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.

Interrelations between creativity, innovativeness and entrepreneurial skills of individuals have long been discussed in the literature. Due to the challenges regarding their measurement, most studies focused on the intentions rather than the outcomes. The idea generation that requires creativity is the first stage of social innovation. The young population's creative potentials in participating social innovation practices deserve a special attention as they play a critical role in the innovativeness and entrepreneurship of societies. This study aims to explore the factors that determine the creative intentions of university students that are important in generating social innovation projects. A structured survey based on the literature was conducted among 600 management and engineering students from 3 universities from the different percentiles of the Entrepreneurial and Innovative University Index for 2012 of the Turkish Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology. The survey included questions on the demographic characteristics, environmental factors, motivators, university/institutional context, perceptions and creative thinking attitudes. By conducting reliability and factor analysis, accuracy and validity of data is tested and the impact factors were identified. Findings reveal that visionary attitude, curiosity, exploration and learning, attitude for own creativity, self-esteem, perception about the learnability of creativity, university and social environment are components of creative thinking intentions of students and some of these factors vary by year of study and university.

Interrelations between creativity, innovativeness and entrepreneurial skills of individuals have long been discussed in the literature. Due to the challenges regarding their measurement, most studies focused on the intentions rather than the outcomes. The idea generation that requires creativity is the first stage of social innovation. The young population's creative potentials in participating social innovation practices deserve a special attention as they play a critical role in the innovativeness and entrepreneurship of societies. This study aims to explore the factors that determine the creative intentions of university students that are important in generating social innovation projects. A structured survey based on the literature was conducted among 600 management and engineering students from 3 universities from the different percentiles of the Entrepreneurial and Innovative University Index for 2012 of the Turkish Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology. The survey included questions on the demographic characteristics, environmental factors, motivators, university/institutional context, perceptions and creative thinking attitudes. By conducting reliability and factor analysis, accuracy and validity of data is tested and the impact factors were identified. Findings reveal that visionary attitude, curiosity, exploration and learning, attitude for own creativity, self-esteem, perception about the learnability of creativity, university and social environment are components of creative thinking intentions of students and some of these factors vary by year of study and university.

The UK government has called for a rehabilitation revolution in England and Wales and put its faith in market testing. It hopes this will lead to greater innovation, resulting in reductions in re-offending while also driving down costs. However, many of the most innovative developments in criminal justice over recent decades have come through social innovation. Examples include restorative justice and justice reinvestment. In this article we argue that while social innovation will respond to some extent to conventional economic policy levers such as market testing, de-regulation and the intelligent use of public sector purchasing power it is not simply an extension of the neo-liberal model into the social realm. Social innovation, based on solidarity and reciprocity, is an alternative to the logic of the neo-liberal paradigm. In policy terms, the promotion of social innovation will need to take account of the interplay between government policy, social and cultural norms and individual and social capacity. Current proposals for reforming the criminal justice system may not leave sufficient scope to develop the conditions for effective social innovation.

The UK government has called for a rehabilitation revolution in England and Wales and put its faith in market testing. It hopes this will lead to greater innovation, resulting in reductions in re-offending while also driving down costs. However, many of the most innovative developments in criminal justice over recent decades have come through social innovation. Examples include restorative justice and justice reinvestment. In this article we argue that while social innovation will respond to some extent to conventional economic policy levers such as market testing, de-regulation and the intelligent use of public sector purchasing power it is not simply an extension of the neo-liberal model into the social realm. Social innovation, based on solidarity and reciprocity, is an alternative to the logic of the neo-liberal paradigm. In policy terms, the promotion of social innovation will need to take account of the interplay between government policy, social and cultural norms and individual and social capacity. Current proposals for reforming the criminal justice system may not leave sufficient scope to develop the conditions for effective social innovation.

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.

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.

Social innovation refers to the processes and outcomes that develop a novel approach to addressing a social problem or need. Compared to commercial innovation, it poses some distinctive challenges, particularly with regard to the incentives to invest in it, assessment of performance, and diffusion of effective innovations. Scholars began paying attention to this phenomenon in the late twentieth century, but many open research questions remain. The term ‘social innovation’ has had two meanings in the academic literature. In its earliest scholarly uses, primarily in sociology, it was used to refer to the creation of new patterns of human interaction, new social structures, or new social relations. The second focuses on innovations designed to address a social or environmental issue or to meet a specific social market failure or need. Often, both types of innovation are combined to establish new patterns of social relations that have positive social outcomes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Corporate social innovation is also called sustainable innovation. Corporate social innovation is about creating a good business by having sustainability as a focal point when the corporation develops a new product or service. This entails developing products or services which may relieve some of the world’s problems, such as disease, contaminated water, CO2 emission, hunger, or the lack of education. CSI is also referred to as CSR innovation. CSI is useful for businesses which work with innovation and/or CSR (corporate social responsibility).

Définition. "The attention paid to social innovation and the resources involved in the promotion, research, and implementation of social innovation increased, most remarkably after 2008, when the concept became the subject of mainstream policies in high places."

Social entrepreneurship is commonly used to qualify all economic initiatives that serve social and/or environmental mission and that reinvest a large part of their surpluses in support of their mission. Although this definition is not yet stabilized and its boundaries remain unclear, it focuses on the aim to achieve both economic efficiency and social innovation. It takes place within a context of great uncertainty about the future of welfare states and their capacity to meet new societal needs, of financial and budgetary constraints that force public authorities to develop new forms of interaction between public and private sectors, and therefore, of need to build new responses to societal challenges that are sustainable socially, economically, and environmentally. Within this context, all sorts of initiatives that can be qualified as social innovations are gaining interest.

Social entrepreneurship is commonly used to qualify all economic initiatives that serve social and/or environmental mission and that reinvest a large part of their surpluses in support of their mission. Although this definition is not yet stabilized and its boundaries remain unclear, it focuses on the aim to achieve both economic efficiency and social innovation. It takes place within a context of great uncertainty about the future of welfare states and their capacity to meet new societal needs, of financial and budgetary constraints that force public authorities to develop new forms of interaction between public and private sectors, and therefore, of need to build new responses to societal challenges that are sustainable socially, economically, and environmentally. Within this context, all sorts of initiatives that can be qualified as social innovations are gaining interest.

Social entrepreneurship is one of the most notable innovations in the global era. By challenging the conventions of established social and environmental organizations and building new models of cooperation and exchange between the public, private, and civil society sectors, social entrepreneurship aims to provide systemic and scalable solutions to some of the most pressing threats and urgent issues that currently impact billions of people around the world. It is concerned with the effects of climate change and environmental degradation, new health pandemics, water and energy crises, growing migration, seemingly intractable issues of inequality and endemic poverty, the rise of terrorism and nuclear instability, and the “challenge of affluence” in many developed countries. The impact and influence of social entrepreneurship can be identified across the world in terms of direct interventions and action on the ground and also in terms of its wider, political influence as a movement for societal change that aims to reframe debates and alter institutional logics to increase the effectiveness of the provision of public goods and grow the positive externalities of social and environmental action. This entry defines social entrepreneurship as a global-level phenomenon and locates it as a new set of logics and institutions that aim to achieve systemic change and address market failures across the public, private, and civil society spheres.