Votre recherche

Technology is the answer, but what was the question? Introduction Many firms, charities and governments are in favour of more innovation, and like to side with the new against the old. But should they? A moment's reflection shows that it's not altogether coherent (whether intellectually, ethically or in terms of policy) to simply be in favour of innovation, whether that innovation is a product, a service or a social idea. Some innovations are unambiguously good (like penicillin or the telephone). Others are unambiguously bad (like concentration camps or nerve gas). Many are ambiguous. Pesticides kill parasites but also pollute the water supply. New surveillance technologies may increase workplace productivity but leave workers more stressed and unhappy. Smart missiles may be good for the nations deploying them and terrible for the ones on the receiving end.In finance, Paul Volcker, former head of the US Federal Reserve, said that the only good financial innovation he could think of was the automated teller machine. That was an exaggeration. But there is no doubt that many financial innovations destroyed more value than they created, even as they enriched their providers, and that regulators and policy makers failed to distinguish the good from the bad, with very costly results. In technology, too, a similar scepticism had emerged by the late 2010s, with digital social media described as the ‘new tobacco’, associated with harm rather than good, with addiction rather than help. Or, to take another example: when the US Central Intelligence Agency's venture capital arm, In-QTel, invested heavily in firms like Palantir, which then became contractors for the intelligence and military (a prime example of the ‘entrepreneurial state’), it was far from obvious how much this was good or bad for the world.The traditional justification for a capitalist market economy is that the net effects of market-led innovation leave behind far more winners than losers, and that markets are better able to pick technologies than bureaucracies or committees. But even if, overall, the patterns of change generate more winners than losers, there are likely to be some, perhaps many, cases where the opposite happens. It would be useful to know.

The United States wastes approximately 40% of its food supply. This article will examine the implications of this waste for food insecurity and climate change. It will also explore how the law and social entrepreneurship can be used to confront this public health challenge.

The United States wastes approximately 40% of its food supply. This article will examine the implications of this waste for food insecurity and climate change. It will also explore how the law and social entrepreneurship can be used to confront this public health challenge.

Eleven papers explore research in entrepreneurship and community engagement in the context of Syracuse University's Scholarship in Action Model, which emphasizes sustainable campus-community entrepreneurial partnerships and applied research on the outcomes of these. Papers discuss the five keys to success in academic entrepreneurship; transforming a professional curriculum through engagement with practice--the Global Enterprise Technology Program at Syracuse University; tapping our fountain of youth--the guiding philosophy and first report on the Syracuse Student Startup Accelerator; Syracuse University Technology Commercialization Clinics; community development law and legal education; the Syracuse Miracle--inspiring entrepreneurs through conversations; the South Side Newspaper Project; bridging a traumatic past to an envisioned future--a case study of social entrepreneurship; inclusive entrepreneurship; the role of information and motivation in the process of innovation; and students serving as catalysts within a teacher education innovation.

This paper describes how the Experimental Social Innovation and Dissemination (ESID) model was successfully used to reduce male violence against women in an intimate relationship. The women in the study who worked with advocates (the key feature of the program) were significantly less likely to be abused again compared to their counterparts in the control condition. They also reported a higher quality of life and fewer difficulties in obtaining community resources even 2 years after the short-term intervention. The advocacy provided consisted of five phases: assessment, implementation, monitoring, secondary implementation, and termination. Assessment collected important information on the client's needs and goals. This involved asking the women what they needed and by observing women's circumstances. In response to each unmet need identified, the advocate worked with the woman to access appropriate community resources. This was the implementation phase. The third phase involved monitoring the effectiveness of the intervention. The advocate and client assessed whether the resource had been obtained and whether it met the identified need. If it was not effective, advocates and clients initiated a secondary implementation to meet the client's needs more effectively. Termination of the intervention consisted of three components. First, advocates emphasized termination dates from the beginning of the intervention in order to prevent termination from surprising the client. Second, beginning about week seven of the 10-week intervention, advocates intensified their efforts to transfer the skills and knowledge the women had acquired throughout the course. Third, advocates left families with written “termination packets,” which contained lists of community resources, helpful tips for obtaining difficult-to-access resources, and useful telephone numbers. A total of 143 women participated in the experimental condition, and women in the control group were not contacted again until their next interview; they received services-as-usual. 30 references

This paper describes how the Experimental Social Innovation and Dissemination (ESID) model was successfully used to reduce male violence against women in an intimate relationship. The women in the study who worked with advocates (the key feature of the program) were significantly less likely to be abused again compared to their counterparts in the control condition. They also reported a higher quality of life and fewer difficulties in obtaining community resources even 2 years after the short-term intervention. The advocacy provided consisted of five phases: assessment, implementation, monitoring, secondary implementation, and termination. Assessment collected important information on the client's needs and goals. This involved asking the women what they needed and by observing women's circumstances. In response to each unmet need identified, the advocate worked with the woman to access appropriate community resources. This was the implementation phase. The third phase involved monitoring the effectiveness of the intervention. The advocate and client assessed whether the resource had been obtained and whether it met the identified need. If it was not effective, advocates and clients initiated a secondary implementation to meet the client's needs more effectively. Termination of the intervention consisted of three components. First, advocates emphasized termination dates from the beginning of the intervention in order to prevent termination from surprising the client. Second, beginning about week seven of the 10-week intervention, advocates intensified their efforts to transfer the skills and knowledge the women had acquired throughout the course. Third, advocates left families with written “termination packets,” which contained lists of community resources, helpful tips for obtaining difficult-to-access resources, and useful telephone numbers. A total of 143 women participated in the experimental condition, and women in the control group were not contacted again until their next interview; they received services-as-usual. 30 references

We educate insightful leaders of social and environmental change.

What is Social Entrepreneurship? Social Entrepreneurship is an entrepreneurial venture with a strong community-oriented mission: examples include micro-financing or technologies for clean water in rural areas. The field has grown very quickly over the past few years, and has merged with the technology sector incredibly, with most social ventures considered unpractical if they do not…

We support innovative nonprofits, mission-driven companies and disruptive technologies to create change and opportunity in Baltimore and beyond.

global action research platform, working to understand and promote what's best for me or us that generate outcomes to improve wellbeing for all

Social innovation is the process of developing and deploying effective solutions to challenging and often systemic social and environmental issues in support of social progress. Social innovation is not the prerogative or privilege of any organizational form or legal structure. Solutions often require the active collaboration of constituents across government, business, and the nonprofit world.

Highlights from book excerpts published by SSIR online this year on topics including mutualism, grassroots development, breakthrough ideas, racial injustice, and well-being.

Use as a topical subdivision under topical headings for works on the effect of the item, activity, discipline, etc., and society on each other.