Votre recherche

Artisanal and small-scale gold mining in the Amazonian countries has undergone important technological improvements in recent decades. Nevertheless, this type of mining is largely associated with the use of rudimentary, low-tech and often manual methods, with inefficient gold recovery. This article aims at investigating how innovations and improvements in the technology used in small-scale gold mines are connected to a broader perception of the miners about the integration of more modern and effective techniques. A technographical approach enabled the understanding of mining practices as embodied cultural knowledge and to fill the information gap between the study of materials and techniques with the study of people and communities. We discuss how the technology of small-scale gold mining in the region of Peixoto de Azevedo (Mato Grosso, Brazil) has changed since the early 1980s, giving particular attention to the recent introduction of two main innovations: the mechanized exploration drill and the cyanidation process. In this region, miners are successfully organized in cooperatives efforts to mutually reinforce the integration of innovative and effective techniques. Finally, we introduce the three notions of foresight (visão), agility (agilidade) and development (desenvolvimento) that emerged during fieldwork and conceptually frame the likeliness of acceptance and promulgation of innovations in this context. Sustainable mining may only succeed if a wider vision of the future of the sector (foresight) joins public policies that facilitate the practical process of innovation during each phase of its realization (agility) in order to achieve an advanced social status of the local community (development). Highlights • Technological innovation is connected to miners' perception of appropriate practices. • A sustainable mining occurs when technological innovation joins social innovation. • Foresight, agility and development are key concept for adopting technical innovation. • Forming local cooperatives ease the development of the small-scale mining sector.

Innovation in the forest sector is a growing research interest and within this field, there is a growing attention for institutional, policy and societal dimensions and particular when it comes to the question of how to support innovativeness in the sector. This Special Issue therefore focuses on governance aspects, relating to and bridging business and political-institutional-societal levels. This includes social/societal factors, goals and implications that have recently been studied under the label of social innovation. Furthermore, the emergence of bioeconomy as a paradigm and policy goal has become a driver for a variety of innovation processes on company and institutional levels. Our article provides a tentative definition of "innovation governance" and attempts a state-of-art review of innovation governance research in the forest sector. For structuring the research field, we propose to distinguish between organizational/managerial, policy or innovation studies. For the forestry sector, specifically, we suggest to distinguish between studies focusing on (i) innovative governance of forest management and forest goods and services; on (ii) the governance of innovation processes as such, or (iii) on specific (transformational) approaches that may be derived from combined goals such as innovation governance for sustainability, regional development, or a bioeconomy. Studies in the forest sector are picking up new trends from innovation research that increasingly include the role of societal changes and various stakeholders such as civil society organizations and users. They also include public-private partnership models or participatory governance. We finally should not only look in how far research approaches from outside are applied in the sector but we believe that the sector could contribute much more to our general scientific knowledge on ways for a societal transformation to sustainability. • We sketch the state-of-knowledge in innovation governance in the forest sector. • We provide a definition and possible categorizations of innovation governance. • We discuss recent research avenues, including social innovation and bioeconomy. • We assess how this Special Issue contributes to our scientific knowledge. • We discuss state of art, research gaps and possible future research directions.

As an image and location sharing platform, Instagram offers intimate visual access to events, experiences and situations in a manner that is mobile and contextual. Partnering with Australian Red Cross, this paper develops a mixed methodology for using Instagram data to identify and understand individuals’ everyday humanitarian activity in a major urban centre (Melbourne, Australia) outside of the temporal frame of crisis. The research integrates hashtag data collection with thematic analysis in a Geographic Information System (GIS) to use visualise the links between types of humanitarian action, their motivations and contextual situations to precise urban locations. These attributes of Instagram posting practices offer a base layer of information about disparate prosocial action taking place in an urban context. We see this as informing and sustaining a new hybrid mode of promotional and humanitarian communication, evidencing social good ‘place making’ and enabling new forms of visible humanitarian participation.

Digital social innovation (DSI) involves the use of digital technologies in the development and implementation of innovative products, services, processes and business models that seek to improve the well-being and agency of socially disadvantaged groups or address social problems related to marginality, inequality and social exclusion (Qureshi, Pan, & Zheng, 2017; Shalini et al., 2021). Information Systems Frontiers, 22 (11), 1 - 21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-09991-6 153 Parthiban, R., Qureshi, I., Bandyopadhyay, S., & Jaikumar, S. (2021). Social inclusion/exclusion (Diaz Andrade & Doolin, 2016; Iivari et al., 2018; Riaz & Qureshi, 2017); social inequality (Qureshi et al., 2018; Zheng & Walsham, 2008, 2021) Embedded agency of DSIrs How are DSIrs able to engage with local institutions yet bring change in these very same institutions? 151 Pandey, M., Bhati, M., Shukla, D. M., & Qureshi, I. (2021). 152 Parthiban, R., Qureshi, I., Bandyopadhyay, S., Bhatt, B., & Jaikumar, S. (2020).

This article responds to increasing discourses on digital social innovation (DSI) from the perspectives of women entrepreneurs. Using the individual differences theory of gender and information technology (IDTGIT), this research explores how digital technology is used by women entrepreneurs to create opportunities in response to the challenges associated with individual identity, individual influences, social influences and structural influences. We also extend the IDTGIT by exploring how technology is used by women entrepreneurs in their DSI ventures and how technology facilitates the social impact of such ventures. This paper draws on a qualitative study using interviews with 17 women entrepreneurs in Australia, and our findings indicate that individual identity, individual influences and social and structural influences play a significant role in inhibiting women entrepreneurs' business ventures but technology helps to create opportunities for women entrepreneurs to address these factors. We also found that technology plays a role in helping women entrepreneurs to pursue social innovation in two different ways: through social innovation that is embodied by technology and social innovation that is enabled by technology. Our findings further indicate the social impact of DSI in the areas of education, employment, environment and climate, community development and progress and healthcare. The theoretical and practical implications of DSI for women entrepreneurs are provided.

This study examines the influence of digitalisation and social entrepreneurship on national well-being. Taking a configurational approach, the results show that digitalisation can benefit national well-being if the country has an adequate educational system, good governance, and a philanthropy-oriented financial system. Digitalisation can leverage these conditions in promoting national well-being. The study also contributes to entrepreneurship literature as it clarifies the role of social entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurship impacts national well-being when institutions are weak, but it is indifferent in developed economies, which gives support to the institutional void perspective. This finding contributes to the ongoing debate on the role of the institutions on the creation of social enterprises and advances knowledge on the social impact of social entrepreneurship. Additionally, the results show that a combination of conditions is required to achieve high levels of national well-being.

Understanding the criteria for the formation and development of social innovation ecosystems is crucial to establish appropriate strategies for their creation, maintenance and expansion. In this regard, strategies should be focused on social development actions, mainly supported by governments and members of the society. Silva, Sá and Spinosa (2019) reinforce that the interaction between government, industry and academia, coined in the literature as Triple Helix, by Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000), has been increasingly recognized for driving the transformation of scientific and technological results into economic results. According to a study by Schaffers et. al (2012), the progress towards the understanding of the intersection between urban economy, innovation networks, technology platforms, services and their applications, collective intelligence and innovation theories themselves is one of the challenges for innovation. This understanding can help scholars, governments and professionals to explore new directions and produce knowledge and solutions to make cities smarter. This study aimed to carry on a previous study by Nespolo and Fachinelli (2017) as well as build and validate a scale to measure the perception of social innovation ecosystems.

This paper aims to present how contemporary students are self-organizing using smart technologies (ST) and the future social implications of ST. The research model is based on the concepts of the soft system methodology, social systems thinking, innovative smart systems, and cybernetic and knowledge management. Design/methodology/approach The study contains elements of exploratory and descriptive case studies. Narrative analysis and interpretation of the collected data have been carried out. Findings Students mostly use ST to save time when studying and in their free time. Students are surprised by how ST developed and are cautious when imagining how the technology will change and affect their lives. They are concerned regarding several ethical dilemmas of using it, such as privacy and spending time with their loved ones and friends. Students perceive their self-organization in the future as very dependent on the availability of ST in institutional settings (e.g. education and business process) as well as their personal lives. Students discuss their present perceptions about what the future will be and note that social system will be more dynamic in terms of socialization, and loss of personal contact with their friends and family is seen as the main threat. Research limitations/implications The research is qualitative, and the questionnaire was carried out among business students at the Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Practical implications The paper offers an understanding of the usage of ST among business students. This study provides a road map of a few possible ways for usage of ST among students. The topic is also relevant for human resource managers, technology developers and marketing strategists for their better understanding of the behaviour of young people using ST in professional or private environments. Social implications The findings can be useful for professors in identifying different learning methods that are useful for their students. Originality/value The authors offer conceptualizations of ST within the social innovation framework and provide a contemporary understanding young people’s ST usage.

L’Union européenne comme les pouvoirs publics français peinent à trouver des solutions aux crises agricoles. Le secteur laitier n’échappe pas à la règle. En 2016, quelque 7000 consommateurs français ont activement participé à la coconstruction d’une filière laitière guidée par un objectif social : améliorer les conditions de vie des producteurs. L’innovation repose ainsi sur une nouvelle méthode de fixation du prix de vente du lait conditionné. Nous montrerons par cet exemple ainsi que par d’autres exemples en France que ce type de coconstruction constitue une innovation sociale inversée. Cette dernière tire parti d’un demi-siècle d’apprentissage fondé sur l’institutionnalisation du « caractère équitable » d’un bien, lequel est au coeur du commerce équitable Nord-Sud. Le label « équitable » n’est donc plus réservé aux seuls pays en développement. Nous analyserons également la portée des technologies numériques (TN) qui réduisent la « distance sociale » entre producteurs, implantés au Sud ou au Nord, et consommateurs. Ainsi, les consommateurs peuvent arbitrer à travers les TN, et ce, dans plusieurs filières.

In the last two decades, social innovation (SI) and social entrepreneurship (SE) have gained relevance and interest within the framework of academia at international level. Higher education institutions (HEIs) are key players in promoting innovation and social entrepreneurship initiatives that respond to multifaceted challenges. They support strategies on the basis of the strengthening of participation, collaboration, and cooperation with society and its local communities. However, the approach of Latin American universities to SI and SE has been very uneven in the way they have understood them, integrated them into academic programmes, and transferred knowledge to society. On the basis of the experience of the Students4Change project, we sought to understand the role of Latin American HEIs in promoting social innovations by analysing the experiences of 10 participating universities to formalise a pedagogical programme on SI and SE in their institutions. The results suggest that there is still a need to formalise an academic syllabus that is specifically designed to promote social innovations and to train universities in this endeavour. This paper contributes to the identification of the main levers of change, strengths, and challenges that Latin American universities face to institutionalise SI and SE in their contexts.

Whereas the economic impact of universities is undisputed, the social impact of universities remains vague. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether and how universities influence firms’ social engagement. Based on survey data of more than 7,000 German firms, our results reveal that universities positively affect firms’ social engagement mainly through teaching activities. Hence, our findings give impetus to a reinforcement of the university mission ‘teaching’ as a central lever for social change and increased social awareness as well as to a reorientation of the third university mission toward social needs. This paper thereby contributes to our understanding of the changing missions and values of universities and adds to the literature by exploring the underlying mechanisms of the social impact of universities. We conclude the paper with fruitful future avenues of research.

Purpose – This paper aims to illustrate how dispersed institutes of social innovation operating as intermediary actors within higher education institutions (HEIs) may help overcome many of the institutional bureaucracies and structures that inhibit social innovation in higher education.

This paper presents the state of the art in promoting social innovation at five leading technical universities in Europe. We assess how these leading technical universities implement social innovation in their strategies, teaching, and research. The results show that all universities highlight the importance of finding solutions to global challenges and addressing Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) as a fundamental university strategy for example by promoting social innovation. Moreover, all address the universities’ need to contribute to sustainability and the Sustainable Development Goals. However, social innovation does not play an important role in research and teaching as the results show that social innovation has so far been little addressed in research and teaching. Based on the political framework in the five European countries, we draw up conclusions for technical universities

The interactions between the higher education sector and society and industry have been attracting increased attention in terms of ways to develop social innovation solutions to societal problems. Despite calls from politicians and the existence of some guidelines, we know little about how higher education could incorporate social innovation activities into its structure and missions. This study examines some practice experiences in two southern European public universities in Portugal and Spain. We show that the third mission of universities, which includes social innovation, is both linked to the first two missions of teaching and research, depending on the university’s historical and social context. The high dependence of higher education institutions on economic returns increases the importance of political action to drive the development of social innovation activities. This conditioning factor seems to be intrinsic to some of the barriers that have been identified, such as lack of legitimization and recognition of social innovation practices at the formal governmental level.

The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) swiftly changed almost all aspects of our lives and society. In this paper, we depict course adjustments that we made to an undergraduate digital innovation course project, called Innovation Farm (IF), in response to the pandemic. Designed as an in-person course project, IF requires students to create AIpowered Android apps to address important social issues. As stay-at-home orders came into effect in March, 2020, we shifted the course to the online modality refocused its student topics to address social issues that COVID-19 has engendered. Accordingly, we also discuss three challenges that we faced and the strategies we employed to cope with them; namely, framing students' social innovation topics in the COVID-19 context, using virtual studios for online groupwork, and hosting a virtual pitch competition. Surprisingly, these strategies not only addressed the challenges but also created unintended benefits and opportunities. We hope to encourage educators to consider the possibilities in transforming challenges to opportunities during these unprecedented times.

Higher Education Institutions, like many other organizations, are facing pressure from the development of digital technologies as a push towards the digitization of their activities and towards a type of change that some describe as disruptive and that forces them to review their processes and structures. This article describes the case of the medialab of the University of Salamanca, MEDIALAB USAL, as an experience of new learning space in higher education. Its origin is explained from the experiences of citizen technology laboratories and experimental laboratories at the point of intersection between Art, Science and Technology. Its structure and working methods are explained, and its activities are illustrated through the description of four educational innovation projects based on different digital technologies: a mathematics didactics project using AppInventor, Wikipedia as a tool for knowledge generation, Arduino for innovation in the teaching of Fine Arts and a university Hackathon as an activity to introduce students to social and entrepreneurial innovation processes.

The purpose of this paper is to explore multiple Canadian educators' experiences with the Map the System (MTS) competition, designed to foster and grow systems thinking capacity among students exploring complex questions. The challenge has been an opportunity for social innovation programs (from the nascent to the established) across Canadian post-secondaries to engage both with their own communities and with social innovators internationally, connecting social innovation spaces as part of their third mission. Across the organizations, students valued the interdisciplinary and systems thinking qualities, and organizations benefited from the external competition, there remain questions about organizational engagement in social innovation as a deeply transformative process internally. Design/methodology/approach All Canadian post-secondary institutions who participated in the 2020 MTS competition (17) were invited to a digital roundtable to discuss their experiences. Ten were able to participate, representing a range of post-secondaries (including large research institutions, undergraduate-only universities and colleges). To facilitate discussion, participants met to discuss format and topics; for the roundtable itself, participant educators used a google form to capture their experiences. These were summarized, anonymized and redistributed for validation and clarification. To reflect this collaborative approach, all participant educators are listed as authors on this paper, alphabetically after the organizing authors. Findings For students participating in MTS, they have built both their interdisciplinary and systems thinking skills, as well as their commitment to achieving meaningful change in their community. But MTS arrived in fertile environments and acted as an accelerant, driving attention, validation and connection. Yet while this might align with post-secondary education’s third mission, educators expressed concerns about sustainability, internal commitment to change and navigating tensions between a challenge approach and collaborative work, and internal work and national competition limitations. This complicates the simple insertion of MTS in a post-secondary’s social innovation-related third mission. Research limitations/implications This study was limited to Canadian post-secondaries participating in MTS, and therefore are not representative of either post-secondaries in Canada, or all the MTS participants although Canada is well represented in the challenge itself. Additionally, while the authors believe their approach to treat all participants as authors, and ensured multiple feedback opportunities in private and collectively, this is a deliberate and potentially controversial move away from a traditional study. Social implications More than half of Canadian universities (a subgroup of post-secondaries) had at least one social innovation initiative, but questions have been raised about whether these initiatives are being evaluated internally, or are triggering the kinds of transformative internal work that might be an outcome. Understanding the impact of MTS one example of a social innovation-related initiative can help advance the broader conversation about the place (s) for social innovation in the post-secondary landscape – and where there is still significant work to be done. Originality/value As Canada has only participated in MTS for four years, this is the first inter-institution consideration of its related opportunities and obstacles as a vehicle for transformational social innovation. As well, educators talking openly and frankly to educators reinforces the collaborative quality of social innovation across the post-secondary landscape.

Potential contributions of universities to social innovation are explored with special attention to Southern countries. The normative guide is the notion of Sustainable Human Development understood as stressing the agency of least-advantaged sectors. The main challenges stem from decreasing sustainability and increasing inequality. Their impacts are highly dependent on how the tension between economic growth and environmental protection is managed. Improving actual perspectives demands harnessing advanced knowledge to foster inclusive and frugal innovation. For this to occur, universities need to be main actors. The context in which they act is analyzed with reference to the National Systems of Innovation conceptualization. Possible evolutions of universities as agents of social innovation are discussed with the aid of the Multi-Level Perspective. The importance of the Southern experience of innovating in scarcity conditions is highlighted and illustrated with the specific experience of a Latin American university. The cooperation of universities with weak social actors in ways that involve advanced knowledge appears as a key theoretical issue and as a difficult practical problem for the effective engagement of universities in social innovation. The diverse issues that such engagement needs to integrate conform an ambitious research program, of which the paper aims at giving a first glimpse.

The aim of this study is to provide new insights into the social innovation (SI) development process in the context of social start-ups. A multiple case study identifies the issues and mechanisms for social start-ups to develop a social need into a potentially scalable innovation and to validate and scale it up, while avoiding a possible failure. Results show that key challenges faced by social start-ups can be characterized according to the stage of the SI development path. Firstly, social start-ups' failure can be caused by the lack of expertise in social problems and of flexible processes for social ventures creation; secondly, by the lack of awareness of SI benefits and proper resources allocation; and, finally, by a weak understanding of the impact and intangible outcomes of the developed SI in society, while ensuring its economic sustainability. Successfully overcoming these challenges requires social start-ups to put in place the following mechanisms: (1) leveraging a vision and motivations that balance tensions in terms of the radical, economic and cultural aspects of SI; (2) engaging the SI stakeholders in different (and sequential) phases of SI development process; and (3) identifying and adopting the most suitable technological, financial and communication tools in an integrated way.

For decades, the cooperative enterprise (CE) produces market goods and/or provides services in the interest to its members, such as communities, customers, and suppliers. The upsurge of interest in social enterprises, and their balancing of social and economic interests, has also led to a renewed interest in CEs, often seen as a specific type of social enterprise. However, from an organizational perspective, this renewed interest has been both limited and scattered over a variety of fields. In this paper, we systematically review papers on CE in the mainstream organizational literature, defined as literature in the fields of economics, business, management and sociology. Our review integrates and synthesizes the current topics in the mainstream organizational literature and provides a number of avenues for future research. In addition, we compare our findings in the organizational literature to the social issues literature as these appeared to be quite complimentary. We found multilevel studies, determination of social impact—in particular measurable impact, managerial practices for sustainable (organisational) development, and the entrepreneurial opportunity generation process as the four key avenues for future research.