are important for rural development. However, there is little information on methods for measuring the process and outcome of social innovation, particularly at the regional level. This study aimed to answer the research question: Which social innovation metrics can be applied to analyze rural development at the regional level? We carried out a systematic review of the literature on factors and indicators of social innovation, assessed the characteristics of social innovation in value-added agricultural production systems in developed countries, and proposed social innovation indicators for evaluating value-added agricultural systems in developing countries. Key elements of the process and outcome dimensions of social innovation were identified and used to generate factors, subfactors, indicators, and subindicators. The literature review showed that more research is needed on the outcomes of social innovation. Future studies should investigate the social transformations promoted by rural tourism and biodiversity valorization.

Background: Identifying social innovation in health initiatives, promoting quality of life through them, and transforming current health conditions demand the knowledge, comprehension and appropriation of the theoretical and methodological developments of this concept. Academic developments in social innovation have mainly occurred in and been documented for English-speaking countries, although...

This paper provides an overview of the state of art of research on social entrepreneurship and the establishment of this topic in the academic world. It uses scientometric methods in measuring the maturity of social entrepreneurship research. The empirical part reveals the exponentially growing number of papers, the institutionalization of social entrepreneurship in seven dimensions, the emergence of thematic clusters, and methodological issues. The paper makes concrete suggestions on how to overcome methodological challenges. Furthermore, we provide a ranking of the 22 most cited academic contributions in social entrepreneurship. Surprisingly, almost half of the most cited papers have not been published in journals but in books, raising doubts about the current (over-)rating of journal publications.

Social innovation is related to new products, services, and models aiming to improve human well-being and create social relationships and collaborations. The business model innovation (BMI) context can foster social innovation and can be applied in social innovation projects and initiatives. What is important for social BMI is the social mission, which needs to be defined in order to be able to move forward with the strategy, the value proposition, and the best practices of the business. Based on the existing social innovation literature and case studies, this paper proposes an “ecosystem” approach that can provide an integrated framework for social business models. This approach adopts the quadruple/quintuple helix innovation models which are able to promote social innovation, enabling a locus-centric and triple-bottom-line-centric entrepreneurial process of knowledge discovery and exploitation. Such a framework may help to study the role, nature, and dynamics of social co-opetitive fractal ecosystems, given emphasis on civil society, political structures, environment, and sustainability. In addition, the social innovation case studies presented in this paper highlight that targeted open innovation is a key element for social BMI.

Purpose: By taking a micro-level perspective, this paper aims to examine the influence of the ongoing paradigm shift from technological to social innovation on principal investigators (PIs) and thereby links the two emerging research fields of entrepreneurial ecosystems and social innovation. The purpose of this paper is to build the basis for future empirical analyses. Design/methodology/approach: The paper is a conceptual paper and therefore focuses on theoretical considerations. Taking a quadruple helix approach, PIs are outlined as central actors of entrepreneurial ecosystems and transformative agents of the innovation process. Findings: PIs can proactively shape the innovation process and thus the shift from technological to social innovation, through various channels. They can affect all other actors of the quadruple helix, e.g. by exerting influence on the process of scientific change, on the public opinion and/or on the industry partners. Further, the paradigm shift might change the universities' role in the quadruple helix, substantiating their importance in the process of social change. Practical implications: As PIs are influencing all other actors of the quadruple helix, they are central actors of entrepreneurial ecosystems and thus crucial players in the innovation process. Hence, they need to be supported in fulfilling their role of transformative agents, accelerating and shaping the paradigm shift from technological to social innovation. Universities should therefore reconsider their missions and vision as well as their role within the society. Originality/value: This paper considers the influence of an ongoing paradigm shift from technological to social innovation on entrepreneurial ecosystems. This work focuses especially on the PIs' role as transformative agents. Therefore, it builds a bridge from entrepreneurial ecosystems to social innovation and thus contributes to both research fields. Moreover, the paper shows the great potential of PIs to influence and shape social innovation.

The number of theories of innovation systems has grown considerably over the past two decades and several innovation system approaches have been developed. The focus of most has been on the development of technological innovations which create economic value. However, addressing macro-level societal problems – sociotechnical and environmental challengesin which the production, dissemination and use of social and technical knowledge and technology can potentially resolve the problem – has been overlooked. The present study argues that in order to resolve such problems, a combination of technical innovations (covering the technological aspects of the problem) and social innovations (covering the social aspects of the problem) are required.Instead of focusing on the development of a particular technology or industry, an innovation system must focus on solving problems; it must utilize technical innovations alongside economic and social innovations to do so. To this end, the present study highlights the need for a framework for the analysis of macro-level societal problems by reviewing innovation systems literature and proposes a new approach named "Problem-oriented innovation systems". We conceptualize this approach based on event history analysis and through case study of the US air pollution problem and the way it was successfully resolved by using technical and social innovations.The results show that a problem-oriented innovation system has eight functions: System monitoring and guidance, technical and social knowledge creation, technical and social entrepreneurship, knowledge dissemination, collaboration and synergy, public awareness, standardization and resource mobilization. Finally, a framework for analyzing the innovation process is proposed to solve the macro-level societal problem. This approach can be used to solve global problems such as global warming and climate change which ask for collaboration among different countries.

This article uses a conceptual approach to propose an innovation model for regional universities. It demonstrates that the traditional university encounters several obstacles that hinder its full integration into the development of its respective region and explains why currently known models cannot adapt to regions that have deficient relationships with the government and lack an entrepreneurial base. The new model is based on a structure composed of units called “innovation hubs” and incorporates social innovation, thus permitting the university to become integrated into the regional innovation ecosystems. The Magdalena University in Colombia was used as a reference in developing the model. Keywords: hub; social innovation; university innovation models; regional innovation ecosystems

L’entreprise ReSanté-Vous est positionnée sur le secteur de la santé, à destination des personnes âgées. Elle a élaboré une proposition de valeur fondée sur l’innovation sociale. L’étude du cas de ce business model permet de discuter des critères permettant de définir un tel métier, et dans quelle mesure les modèles existants sont bien adaptés à ses dimensions sociales et solidaires, ou de création de valeur sociétale. L’exposé du cas débouche sur l’identification d’une série de forces et faiblesses du modèle économique, et la nécessité de mieux appréhender le concept d’impact social.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) reshapes companies and how innovation management is organized. Consistent with rapid technological development and the replacement of human organization, AI may indeed compel management to rethink a company's entire innovation process. In response, we review and explore the implications for future innovation management. Using ideas from the Carnegie School and the behavioral theory of the firm, we review the implications for innovation management of AI technologies and machine learning-based AI systems. We outline a framework showing the extent to which AI can replace humans and explain what is important to consider in making the transformation to the digital organization of innovation. We conclude our study by exploring directions for future research.

Social innovation (SI) is a promising concept that has been developed and mobilized in academia, government policies, philanthropic programs, entrepreneurial projects. Scholars propose multiple conceptions and categorization of what is SI (trajectories, approaches, theoretical strands, paradigms, streams). Some recent work has also addressed the question of who is doing SI. In both cases, the what and the who remain the key characteristic of SI. Two approaches are confronted: one where SI is more presented as a concept that reproduces the neoliberal–capitalist societies; a second that conceives SI as a transformative and emancipatory pathway. With this article, I contribute to the possibilities to conceive SI as performative concept. My proposition is to analyze SI as a discourse with precise performative practices and apparatus. By doing so, it allows scholars and practitioners to better reflect and identify the effects, tensions and ambivalence and possibilities of SI. Moreover, it gives us few key aspects of what might constitute an emancipatory social innovation.