Votre recherche

Afin de réfléchir à la relation dans le soin et son apprentissage, dix-sept personnes sont sollicitées pour participer à une journée de codesign. Cette méthodologie consiste, par une succession d’exercices protocolisés, à favoriser la créativité du groupe via une démarche d’intelligence collective. L’article vise à réfléchir aux conditions par lesquelles une telle méthodologie peut devenir une ressource capacitante pour penser l’apprentissage de l’éthique. Le présent travail souligne notamment la place centrale de l’affectivité dans la construction du climat d’innovation et dans le mécanisme de la pensée divergente. L’article ouvre in fine de nouveaux questionnements sur l’articulation des exercices, l’affectivité, le rôle de l’animateur ou encore celui de l’usager. Les perspectives de recherches invitent à un décloisonnement disciplinaire.

Antecedents of innovation precede their implementation and probably influence which innovations and whether they are approved and implemented. Antecedents have been identified in a considerable number of types of innovation. Are they the same in these types? A systematic literature review (SLR) of antecedents of policy innovation found 594 antecedents, 508 of them unique, in 87 articles on trailblazing and adoption. So many antecedents suggest a lack of clarity about what the antecedents of policy innovation may be. They have been clarified for policy innovation. In this paper the antecedents of policy innovation are compared to antecedents of private, public sector and social innovation identified in literature reviews, SLRs and metaanalyses to see whether common or different antecedents are identified in these literatures. While the literature often implies antecedents of different types of innovation are the same by lumping them together, they were found to vary somewhat by type of innovation, especially trailblazing and higher-level factors and clusters. External antecedents were only found to be important for policy innovation and dissemination; political antecedents were particularly important for trailblazing; internal antecedents were important for all types of innovation. Literature on antecedents of private innovations did not consider external or political antecedents. Four research questions are addressed: Q. 1: At what level should antecedents of innovation be analyzed and compared? Q. 2: How do antecedents identified for different types of innovation compare—private, public and public-social sectors? Q. 3: How do clusters identified for different types of public sector innovation compare— processes; trailblazing and adoption of policy; dissemination; private, public, public-social sectors? Q. 4: Do a common set of unique and grouped antecedents, factors and clusters influence all types of innovation equally or are their antecedents discernably different? Key words: antecedents of innovation, comparison of antecedents, types of innovation, systematic literature review.

The paper organizes and summarizes the conditions (antecedents) researchers and practitioners identified as occurring prior to trailblazing and adoption of public policy (including program) innovation, as identified in a systematic literature review. The review identified 87 relevant documents and 594 antecedents. Trailblazing of innovation is Rogers’ (1995) first two stages of adoption—innovation (invention) and early adoption (identified here as second and third adoptions in a government’s community or population). The antecedents are analyzed into grouped antecedents, factors and clusters. The most-mentioned grouped antecedents were citizen pressure, process, structure and political culture. The most-mentioned factors were innovation drivers, people, policy/process, and context. The factors were organized into clusters—external, political and internal. Based on number of mentions the literature considered the internal cluster the most important. The most-mentioned factors in external cluster were context and people; in political cluster, drivers, political context and political actors; in internal cluster, innovation process, drivers, people and internal environment. Multiples more antecedents were identified for internal cluster than the others. Lack of consistent definitions and the mixing of stages and levels in the literature has hampered understanding of antecedents and placed limitations on this study. The literature sometimes distinguished external and internal cluster; the current analysis also considers a political cluster, which is especially important to trailblazing of public policy innovations.

Methodology for systematic literature reviews (SLRs) is not well developed in public policy compared to the health field. This paper explores use of the health PRISMA protocol for SLRs to guide an SLR of antecedents of trailblazing and adoption of public policy innovation and whether it is a suitable protocol for public policy. Trailblazing is the first two stages—invention and early adoption—of Rogers’ (1995) five stages of innovation adoption in a governmental or organizational population. Completing applicable items in the checklist, a SLR of 87 peerreviewed publications identified 594 antecedents; trailblazing/adoption and empirical/nonempirical studies are distinguished and the theories reflected are identified.

Are the antecedents identified in trailblazing/adoption and quantitative/qualitative public policy innovation studies similar or different? This quantitative study answers this question by identifying, categorizing and analyzing their antecedents, identified in a systematic literature review (SLR). Trailblazing is the first three adoptions of an innovation in its population/ community, adoption is all adoptions, in any organization. If their antecedents were different, this would lend credibility to the idea that they are different phenomena. The criteria for inclusion in the SLR were met by 87 publications; 594 antecedents were identified. Analysis identified 508 unique antecedents, 28 grouped antecedents, 5 factors and 3 clusters.

A systematic literature review (SLR) of antecedents of trailblazing and adoption of public policy innovation was conducted. Many antecedents were found—594. A terminology and classification system for them was therefore developed (unique antecedents-508, grouped antecedents-28, factors-15, clusters-3). Differences among trailblazing/adoption and quantitative/qualitative studies were explored six ways. Eleven grouped antecedents of trailblazing were importantly different from those of adoption, 17 were not. Grouped antecedents of quantitative and qualitative studies were not importantly different and so were used as the standard. Only trailblazing had different antecedents from the other three types of study (adoption, quantitative, qualitative). Eight grouped antecedents were the best indicators of policy innovation. Of the three clusters of antecedents, external and internal cluster grouped antecedents were equally important for all four kinds of study; political cluster antecedents were different for trailblazing. Although there was no one best political indicator (large difference from adoption) for trailblazing, political cluster was more important for trailblazing than adoption. Political cluster was higher (had a higher proportion of mentions) and internal cluster lower for trailblazing; political cluster was lower and internal cluster higher for adoption. The important antecedents for public policy innovation were compared to those for the private/public sector, public process/policy and public/social innovation: Differences were found. The best antecedent indicators of trailblazing of policy innovation identified in the literature were external environment, drivers, obstacles (external) and people (internal).

Despite recommendations for more quantitative analyses of public sector innovation factors (Glor, 2014a; de Vries, Bekker and Tummers, 2016), there has been limited examination of them. This paper identifies and explores six factors (ideology, politics, the economy, external support, resources, effects) that influenced the introduction and survival or termination of the first time these public sector innovations and their five organizations (I&O) were introduced in North America. It assesses their key antecedent factors before creation (Time 1) and the same factors again at the time of their fate 15 to 44 years later (Time 2). They were assessed with a new measurement instrument examining the six factors (Glor, 2017a). The tool has 1267 statements (items) and 555 pairs of data, with scoring distributed on a five-point Likert scale. Three expert raters completed the instrument (Glor, 2017b). Based on mean scores, the most important factors in Time 1 (creation of I&O) were found to be the economy, resources, effects and external support and in Time 2 (survival/termination) ideology and politics. This methodology could potentially be used to study the remaining 154 Government of Saskatchewan (GoS) population’s innovations and that of other populations.

Analysis of factors (antecedents) influencing the introduction and fate of innovations and their organizations (I&O) has been limited. Most of the innovation literature has focused on introduction and dissemination but not fate of I&O. It often found ideology and politics were not important in introduction of I&O. Glor (2017a, b) studied six factors influencing the introduction and survival/mortality of the first introduction in USA and Canada of ten public sector I&O introduced by the Government of Saskatchewan, (GoS), a Canadian provincial government, 1971 to the present. She reported assessment of their antecedent factors before introduction (Time 1) and those factors again at the time of survival/termination, 15 to 46 years later (Time 2). Introduction and survival/termination are defined by their appearance in/disappearance from Budget Estimates, annual reports and Public Accounts. I&O studied were the full sub-population of income security I&O introduced. A new, valid instrument was used to assess the influences, examining six factors and some clusters thought by three experts to have influenced their introduction and fate. The expert raters responded to 1267 statements (items), 555 pairs between times 1 and 2 distributed on five-point Likert scales. For all ten I&O, the factors ideology, politics, economy, external support, resources and effects were considered. In this paper, factors and clusters of factors are explored to attempt to predict survival or termination in Time 2, using means, analysis of variance (ANOVA), paired t-test and logistic regression analyses. Clusters were considered, such as external/internal clusters, external cluster and external support factor compared to economy factor and internal cluster. The best combination of factors and clusters for predicting introduction of I&O in Time 1 was found to be economy factor and internal cluster (resources, effects). The best combination for predicting fate (survival/ termination) in Time 2 was political cluster (ideology, politics) and external support factor. These results are important for practitioners, to point the way to successful introduction of I&O and for scholars, to understand important influences on fate. The dominance of resource factors in introduction was as expected and consistent with the literature. The capacity to predict either survival or termination had not been studied before: Political factors dominated survival and termination.

L’innovation sociale est devenue, en quelques années, un concept tellement galvaudé qu’il entretient une large confusion dans les débats. Utilisé d’abord en Amérique du Nord [1], il s’est généralisé avec l’arrivée, dans les années 90, de la notion anglo-saxonne d’« entrepreneurs sociaux ». Introduit ensuite par des travaux initiés par la Communauté européenne [2], il est entré dans la loi française du 31 juillet 2014 relative à l’économie sociale et solidaire (ESS). L’objet de notre article n’est pas de dresser un inventaire des différentes acceptions de ce concept, mais plutôt de chercher, d’une part, à asseoir sa définition sur des fondements théoriques et, d’autre part, à tirer les conséquences pragmatiques de ce positionnement. Nous commencerons par l’innovation technologique, car c’est d’elle qu’il est question lorsque l’on évoque l’innovation sans donner d’autres précisions. Nous verrons cependant que cette définition masque des sous-entendus qui nous serviront pour définir l’innovation sociale. Cette définition peut déboucher sur deux approches : l’une collaborative, l’autre coopérative. Il importe de le préciser, car elles n’ont pas les mêmes implications en termes de projets politiques. Nous montrerons que la question de la propriété est au centre de ce qui les différencie. Un tableau de synthèse de ce raisonnement est présenté en annexe.

This study explored how social housing communities can contribute to the transition to a circular economy (CE) in cities. The CE promotes ways for rethinking and reshaping current practices of producing and consuming to enhance resource efficiency while satisfying our needs to enable us to prosper sustainably. Resource efficiency in cities relies on production and consumption patterns that are connected to people behaviours. Up to now, the CE has mainly concentrated on different levels of technological system innovations with limited attention to social practices and behavioural change. On the other side, communities and groups of interest show playing a crucial role in the promotion of sustainable practices through initiatives of social innovation (SI). Through case study analysis and comparison, the project investigated contemporary SI initiatives implemented by urban communities and groups of interest aiming at promoting alternative production-consumption practices. Seven types of SI for resource circularity have been identified. Based on this typology, the study defined potential opportunities, benefits and challenges for social housing communities. These findings also highlighted a complementary role that SI can play in the CE implementation in cities. Therefore, the project suggested the introduction of emerging SI concepts into the current CE approach to support development.

With the advent of smart cities (SCs), governance has been placed at the core of the debate on how to create public value and achieve a high quality of life in urban environments. In particular, given that public value is rooted in democratic theory and new technologies that promote networking spaces have emerged, citizen participation represents one of the principal instruments to make government open and close to the citizenry needs. Participation in urban governance has undergone a great development: from the first postmodernist ideals of countering expert dominance to today’s focus on learning and social innovation, where citizen participation is conceptualized as co-creation and co-production. Despite this development, there is a lack of research to know how this new governance context is taking place in the SC arena. Addressing this situation, in this article, we present an exhaustive survey of the research literature and a deep study of the experience in participative initiatives followed by SCs in Europe. Through an analysis of 149 SC initiatives from 76 European cities, we provide interesting insights about how participatory models have been introduced in the different areas and dimensions of the cities, how citizen engagement is promoted in SC initiatives, and whether the so-called creative SCs are those with a higher number of projects governed in a participatory way.

Le débat sur le rapport entre l’innovation sociale et les villes s’est élargi au cours des dernières décennies. Ce débat met en évidence l’intérêt suscité par les processus de coconstruction des savoirs dans les laboratoires vivants en innovation sociale (LVIS). Cet article a pour objectif de présenter une approche conceptuelle et analytique du traitement des LVIS, ainsi que de décrire et de mettre en perspective deux expériences de mise en oeuvre de LVIS dans les villes : l’Observatoire de l’innovation sociale de Florianópolis (OBISF) au Brésil et Territoires innovants en économie sociale et solidaire (TIESS) à Montréal au Canada. Bien qu’ils émergent dans des réalités et des contextes différents avec des méthodologies de mise en oeuvre spécifiques, qui sont présentées dans le texte, la discussion et l’analyse des deux cas apportent des pistes d’apprentissage sur les défis et les perspectives quant à la coconstruction des connaissances visant à renforcer les dynamiques d’innovation sociale à l’échelle d’une ville.

The purpose of this study is to develop a dual-functional university-enabled social innovation process model on the subject of low-cost houses that addresses the distinct elements of social obligation and university teaching-learning. Design/methodology/approach This study has predominantly adopted a longitudinal single case study approach, where data have been collected through interviews, survey, participant observation, direct observation and document review. The case study details on the social innovation processes, which was conducted by Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia. Findings This study has demonstrated the social innovation processes toward addressing the issue of insufficient low-cost houses, concurrently benefitting the teaching-learning dimension. Three sub-innovations have been highlighted in the developed social innovation process model, which are collaboration process, teaching-learning and design-construct innovation. Originality/value The development of the social innovation process model for low-cost houses through university-enabled initiative is a novel establishment, particularly for developing nations, as limited studies have been conducted in this regard. The significant insights into how university could play a role in addressing major social issues, along with their core focus (teaching-learning and research development), is a breakthrough for further diffusions of social innovation by universities.

Innovation is perhaps the buzzword in local economic development policy. Associated narrowly with neoliberal ideas, conventional notions of innovation—like its capitalocentric counterparts, enterprise and entrepreneurialism—may promise higher productivity, global competitiveness and technological progress but do not fundamentally change the ‘rules of the game’. In contrast, an emerging field reimagines social innovation as disruptive change in social relations and institutional configurations. This article explores the conceptual and political differences within this pre‐paradigmatic field, and argues for a more transformative understanding of social innovation. Building on the work of David Graeber, I mobilize the novel constructs of ‘play’ and ‘games’ to advance our understanding of the contradictory process of institutionalizing social innovation for urban transformation. This is illustrated through a case study of Liverpool, where diverse approaches to innovation are employed in attempts to resolve longstanding socio‐economic problems. Dominant market‐ and state‐led economic development policies—likened to a ‘regeneration game’—are contrasted with more experimental, creative, democratic and potentially more effective forms of social innovation, seeking urban change through playing with the rules of the game. I conclude by considering how the play–game dialectic illuminates and reframes the way transformative social innovation might be cultivated by urban policy, the contradictions this entails, and possible ways forward.

Notre questionnement porte sur le profond décalage entre l'évolution de la pensée économique et les pratiques politiques issues de la décentralisation. Notre hypothèse met de l’avant que les logiques politiques mobilisées dans le cadre de ces réformes ne permettent pas d’accompagner le tournant territorial de l’économie (Pecqueur, 2006; Landel et Pecqueur, 2016). La difficulté des collectivités locales à prendre en compte et à accompagner l’innovation sociale témoigne de ces décalages. Pourtant, sous l’impulsion de l’État, de nouvelles formes de coordination s’affirment, parmi lesquelles on peut citer les pôles territoriaux de coopération économique (PTCE). Ils méritent d’être observés au regard de leur capacité à accompagner de nouvelles formes de développement territorial.

Studies on public sector innovation often treat this type of innovation as something that emerges within public sector organizations. However, innovation theory argues that external sources of innovation are more fruitful sources of ideas. We claim that universities must be treated as a mandatory element in public sector innovation. This paper is aimed at clarifying the place of public sector innovation in the classification of innovations currently used in the literature. It also seeks to conceptualize an approach for future research on the topic. Our primary goal is to identify the role of different actors in the development of public sector innovation. We analyze the advantages and disadvantages of different forms of university involvement in public sector innovation. The paper consists of two parts. The first defines concepts of innovation in general and public sector innovation viewed as a variation on social innovation. The second is dedicated to an analysis of the experience of Russian universities in enhancing collaboration between actors in the public innovation system.

This article extends the field conceptualisation of social change and innovation adoption, which hinges upon the strategic capacities of actors, to the online environment. We focus on a key aspect of social movement organisations (SMOs), competition for members, resources and attention over an environmental risk issue. The incorporation of network theory enables us to map how the structural position of actors in the field is associated with their actions – for example, their response to an exogenous shock such as a new threat to the environment. We analyse how actors in the online environmental movement respond to the emergence of nanoscience and technology (NST) as a risk issue, and test the field theory hypothesis that dominated actors are more likely to adopt this issue in the early stages of emergence. Our findings challenge field theory orthodoxy and suggest that whilst challengers innovate, dominants co-opt by adopting the issue in a second stage. Finally, we examine why the notion that NST entails significant environmental and health risks was not propelled into wider public consciousness.

People with disabilities are an important actor and target group in social innovation initiatives worldwide, as there is a clear need for better inclusion of this group in society. A way to improve the inclusion of people with disabilities is the development of assistive technology. In practice, people with disabilities often use technologies of which the primary use is not that of an assistive technology. They use the technology for a different use and context than the developer intended – termed 'secondary use'. The current paper studies the factors that are needed to make the secondary use of technology a success. First, a literature review and explorative study in the Netherlands are performed, after which a framework on the secondary use of technology for inclusion, specifically for people with disabilities, is developed.

The recent surge of investment in Civic Technologies represents a unique opportunity to realize the potential of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) for improving democratic participation. In this review, we study what technologies are proposed and evaluated in the academic literature for such goal. We focus our exploration on how civic technology is used in the collaborative creation of solutions for social issues and innovations for public services (i.e., social innovation). Our goal is to provide researchers, designers, and practitioners a starting point to understand both the academic state of the art and the existing opportunities for ICT in a democracy.