Rechercher

L’objectif de la démarche de coconstruction et de ses ateliers est notamment permettre d’exemplifier et de mettre à l’épreuve les principes de la Déclaration de Montréal IA Responsable à l’aide de scénarios prospectifs en 2025 permettant de préciser des enjeux éthiques sectoriels, puis de formuler des recommandations prioritaires auprès des gouvernements québécois et canadiens, des parties prenantes et de la communauté de recherche universitaire.

This paper performs a critical analysis of the financial instruments that can be employed to fund social innovation, with a specific focus on social tech start-ups that develop and deploy technology-driven solutions to address social needs in a financially sustainable manner. The paper analyses how these start-ups can access financing, the barriers to financing that these organisations experience and the financial instruments that are most suitable to address their financial needs. Social tech start-ups have many points of overlap with high-tech start-ups in terms of the barriers they encounter to financing in different lifecycle stages. Still, the institutional solutions that are commonly exploited by high-tech start-ups for growth are not enough to support social tech start-ups to scale. Therefore, we introduce the concept of SII and discuss its potential contribution to the social tech finance landscape. Then, using the case of social tech start-ups as paradigmatic of the broader problem of financing mechanisms for social innovation, we formulate a research agenda, including directions for research and theoretical development in the field of SII.

This paper performs a critical analysis of the financial instruments that can be employed to fund social innovation, with a specific focus on social tech start-ups that develop and deploy technology-driven solutions to address social needs in a financially sustainable manner. The paper analyses how these start-ups can access financing, the barriers to financing that these organisations experience and the financial instruments that are most suitable to address their financial needs. Social tech start-ups have many points of overlap with high-tech start-ups in terms of the barriers they encounter to financing in different lifecycle stages. Still, the institutional solutions that are commonly exploited by high-tech start-ups for growth are not enough to support social tech start-ups to scale. Therefore, we introduce the concept of SII and discuss its potential contribution to the social tech finance landscape. Then, using the case of social tech start-ups as paradigmatic of the broader problem of financing mechanisms for social innovation, we formulate a research agenda, including directions for research and theoretical development in the field of SII.

Le présent document est le fruit des principales leçons apprises durant l’élaboration et la mise en œuvre de Montréal sans obstacle. S’il n’existe pas d’approche universelle pour planifier un événement accessible, nous espérons que le présent guide servira d’outil pratique à d’autres praticiennes et praticiens de l’innovation sociale lorsqu’ils chercheront à rendre leurs activités plus inclusives et accessibles à tous. Les recommandations présentées dans les pages qui suivent doivent être adaptées à chaque initiative en fonction de ses objectifs, de ses activités et de ses participants.

La recherche partenariale et les différentes appellations qu'elle a prises au cours des ans a connu depuis les années 2000, particulièrement au Canada et au Québec, un essor important. Celui-ci s'explique en partie par la montée en puissance de concepts comme société du savoir et économie du savoir qui ont rapidement été adoptés par les instances étatiques. Ces concepts tablent sur des liens étroits entre la croissance économique des sociétés et la création scientifique. Ce mouvement est accompagné de changements au sein même du processus de production de connaissances par le passage du Mode 1 au Mode 2. Au Québec, la recherche de type partenarial a été confortée par l'adhésion à des modalités de développement socio-économique faisant une place notable à diverses formes de coopération entre les groupes sociaux. Ce travail doctoral vise à mieux cerner la dynamique partenariale qui se déroule au sein de la relation de recherche entre des chercheurs issus du milieu universitaire et des praticiens venant de divers horizons. Afin d'approcher cette connexion chercheurs/praticiens qui se dessine à l'intérieur d'un espace partenarial que nous avons qualifié d'espace de production cognitive, nous avons posé comme hypothèse de départ, à partir d'une revue de littérature et de notre propre expérience de coordonnateur d'alliances de recherches universités-communautés, que : des questions de recherche, des valeurs, des habitudes de travail et des épistémologies occupaient cet espace balisant ainsi la liaison entre les différents participants. Cette hypothèse a été mise à l'épreuve dans le cadre d'une recherche qualitative. Pour ce faire, nous avons choisi d'examiner cinq cas de recherches exemplaires réalisées au sein du Service aux collectivités (SAC) de l'UQAM. Des entrevues semi-dirigées auprès des protagonistes de ces recherches, c'est-à-dire, les chercheurs et chercheuses, les praticiens et praticiennes, les étudiants et étudiantes et les professionnelles du SAC qui assurent la coordination des projets, nous ont permis de décrypter le dispositif partenarial. Par une analyse de contenu des comptes-rendus intégraux des entretiens, nous avons ainsi pu dégager les principales composantes de ces relations partenariales. Cette démarche nous a conduit à revoir notre hypothèse de départ. Nous postulons maintenant que : l'espace de production cognitive est alimenté par un couple question-hypothèse porté tant par les chercheurs que les praticiens; que cette activité de recherche repose sur différentes compétences tant théoriques que pratiques mises de l'avant par les partenaires aux diverses étapes de la recherche; que ces partenaires participent à une communauté de valeurs et d'aptitudes relationnelles tout en partageant le même référent épistémologique. L'ensemble de ces composantes constitue le socle sur lequel le processus partenarial se construit, se déploie et permet ainsi l'élaboration de nouvelles connaissances. ____________________________________________________________________________ MOTS-CLÉS DE L’AUTEUR : recherche partenariale, recherche-action, community based research, réflexivité, compétences.

La gestion est-elle un mal ou un remède pour les entreprises sociales et solidaires ? Les entreprises sociales et solidaires sont-elles des modèles d’apprentissage pour la gestion ? Nous amènent-elles à penser la gestion autrement ? Cet ouvrage vise à dépasser les tabous liés à la gestion dans l’entreprise sociale et solidaire. Collectif de chercheurs en sciences humaines et sociales (académiques et/ou praticiens), notre ambition est de porter un regard critique sur la gestion des entreprises sociales et solidaires. Sur la base de l’étude de nombreux cas (mutuelles, associations, coopératives de consommateurs, banques coopératives, Scop, Scic, etc.), il s’agit de questionner et comprendre les dispositifs et les pratiques de gestion des entreprises sociales et solidaires. La réflexion des auteurs s’est construite autour des questionnements suivants : Que nous apprennent les entreprises sociales et solidaires sur la gestion des organisations ? Qu’ont-elles mis en œuvre de spécifique ? Existe-t-il déjà des « pépites » à observer, à essaimer issues de leurs pratiques de gestion ? Le phénomène d’isomorphisme avec les modèles d’entreprise capitaliste est-il si important ? Si oui, est-il un problème ? Pourquoi ? Et comment construire d’autres modes de gestion ? Quelles questions les organisations doivent-elles se poser pour dépasser les tensions inhérentes à l’hybridité entre économique, social ou solidaire ? Que doivent-elles inventer ? L’ouvrage se compose d’essais qui visent à défendre des points de vue sur des sujets récurrents et importants pour les entreprises sociales et solidaires. Ces derniers sont organisés en quatre thèmes : dépasser les tabous pour une gestion utile au projet social ou solidaire ; gestion pour et par la valeur sociale ; comment organiser durablement la gouvernance démocratique ; penser autrement la gestion des ressources humaines dans l’entreprise sociale et solidaire. Ces questions, nous l’espérons, feront sens et aideront tant dans la compréhension des phénomènes que dans la prise de décisions et la formation pour une gestion au service des entreprises sociales et solidaires.

Cross-boundary teaming, within and across organizations, is an increasingly popular strategy for innovation. Knowledge diversity is seen to expand the range of views and ideas that teams can draw upon to innovate. Yet, case studies reveal that teaming across knowledge boundaries can be difficult in practice, and innovation is not always realized. Two streams of research are particularly relevant for understanding the challenges inherent in cross-boundary teaming: research on team effectiveness and research on knowledge in organizations. They offer complementary insights: the former stream focuses on group dynamics and measures team inputs, processes, emergent states, and outcomes, while the latter closely investigates dialog and objects in recurrent social practices. Drawing from both streams, this paper seeks to shed light on the complexity of cross-boundary teaming, while highlighting factors that may enhance its effectiveness. We develop an integrative model to provide greater explanatory power than previous approaches to assess cross-boundary teaming efforts and their innovation performance.

Ce Guide pratique sur l’impact est une aventure entrepreneuriale qui a été facilitée par la contribution de trois organisations : la Fondation J. Armand Bombardier, la Fondation Mirella et Lino Saputo et la Caisse d’économie solidaire Desjardins.

The purpose of this paper is to present the factors that should be taken into consideration when assessing the level of acceptance of an ICT solution by the general public, as well as the innovating impact that such solution is expected to have at the level of society in the European Union. This involves the integration of social and technical skills and expertise, in order to gather the necessary feedback from the users in a clear and concise way. The final goal is to provide an online service that improves the quality of life and work of its users. In order to do so, such service needs to be capable of performing in a way that is as effortless as possible for the user, who will in turn be motivated to use it repeatedly. Moreover, the content of the online service must be able to address a social need in a way that is more efficient and novel than what has been available until then.

The purpose of this paper is to present the factors that should be taken into consideration when assessing the level of acceptance of an ICT solution by the general public, as well as the innovating impact that such solution is expected to have at the level of society in the European Union. This involves the integration of social and technical skills and expertise, in order to gather the necessary feedback from the users in a clear and concise way. The final goal is to provide an online service that improves the quality of life and work of its users. In order to do so, such service needs to be capable of performing in a way that is as effortless as possible for the user, who will in turn be motivated to use it repeatedly. Moreover, the content of the online service must be able to address a social need in a way that is more efficient and novel than what has been available until then.

This book efficiently contributes to our understanding of the interplay between data, technology and communicative practice on the one hand, and democratic participation on the other. It addresses the emergence of proactive data activism, a new sociotechnical phenomenon in the field of action that arises as a reaction to massive datafication, and makes affirmative use of data for advocacy and social change. By blending empirical observation and in-depth qualitative interviews, Gutiérrez brings to the fore a debate about the social uses of the data infrastructure and examines precisely how people employ it, in combination with other technologies, to collaborate and act for social change.

This book efficiently contributes to our understanding of the interplay between data, technology and communicative practice on the one hand, and democratic participation on the other. It addresses the emergence of proactive data activism, a new sociotechnical phenomenon in the field of action that arises as a reaction to massive datafication, and makes affirmative use of data for advocacy and social change. By blending empirical observation and in-depth qualitative interviews, Gutiérrez brings to the fore a debate about the social uses of the data infrastructure and examines precisely how people employ it, in combination with other technologies, to collaborate and act for social change.

The concept of co-creation includes a wide range of participatory practices for design and decision making with stakeholders and users. Generally co-creation refers to a style of design or business practice characterized by facilitated participation in orchestrated multi-stakeholder engagements, such as structured workshops and self-organizing modes of engagement. Co-creation envelopes a wide range of skilled social practices that can considerably inform and enhance the effectiveness of organizational development, collaboration, and positive group outcomes. New modes of co-creation have emerged, evolving from legacy forms of engagement such as participatory design and charrettes and newer forms such as collaboratories, generative design, sprints, and labs. Often sessions are structured by methods that recommend common steps or stages, as in design thinking workshops, and some are explicitly undirected and open. While practices abound, we find almost no research theorizing the effectiveness of these models compared to conventional structures of facilitation. As co-creation approaches have become central to systemic design, service design, and participatory design practices, a practice theory from which models might be selected and modified would offer value to practitioners and the literature. The framework that follows was evolved from and assessed by a practice theory of dialogic design. It is intended to guide the development of principles-based guidelines for co-creation practice, which might methodologically bridge the wide epistemological variances that remain unacknowledged in stakeholder co-creation practice.

The concept of co-creation includes a wide range of participatory practices for design and decision making with stakeholders and users. Generally co-creation refers to a style of design or business practice characterized by facilitated participation in orchestrated multi-stakeholder engagements, such as structured workshops and self-organizing modes of engagement. Co-creation envelopes a wide range of skilled social practices that can considerably inform and enhance the effectiveness of organizational development, collaboration, and positive group outcomes. New modes of co-creation have emerged, evolving from legacy forms of engagement such as participatory design and charrettes and newer forms such as collaboratories, generative design, sprints, and labs. Often sessions are structured by methods that recommend common steps or stages, as in design thinking workshops, and some are explicitly undirected and open. While practices abound, we find almost no research theorizing the effectiveness of these models compared to conventional structures of facilitation. As co-creation approaches have become central to systemic design, service design, and participatory design practices, a practice theory from which models might be selected and modified would offer value to practitioners and the literature. The framework that follows was evolved from and assessed by a practice theory of dialogic design. It is intended to guide the development of principles-based guidelines for co-creation practice, which might methodologically bridge the wide epistemological variances that remain unacknowledged in stakeholder co-creation practice.

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.

Cet article étudie les caractéristiques des structures de transfert technologique et des laboratoires d’innovation ouverte gérés par les universités et organismes de recherche. Il compare leurs rôles comme intermédiaires des relations science–entreprises en fonction des modes 2 et 3 de production des connaissances proposés par Etzkowitz & al (1997) et Carayannis & al (2009). Basée sur une comparaison de cas multiples en France, nous analysons leur rôle dans le développement des relations science-entreprise. Cet article identifie aussi les modes de coordination entre ces deux types d’intermédiaires. Dans certains cas, ils coordonnent leurs activités de manière ponctuelle alors que, dans d’autres cas, la complémentarité de leurs activités s’organise sur la durée.

Cet article étudie les caractéristiques des structures de transfert technologique et des laboratoires d’innovation ouverte gérés par les universités et organismes de recherche. Il compare leurs rôles comme intermédiaires des relations science–entreprises en fonction des modes 2 et 3 de production des connaissances proposés par Etzkowitz & al (1997) et Carayannis & al (2009). Basée sur une comparaison de cas multiples en France, nous analysons leur rôle dans le développement des relations science-entreprise. Cet article identifie aussi les modes de coordination entre ces deux types d’intermédiaires. Dans certains cas, ils coordonnent leurs activités de manière ponctuelle alors que, dans d’autres cas, la complémentarité de leurs activités s’organise sur la durée.

In social sciences, similarly to other fields, there is exponential growth of literature and textual data that people are no more able to cope with in a systematic manner. In many areas there is a need to catalogue knowledge and phenomena in a certain area. However, social science concepts and phenomena are complex and in many cases there is a dispute in the field between conflicting definitions. In this paper we present a method that catalogues a complex and disputed concept of social innovation by applying text mining and machine learning techniques. Recognition of social innovations is performed by decomposing a definitions into several more specific criteria (social objectives, social actor interactions, outputs and innovativeness). For each of these criteria, a machine learning-based classifier is created that checks whether certain text satisfies given criteria. The criteria can be successfully classified with an F1-score of 0.83–0.86. The presented method is flexible, since it allows combining criteria in a later stage in order to build and analyse the definition of choice.

In social sciences, similarly to other fields, there is exponential growth of literature and textual data that people are no more able to cope with in a systematic manner. In many areas there is a need to catalogue knowledge and phenomena in a certain area. However, social science concepts and phenomena are complex and in many cases there is a dispute in the field between conflicting definitions. In this paper we present a method that catalogues a complex and disputed concept of social innovation by applying text mining and machine learning techniques. Recognition of social innovations is performed by decomposing a definitions into several more specific criteria (social objectives, social actor interactions, outputs and innovativeness). For each of these criteria, a machine learning-based classifier is created that checks whether certain text satisfies given criteria. The criteria can be successfully classified with an F1-score of 0.83–0.86. The presented method is flexible, since it allows combining criteria in a later stage in order to build and analyse the definition of choice.