Votre recherche

Responsible Innovation (RI) is a young field of research that has nevertheless had remarkable successes in dissemination within academic and political circles. However, there is relatively little awareness of its limits, blind spots and situations in which it cannot be used for actual innovation trajectories. Without such awareness, there is a risk that RI may get hollowed out and turned into a tool for ‘greenwashing’. To examine RI’s limits, we present a case study on biofuel innovation in Hassan, South India. This case study demonstrates that there are important barriers that may make it difficult to conduct innovation according to RI values. In particular, we highlight the following factors that emerge from our case study and need more attention in order to be included and adequately theorised in the RI literature: material barriers to innovation, engagement with abandoning or reducing existing practices as a consequence of innovation, power differences and dependencies, (un)clear demarcation of responsibilities, strategic behaviour and, lastly, different, diverging and even contradictory interests. We demonstrate that such factors may obstruct the possibility to innovate in a responsible way, leading us to our core observation that RI should be about innovating responsibly – or not innovating at all.

The governance of emerging science and innovation is a major challenge for contemporary democracies. In this paper we present a framework for understanding and supporting efforts aimed at ‘responsible innovation’. The framework was developed in part through work with one of the first major research projects in the controversial area of geoengineering, funded by the UK Research Councils. We describe this case study, and how this became a location to articulate and explore four integrated dimensions of responsible innovation: anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion and responsiveness. Although the framework for responsible innovation was designed for use by the UK Research Councils and the scientific communities they support, we argue that it has more general application and relevance.

Catalina Ortiz

Résumé Le développement durable est un concept faisant l’objet d’une large adhésion, autant auprès des organisations économiques, sociocommunautaires, environnementales que politiques. Sa définition, proposée en 1987 dans le rapport Brundtland, fait généralement consensus, mais l’interprétation de sa définition tend à varier selon les contextes d’application. De même, les outils utilisés pour sa mise en oeuvre varient selon le contexte et les besoins. Au Québec et ailleurs dans le monde, des organisations de toute taille ont entamé des démarches de développement durable. Divers outils, instruments et processus de mise en oeuvre sont utilisés pour guider la démarche de ces organisations. Le présent article propose une typologie de ces instruments. Nous présentons également les avantages et limites d’une démarche intégrée de développement durable.

Interest in social innovations (SIs) from both the academic and the policy side is growing. Nonetheless, we still know little about which sustainable development goals (SDGs) SIs already address. Furthermore, only little is known about who the innovators developing and implementing SIs are. In this paper, we aim to bring more clarity and structure to the field of SIs. Firstly, a systematic literature review was conducted, before a content analysis was used to analyze the definitions used with regard to similarities. Secondly, all case studies described in the reviewed articles were then further systematically analyzed in order to identify the social or environmental problems addressed and the innovators involved. For the purpose of classifying the diverse types of problems, we used the globally known and broadly accepted 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs). Results showed that most SI case studies deal with an improvement of health and well-being. Furthermore, our study illustrates that there is a pronounced difference in the focus of SIs between developing and developed countries. Concerning the innovators, our results indicate that five types of innovators are fundamentally involved in developing and implementing SIs: social entrepreneurs, NGOs and non-profits, public institutions, civil society, firms, and social enterprises. Our definition analysis as well as the identification and classification of the innovators and addressed social needs bring much-needed clarity and structure to the field. However, our systematic review shows that SI is still in its infancy and it will be interesting to see where the field will head.

This paper is intended as a contribution to the ongoing conceptual development of sustainability-oriented innovation (SOI) and provides initial guidance on becoming and being sustainable. The authors organize and integrate the diverse body of empirical literature relating to SOI and, in doing so, develop a synthesized conceptual framework onto which SOI practices and processes can be mapped. Sustainability-oriented innovation involves making intentional changes to an organization's philosophy and values, as well as to its products, processes or practices to serve the specific purpose of creating and realizing social and environmental value in addition to economic returns. A critical reading of previous literature relating to environmental management and sustainability reveals how little attention has been paid to SOI, and what exists is only partial. In a review of 100 scholarly articles and 27 grey sources drawn from the period of the three Earth Summits (1992, 2002 and 2012), the authors address four specific deficiencies that have given rise to these limitations: the meaning of SOI; how it has been conceptualized; its treatment as a dichotomous phenomenon; and a general failure to reflect more contemporary practices. The authors adopt a framework synthesis approach involving first constructing an initial architecture of the landscape grounded in previous studies, which is subsequently iteratively tested, shaped, refined and reinforced into a model of SOI with data drawn from included studies: so advancing theoretical development in the field of SOI.

Responsible Innovation in Health (RIH) represents an emerging Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) approach that could support not only the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) “Good health and well-being” but also other SDGs. Since few studies have conceptualized the relationships between RIH and the SDGs, our goal was to inductively develop a framework to identify knowledge gaps and areas for further reflections. Our exploratory study involved: (1) performing a web-based horizon scanning to identify health innovations with responsibility features; and (2) illustrating through empirical examples how RIH addresses the SDGs. A total of 105 innovations were identified: up to 43% were developed by non-profit organizations, universities or volunteers; 46.7% originated from the United States; and 64.5% targeted countries in Africa, Central and South America and South Asia. These innovations addressed health problems such as newborn care (15.5%), reduced mobility and limb amputation (14.5%), infectious diseases (10.9%), pregnancy and delivery care (9.1%) and proper access to care and drugs (7.3%). Several of these innovations were aligned with SDG10-Reduced inequalities (87%), SDG17-Partnerships for the goals (54%), SDG1-No poverty (15%) and SDG4-Quality education (11%). A smaller number of them addressed sustainable economic development goals such as SDG11-Sustainable cities and communities (9%) and SDG9-Industry and innovation (6%), and environmental sustainability goals such as SDG7-Affordable and clean energy (7%) and SDG6-Clean water and sanitation (5%). Three examples show how RIH combines entrepreneurship and innovation in novel ways to address the determinants of health, thereby contributing to SDG5 (Gender), SDG10 (Inequalities), SDG4 (Education) and SDG8 (Decent work), and indirectly supporting SDG7 (Clean energy) and SDG13 (Climate action). Further research should examine how alternative business models, social enterprises and social finance may support the STI approach behind RIH.

Environmental problem solving needs science but also inevitably requires subjective judgment. Science can help in dealing with subjectivity, because scientists have long experience developing institutions and practices to address the subjective and value-laden choices that are essential to scientific progress. Democracy has also developed approaches to the problem. The underlying principles can be applied to environmental policymaking. This article explores these issues in the context of decisions about environmental risks, drawing on the work of the National Research Council and other sources. It suggests some guidelines for risk deliberation—including broad-based participation, commitment to scientific quality, explicit attention to values, transparency of deliberative processes, and rules for closure and reconsideration—and recommends that an experimental approach be employed to learn how best to use deliberative methods.

A common thread weaving through the current public participation debate is the need for new approaches that emphasize two-way interaction between decision makers and the public as well as deliberation among participants. Increasingly complex decision making processes require a more informed citizenry that has weighed the evidence on the issue, discussed and debated potential decision options and arrived at a mutually agreed upon decision or at least one by which all parties can abide. We explore the recent fascination with deliberative methods for public involvement first by examining their origins within democratic theory, and then by focusing on the experiences with deliberative methods within the health sector. In doing so, we answer the following questions “What are deliberative methods and why have they become so popular? What are their potential contributions to the health sector?” We use this critical review of the literature as the basis for developing general principles that can be used to guide the design and evaluation of public involvement processes for the health-care sector in particular.

This article serves as an introduction to the FQS special issue "Participatory Qualitative Research." In recent years there has been a resurgence of interest in participatory research strategies. The articles in this special issue come from different disciplines. Against the background of concrete empirical research projects, they address numerous conceptual considerations and methodological approaches. After reading the contributions, and engaging with the authors' arguments, we were prompted to focus in particular on those areas in which further work needs to be done. They include, on the one hand, fundamental principles of participatory research, such as democratic-theory considerations, the concept of "safe space," participation issues, and ethical questions. And, on the other hand, we focus on practical research considerations regarding the role and tasks of the various participants; specific methodological approaches; and quality criteria—understood here in the sense of arguments justifying a participatory approach. Our aim is to stimulate a broad discussion that does not focus only on participatory research in the narrower sense. Because participatory methodology poses certain knowledge- and research-related questions in a radical way, it has the potential to draw attention to hitherto neglected areas in qualitative methodology and to stimulate their further development.URN: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1201302

This special issue of Innovation and Development focuses on inclusive innovation; specifically on analysis of the new models of this form of innovation which are emerging. After discussing the growing need for research into those models, this editorial paper interrogates the meaning of ‘inclusive innovation’ and what it means to understand inclusive innovation in terms of models. The editorial then outlines the contribution of the papers that make up this special issue before drawing out some lessons for inclusive innovation policy and practice, and discussing future research priorities.

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.

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.

In an increasingly globalized world, the challenges of society need to be tackled not by single organisations but by a multitude of stakeholders. Universities can contribute by extending their role and by collaborating with external stakeholders. This study employs qualitative methods to explore how a university engages with its innovation ecosystem through two different projects.The findings, connected to the development of educational and digital systems,show: 1) evidence of two extreme approaches to external stakeholder engagement and 2) three levels of tensions (multi-layered tensions) - on an overarching level, between stakeholder groups, and within groups of stakeholders. The contribution connects to literature on open innovation, quadruple helixes and lastly to university social innovation, especially responsibility diffusion.

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.

This study attempts to extend the definition of social innovation within the context of academic entrepreneurship. We consider how academic entrepreneurs can undertake commercial activities, and which ones, and how these activities contribute to the contexts of social innovation. We explore two cases that are derived from two premier universities in Taiwan in terms of research and academic entrepreneurship: OurCityLove from National Chiao Tung University (NCTU) and the Forest app from National Tsing Hua University (NTHU). The two cases show how social enterprises achieved the financial ability to expand their businesses and create the desired social values. While the first case, derived from NCTU, focused on providing useful information on social spaces, and services for the elderly, parents traveling with babies and those with disabilities (and also creating job opportunities for the latter), the other from NTHU created an app to influence those addicted to playing with their smartphones. The cases illustrate how the two universities capitalised on their technological competencies and academic programmes to support graduates and researchers in venturing into social entrepreneurship.

This article uses a conceptual approach to propose an innovation model for regional universities. It demonstrates that the traditional university encounters several obstacles that hinder its full integration into the development of its respective region and explains why currently known models cannot adapt to regions that have deficient relationships with the government and lack an entrepreneurial base. The new model is based on a structure composed of units called “innovation hubs” and incorporates social innovation, thus permitting the university to become integrated into the regional innovation ecosystems. The Magdalena University in Colombia was used as a reference in developing the model. Keywords: hub; social innovation; university innovation models; regional innovation ecosystems

Cette recherche traite du rôle des plateformes technologiques pour engager le client dans un processus de co-création de valeur avec l’entreprise. Le cas du Photomaton digital (Sharingbox) est étudié. Des entretiens semi-directifs menés auprès de clients participants à trois événements de marques mais aussi auprès de managers et de responsables de l’entreprise Sharingbox révèlent le rôle de cette technologie à engager les participants dans un acte de co-création en ligne avec la marque, acte qui peut se révéler engageant dans le temps. Cependant, l’efficacité de ces plateformes d’engagement semble contingente aux valeurs perçues de l’expérience de la technologie, à l’image de la marque et au profil de ses clients.