Votre recherche

Over the last ten years or so, “social in novation” has become a catchword in some sociological writings and in studies of innovation. The concept is generally presented as new, at least compared to technological innovation, which dates back to the 1940s. Yet the concept of social innovation is in fact two hundred years old. This paper documents the origins of social innovation as a category and its development over the last two centuries. It suggests that social innovation owes its origin to socialism in the nineteenth century and its resurrection in the twenty-first century to technological innovation. The paper analyzes three key moments, or different meanings of social innovation over time: socialism, then social reform, then alternatives to ‘established’ solutions to social needs. The paper concludes with reflections on the residue of these ideas in current theories of social innovation

This book is about the many ways in which people are creating new and more effective answers to the biggest challenges of our times: how to cut our carbon footprint; how to keep people healthy; how to end poverty. It describes the methods and tools for innovation being used across the world and across the different sectors – the public and private sectors, civil society and the household – and in the overlapping fields of the social economy, social entrepreneurship and social enterprise. It draws on inputs from hundreds of organisations around the world to document the many methods currently being used. In other fields, methods for innovation are well-understood. In medicine, science, and business, there are widely accepted ideas, tools and approaches. But despite the richness and vitality of social innovation, there is little comparable in the social field. Most people trying to innovate are aware of only a fraction of the methods they could be using. This book provides a first mapping of these methods and of the conditions that will enable social innovation to flourish.

The importance of university social responsibility (USR) is given by the commitment assumed by the university towards its stakeholders. This study aims at providing new insights on this topic, by analyzing the level of performance in USR that universities communicate. To this end, a structured procedure in five phases is proposed, analyzing elements of the strategic direction and considering the use of USR indicators which are grouped in the four main areas of impact (organizational, educational, cognitive and social). To do this, a qualitative approach has been followed, supported by the use of text analysis software as well as by frequency and spider diagrams. To illustrate its use and the type of analysis it allows, the procedure is applied to the case of the Catalan higher education system, presenting the results at different levels. The study ends with the discussion of the implications, a list of recommendations and suggestion for future works.

Digital innovation is ever more present and increasingly integrated into citizen science research. However, smartphones and other connected devices come with specific features and characteristics and, in consequence, raise particular ethical issues. This article addresses this important intersection of citizen science and the Internet of Things by focusing on how such ethical issues are communicated in scholarly literature. To answer this research question, this article presents a scoping review of published scientific studies or case studies of scientific studies that utilize both citizen scientists and Internet of Things devices. Specifically, this scoping review protocol retrieved studies where the authors had included at least a short discussion of the ethical issues encountered during the research process. A full text analysis of relevant articles conducted inductively and deductively identified three main categories of ethical issues being communicated: autonomy and data privacy, data quality, and intellectual property. Based on these categories, this review offers an overview of the legal and social innovation implications raised. This review also provides recommendations for researchers who wish to innovatively integrate citizen scientists and Internet of Things devices into their research based on the strategies researchers took to resolve these ethical issues.

An array of new programs gives students an opportunity to tackle issues of importance to their local communities.

We sought to co-develop an assessment questionnaire that will allow AI developers, government, and tech-enabled civil society organizations (CSOs) to gauge the level of civic empowerment in their AI system(s) (see Section 4). We categorized the contributions from attendees in terms of existential, epistemic, process-based and a few ready-to-go assessment questions. Our hope was that this set of questions could eventually augment AI certification, audit, and risk assessment tools. At this stage, instead of generating a simple list of best practices, our assessment questionnaire serves to “open Pandora’s box,” explicating the diversity of positions, confronting the challenge in synthesis and implementation, and moving towards meaningful and not merely performative empowerment.

Collaboration can be challenging work. We convene colleagues together and try to work collaboratively, often providing only limited support and resources to move the collective effort forward. It is no wonder that the experience of collaboration can be frustrating.

This study examined the role of Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) in promoting, creating, and sustaining social innovation. Recently, HEIs have extended their contribution beyond the traditional function of teaching and research to perform in socio-economic problem-solving. Considering the increasing trends of higher education involvement in social innovation practices, this study tries to examine the tools such as learning processes and systemic thinking approach that could be helpful to align the function and responsibilities of HEIs towards social innovation. The objective is to develop a theoretical understanding of the "co-creation for social innovation" concept and to understand the functions and activities of HEIs that can contribute to this process. To promote co-creation for social innovation, HEIs should actively encourage collaborative learning tools that focus on open platforms for collective action and systemic change that help them to engage with society and strengthen their collaboration with social actors. Different activities such as mutual learning and knowledge diffusion using a transdisciplinary approach, technology-based learning and collaboration, and relational transformation are key enablers that can promote social innovation.

An exploration of how design might be led by marginalized communities, dismantle structural inequality, and advance collective liberation and ecological survival. What is the relationship between design, power, and social justice? "Design justice" is an approach to design that is led by marginalized communities and that aims explicitly to challenge, rather than reproduce, structural inequalities. It has emerged from a growing community of designers in various fields who work closely with social movements and community-based organizations around the world. This book explores the theory and practice of design justice, demonstrates how universalist design principles and practices erase certain groups of people--specifically, those who are intersectionally disadvantaged or multiply burdened under the matrix of domination (white supremacist heteropatriarchy, ableism, capitalism, and settler colonialism)--and invites readers to "build a better world, a world where many worlds fit; linked worlds of collective liberation and ecological sustainability." Along the way, the book documents a multitude of real-world community-led design practices, each grounded in a particular social movement. Design Justice goes beyond recent calls for design for good, user-centered design, and employment diversity in the technology and design professions; it connects design to larger struggles for collective liberation and ecological survival.

La multiplication des innovations techno-scientifiques marque de façon toute particulière le monde contemporain. Quel statut doit-on leur accorder? L’espace actuel de la réflexion critique ne les rend-il pas d’emblée suspectes, sujettes à condamnation, coupables d’une perte de lien social et d’humanité? Axées sur l’efficacité, porteuses d’uniformisation et de contraintes à l’expression du subjectif, ces innovations ne sont-elles pas, par nature, déshumanisantes? Dans cet article, l’auteure tente d’ouvrir d’autres espaces de réflexion pour penser les techno-sciences et la façon dont elles interviennent dans le débat sur la déshumanisation et la réhumanisation. Tirant profit d’une recherche à travers laquelle elle a suivi le travail d’invention d’une nouvelle méthode contraceptive, l’auteure fait valoir la portée, mais aussi les difficultés, d’une démarche qui met en doute les frontières apparemment hermétiques et infranchissables entre ce qui relève du monde des choses et ce qui relève de l’humain.

La Maison de l'innovation sociale (MIS) a pour mission d'éliminer les obstacles qui se dressent entre une idée à impact social positif et sa mise en oeuvre. L’innovation sociale est une approche qui permet de s’attaquer de manière intégrée aux problèmes complexes et de tirer profit du plein potentiel des communautés, d’une meilleure utilisation de leurs actifs et de leurs ressources, tout en renforçant simultanément leur capacité d’action pour favoriser leur émancipation. N’est-ce pas là la clé d’un avenir meilleur ?

Dans le cadre des parcours d’accompagnement et des services offerts par la MIS, nous proposons divers outils afin de soutenir les porteurs et porteuses de projets à fort impact social et environnemental.

The best tools and techniques for you to grow your startup, curated by District 3. Base de données en entreprenariat et innovation sociale

L’histoire a vu son lot d’innovations technologiques et scientifiques dans toutes les époques et sphères de la société : dans les sciences, le transport, les infrastructures, la technologie, les communications et d’autres encore.

Context Partnership between patients and health-care professionals (HCPs) is a concept that needs a valid, practical measure to facilitate its use by patients and HCPs. Objective To co-construct a tool for measuring the degree of partnership between patients and HCPs. Design The CADICEE tool was developed in four steps: (1) generate key dimensions of patient partnership in clinical care; (2) co-construct the tool; (3) assess face and content validity from patients’ and HCPs’ viewpoints; and (4) assess the usability of the tool and explore its measurement performance. Results The CADICEE tool comprises 24 items under 7 dimensions: 1) relationship of Confidence or trust between the patient and the HCPs; 2) patient Autonomy; 3) patient participation in Decisions related to care; 4) shared Information on patient health status or care; 5) patient personal Context; 6) Empathy; and 7) recognition of Expertise. Assessment of the tool's usability and measurement performance showed, in a convenience sample of 246 patients and relatives, high face validity, acceptability and relevance for both patients and HCPs, as well as good construct validity. Conclusions The CADICEE tool is developed in co-construction with patients to evaluate the degree of partnership in care desired by patients in their relationship with HCPs. The tool can be used in various clinical contexts and in different health-care settings. Patient or Public Contribution Patients were involved in determining the importance of constructing this questionnaire. They co-constructed it, pre-tested it and were part of the entire questionnaire development process. Three patients participated in the writing of the article.

Titre officiel : Recommandations du Groupe directeur chargé de la co-création de la stratégie d'innovation sociale et de finance sociale Le Canada est une terre d'innovateurs. Notre pays a une riche tradition d'innovation à des fins sociales et environnementales, que l'on pense aux peuples autochtones dont les sociétés ont prospéré grâce à l'interdépendance de leur culture et à leur ingéniosité, aux caisses populaires établies au tournant du 20e siècle pour assurer l'accès au crédit dans leur région ou encore aux premiers réseaux de bénévoles et de donateurs qui ont fait leur apparition pendant la Première Guerre mondiale pour recueillir les fonds à l'appui de leurs collectivités. Aujourd'hui, plus que jamais, nous devons tirer parti de cet esprit novateur. Les défis sociaux, économiques et environnementaux complexes auxquels fait face notre pays – l'itinérance, les changements climatiques, l'emploi des jeunes et la crise des opioïdes, pour ne nommer que ceux-là – exigent de la créativité et des solutions transformatrices. Si nous voulons faire mieux, il nous incombe de travailler différemment.

L'inventeur isolé n'existe pas vraiment. Les inventions sont souvent simultanées et collectives. Mieux, avancent les plus récents travaux d'Eric von Hippel, les utilisateurs sont les premiers innovateurs. Certes, leurs conceptions ne forment pas nécessairement des produits : il faut pour cela que l'industrie s'y intéresse. Mais avec les nouvelles formes de contributions permises par l'internet, c'est la forme même de l'innovation qui est transformée. Désormais son paradigme repose sur l'ouverture et la participation. Des formes proches de l'auto-organisation, qui nécessitent une forte adaptation des entreprises pour apprendre à "perdre le contrôle". L'innovation via l'internet montre qu'il n'y a pas d'innovation sans lien social et que l'accélération de l'innovation actuelle est certainement plus à mettre au bénéfice des nouvelles sociabilités que des nouvelles technologies.

notes bibliographiques L'auteur souligne l'importance de l'innovation sociale pour, s'il est possible, échapper à ce qu'il appelle le Niagara historique, à savoir la mondialisation d el'économie et l'emprise de la technoscience.

Tant que l'on ne considère pas dès l'abord, la durée comme constitutant interne de "l'objet sociologique", toute réflexion sur cet objet-phénomène est impossible. La temporalité incluse dans notre perception est une "réalité" de sens commun qui permet à l'imaginaire social de fonctionner comme générateur d'images". Le progrès technique est considéré comme une suite de possibles, de hasards associés qui créent la condition de l'existence d'un objet technique. L'innovation technologique n'est cependant facteur de changement que si une création socio-culturelle se produit autour d'elle.

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.