Rechercher

Nous proposons un regard réflexif sur deux expériences de recherche-projet menées dans le cadre de thèses de doctorat. Notre réflexion porte sur les apports et limites de cette démarche dans le cadre de projets ancrés dans les champs de la santé et du handicap, plus spécifiquement des troubles du sommeil et des troubles du spectre de l’autisme. La proposition repose sur la démonstration de l’intérêt de la conception participative propre à la recherche-projet dans ces domaines sensibles au sein desquels l’enjeu de l’inclusion des acteurs apparaît comme majeur.

Nous proposons un regard réflexif sur deux expériences de recherche-projet menées dans le cadre de thèses de doctorat. Notre réflexion porte sur les apports et limites de cette démarche dans le cadre de projets ancrés dans les champs de la santé et du handicap, plus spécifiquement des troubles du sommeil et des troubles du spectre de l’autisme. La proposition repose sur la démonstration de l’intérêt de la conception participative propre à la recherche-projet dans ces domaines sensibles au sein desquels l’enjeu de l’inclusion des acteurs apparaît comme majeur.

À l’ère de la transformation numérique et de l’intelligence artificielle, les données et les enjeux qu’elles soulèvent sont sous les feux de la rampe, qu’il s’agisse de données ouvertes ou de données massives (big data). Motivé par le potentiel de leur mise en commun, un nombre croissant d’acteurs publics, privés et de la société civile s’intéresse au partage de données numériques entre tiers pour atteindre des objectifs d’intérêt public ou résoudre des problèmes sociaux complexes. De nouvelles formes de collaboration interorganisationnelle émergent chaque jour en vue de partager, combiner, croiser et valoriser des jeux de données. Ces partenariats de données numériques demandent toutefois temps, efforts, ressources et une collaboration soutenue. Leur succès exige également la mise en place d’une solide gouvernance des données apte à protéger le public et maintenir sa confiance. Les organisations désireuses de se lancer dans de telles initiatives trouveront dans le présent rapport une discussion des différents facteurs de succès et d’activation des partenariats de données numériques ainsi que des informations pratiques pour les guider dans la construction d’une gouvernance des données partagées qui soit collaborative, responsable, efficace et imputable.

À l’ère de la transformation numérique et de l’intelligence artificielle, les données et les enjeux qu’elles soulèvent sont sous les feux de la rampe, qu’il s’agisse de données ouvertes ou de données massives (big data). Motivé par le potentiel de leur mise en commun, un nombre croissant d’acteurs publics, privés et de la société civile s’intéresse au partage de données numériques entre tiers pour atteindre des objectifs d’intérêt public ou résoudre des problèmes sociaux complexes. De nouvelles formes de collaboration interorganisationnelle émergent chaque jour en vue de partager, combiner, croiser et valoriser des jeux de données. Ces partenariats de données numériques demandent toutefois temps, efforts, ressources et une collaboration soutenue. Leur succès exige également la mise en place d’une solide gouvernance des données apte à protéger le public et maintenir sa confiance. Les organisations désireuses de se lancer dans de telles initiatives trouveront dans le présent rapport une discussion des différents facteurs de succès et d’activation des partenariats de données numériques ainsi que des informations pratiques pour les guider dans la construction d’une gouvernance des données partagées qui soit collaborative, responsable, efficace et imputable.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Cette consultation permettra d'identifier les meilleures pratiques, les solutions novatrices et les avenues les plus porteuses, pour favoriser la création de richesse au Québec à partir des activités de recherche et d’innovation.

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.

Indigenous communities across Canada have established principles to guide ethical research within their respective communities. Thorough cataloging and description of these would inform university research ethics boards, researchers, and scholars and facilitate meaningful research that respects Indigenous-defined ethical values. A scoping study was conducted of all relevant peer-reviewed literature and public-facing Indigenous research ethical guidelines from First Nations, Metis, and Inuit communities and organizations in Canada. A total of 20 different Indigenous research ethics boards, frameworks, and protocols were identified. Analysis resulted in three key themes: (1) balancing individual and collective rights; (2) upholding culturally-grounded ethical principles; and (3) ensuring community-driven/self-determined research. Findings demonstrate how employment of Indigenous ethical principles in research positively contributes to research outcomes.