Rechercher

Cet article s’intéresse aux modes d’interactions entre recherches et société et à la prise en considération de la diversité des productions de connaissances et savoirs. Au lieu d’être fondées sur des relations verticales, où seuls les savoirs reconnus comme scientifiques sont vecteurs de progrès (voir l’article de Marcel Jollivet, p. 61), ces interactions peuvent prendre la forme de recherches participatives construites sur des relations plus horizontales qui font place aux savoirs expérientiels. Dans le premier cas, ces interactions sont des médiations à sens unique alors que, dans le second, il s’agit d’intermédiations au sein de collectifs hybrides réunissant chercheurs et acteurs de la société civile. Les échanges et rapports sociaux au sein de ces collectifs dépendent de « savoirs » radicalement différents, selon que l’on se situe à l’échelle individuelle ou sociétale

This chapter considers the role of universities in stimulating social innovation, and in particular the issue that despite possessing substantive knowledge that might be useful for stimulating social innovation, universities to date have not been widely engaged in social innovation activities in the context of Quadruple Helix developmental models. We explain this in terms of the institutional logics of engaged universities, in which entrepreneurial logics have emerged in recent decades, that frame the desirable forms of university-society engagement in terms of the economic benefits they bring. We ask whether institutional logics could explain this resistance of universities to social innovation. Drawing on two case studies of universities sincerely committed to supporting social innovation, we chart the effects of institutional logics on university-supported social innovation. We observe that there is a “missing middle” between enthusiastic managers and engaged professors, in which four factors serve to undermine social innovation activities becoming strategically important to HEIs. We conclude by noting that this missing middle also serves to segment the operation of Quadruple Helix relationships, thereby undermining university contributions to societal development more generally.

L’innovation sociale est largement considérée comme vertueuse. Cependant, le consensus qui semble régner en la matière vient de ce que les représentations et les pratiques englobées sous ce terme recouvrent un faisceau très diversifié d’approches et de réalités. Cette polysémie permet à de nombreux auteurs de se ranger sous une même bannière alors qu’ils ont des références et des orientations distinctes, voire divergentes. L’éloge unanime de l’innovation sociale ne saurait donc faire illusion. À cet égard, un travail introductif autour de l’innovation sociale a mis en évidence deux acceptions contrastées. La première version, qui peut être qualifiée de faible, aménage le système existant, insiste sur l’importance de l’épreuve marchande et valorise l’entreprise privée dans sa capacité à trouver de nouvelles solutions aux problèmes de société. La seconde version, qui peut être désignée comme forte, affiche une visée transformatrice ; elle prône, en réaction à la démesure du capitalisme marchand, une articulation inédite entre pouvoirs publics et société civile pour répondre aux défis écologiques et sociaux. La première se contente d’une amélioration du modèle économique dominant, l’innovation s’inscrivant dans une perspective réparatrice et fonctionnelle, tandis que la seconde a pour caractéristique un questionnement critique de ce modèle, et a pour horizon une démocratisation de la société.

Face à la conception technocratique et entrepreneuriale portée par les pouvoirs publics, une approche alternative de l’innovation sociale, plus populaire et moins visible, à travers l’exploration d’initiatives citoyennes. Prenant comme point de départ le constat d’une appropriation institutionnelle de l’innovation sociale, orientée vers la compétitivité et l’efficacité marchande des expériences de l’économie sociale et solidaire, l’ouvrage vise à la fois à apporter un regard critique sur cette conception de l’innovation sociale et à remettre en lumière des expérimentations citoyennes peu prises en compte par les pouvoirs publics. Il montre ainsi la nécessité d’un tournant épistémologique valorisant les dynamiques de coproduction des savoirs et des politiques entre acteurs, chercheurs et institutions.

Current social innovation initiatives towards societal transformations bring forward new ways of doing and organizing, but new ways of knowing as well. Their efforts towards realizing those are important sites for the investigation of contemporary tensions of expertise. The promotion of new, transformative ways of knowing typically involves a large bandwidth of claims to expertise. The attendant contestation is unfolded through the exemplar case of the Basic Income in which the historically evolved forms of academic political advocacy are increasingly accompanied by a new wave of activism. Crowd-funding initiatives, internet activists, citizen labs, petitions and referenda seek to realize the BI through different claims to expertise than previous attempts. Observing both the tensions between diverse claims to expertise and the overall co-production process through which the Basic Income is realized, this contribution concludes with reflections on the politics of expertise involved in transformative social innovation.

There are currently several social innovation initiatives being developed in isolation, where each one has its own path. In this context, actors want to collaborate and be coordinated in a network in order to increase the development and dissemination of social innovations. The use of collaboration mechanisms gives rise to the expectation that actors playing in groups tend to achieve quantitative and qualitative performance higher than individual performances. While the potential benefits of collaboration are recognized, effectively achieving collaboration is still a challenge for social innovation. In this context, the objective of this study is to identify how the concepts of collaboration are recognized in social innovation environments. In addition, we investigated which mechanisms are used and what are the difficulties faced by actors in this context. To do so, a survey research on the aspects of collaboration in social innovation environments was conducted. Results shown that engagement is the most cited challenge related to human factors; from 30 techniques mentioned, Design Thinking is the most applied; and from 41 tools, Google Drive is the most cited. Results from qualitative analysis shown that collaboration is considered essential to social innovation environments, although there are several challenges reported.

This article responds to increasing public and academic discourses on social innovation, which often rest on the assumption that social innovation can drive societal change and empower actors to deal with societal challenges and a retreating welfare state. In order to scrutinise this assumption, this article proposes a set of concepts to study the dynamics of transformative social innovation and underlying processes of multi-actor (dis)empowerment. First, the concept of transformative social innovation is unpacked by proposing four foundational concepts to help distinguish between different pertinent 'shades' of change and innovation: 1) social innovation, (2) system innovation, (3) game-changers, and (4) narratives of change. These concepts, invoking insights from transitions studies and social innovations literature, are used to construct a conceptual account of how transformative social innovation emerges as a co-evolutionary interaction between diverse shades of change and innovation. Second, the paper critically discusses the dialectic nature of multi-actor (dis)empowerment that underlies such processes of change and innovation. The paper then demonstrates how the conceptualisations are applied to three empirical case-studies of transformative social innovation: Impact Hub, Time Banks and Credit Unions. In the conclusion we synthesise how the concepts and the empirical examples help to understand contemporary shifts in societal power relations and the changing role of the welfare state.

Stanford is a quintessential entrepreneurial university, encouraging firm formation from existing knowledge that the university aggregates as well as new knowledge that it creates. Its founders implanted an academic institution, with scholarly and entrepreneurial ambitions, on a ranch where cattle still graze in the upper campus. In contrast to MIT's founding role in Boston, infusing new technology into an old industrial region's firms, Stanford assisted industrial development in an agricultural region and its industrial interlocutors raised the technical level of the university in mutually beneficial symbiosis (Lecuyer, 2007). The theory and practice of how to “make over” a university into an entrepreneurial actor has come to the forefront of academic and policy attention, internationally, with the European Union sponsoring development of the U-Multirank tool that includes the phenomenon (Van Vught and Ziegele, 2012) and a Brazilian post-graduate student project part of the ITHI Global Entrepreneurial University Metrics (GEUM) initiative that produced a dedicated entrepreneurial university metric (Nerves and Mancos, 2016). As an academic institution propelled to the forefront of global rankings (O'Malley, 2018), while helping create the world's leading high-tech region, Stanford University is in a radically different position from its late 19th century developing region origins. Should Stanford respond to dramatic shift in status and fortune by reverting to an Ivory Tower mode in response to critics who label it “Get Rich U.” (Auletta, 2012)? Or, should it double down on its entrepreneurial heritage and forge more extensive ties to Silicon Valley and other innovation hubs? In 2011, then Stanford President John Hennessy responded to former New York Mayor Bloomberg's request for proposal (RFP) for a university to establish an entrepreneurial campus. Intrigued by the prospect of engaging with the city's financial, art and media complexes, Stanford invested one million dollars in proposal development but eventually withdrew its bid in the face of faculty opposition to diversion of resources as well as Cornell University's munificent counter-offer in alliance with Israel's Technion (Hennessy, 2018). Instead, Hennessy inaugurated a program with an altruistic bent, funding international scholars who will, after pursuing advanced degrees at Stanford, “drive progress for humanity rather than for a select few.” Doubtless, these nascent social entrepreneurs will internalize Silicon Valley's optimistic ideology. Success, as well as entrepreneurial exuberance, creates blinders that suppress disconcerting events, at least temporarily. In the late 00's, generating 7–9 start-ups per annum, the highest rate of any university, Stanford ignored flaws in its technology transfer process that inhibited greater attainment. The research question generated may be stated as follows: how is a hidden innovation gap recognized and resolved? An attitude of, “if it's not broken don't fix it” had taken hold rather than the converse “If it's working well make it better.” Inventions that were too early-stage to be licensed and required translational research or a start-up, languished. The first author faced a dilemma in presenting such less than stellar results from a 2005 study of Stanford's Office of Technology Licensing (OTL) to the Dean of Research, its sponsor: how could such an analysis be taken seriously in the face of overweening achievement? The Dean's response was that, “OTL is not on our radar, they make more money each year.” Nevertheless, neophyte academic entrepreneurs had independently come to a similar conclusion as ours and were impelled to act. Their initiatives are the subject matter of this article. Skeptical of Stanford's relevance to aspiring universities, Jacob et al. (2003) hold that, “The reality of building an entrepreneurial university… is an arduous task for which there is no blueprint.” Yet, a potentially replicable organizational design may be discerned by changing the focal point from Silicon Valley's efflorescence to Stanford's entrepreneurial dynamic. The article proceeds as follows. Section 2 outlines a theoretical framework for the entrepreneurial university and reviews its literature. Section 3 presents a research design to investigate the “paradox of success,” its causes and cures. Section 4 presents a series of initiatives instituted to enhance the Stanford Innovation System. Section 5 formulates an organizational change thesis, linking design thinking to Institution Formation Sociology and social with technological innovation. Section 6 proposes policy measures to improve the Stanford Innovation System in particular and the entrepreneurial university model, in general. Finally, Section 6 sums up research insights, notes study limitations and outlines future research.

Society is at a crossroads. Interconnected systems, radical transparency, and rapidly increasing sophistication in skills, communications, and technologies provide a unique context for fostering social innovation at a planetary scale. We argue that unprecedented rates of systemic social change are possible for co-creating a future where humans and all life can thrive. Yet, this requires innovation in the conceptions, practice, teaching, and researching of social innovation itself to reimagine what it is and can be. As a multidisciplinary group of academics, practitioners, and educators, we integrate our perspectives on social innovation and humanistic management to suggest the notion of systemic social innovation. We introduce the concept of “transformative collaboration” as central to facilitating systemic social innovation and propose a multilevel model for accelerating systems change. We then develop an integrated framework for conceptualizing systemic social innovation. Four levels of social impact are identified, and these levels are bracketed with a call for transforming individual consciousness at the micro level and new collective mindsets at the macro level. Blooom is presented as a case study to illustrate transformative collaboration, demonstrate the role of mindset shift in practice, and introduce four key ingredients to systemic social innovation. Finally, a call to action is issued for social innovation practice, teaching, and research. Most importantly, we seek to inspire and accelerate systemic social innovation that enables the flourishing of every human being and all life on earth.

This article shows the diagnosis of the Interdisciplinary Rural Internship Program, PIRI, held in a university institution in order to identify elements to improve its implementation. The research is descriptive, with a mixed approach, where surveys and interviews were used to collect information. A sample of 214 students was considered, belonging to different programs of the Autonomous University Corporation of Nariño. The results indicate significant contributions from PIRI to the institutions and to the students who have participated in the program. PIRI is used in an educational space for students to develop skills and apply their knowledge on issues related to social innovation. However, there are also difficulties such as the low number of participants, together with the lack of clear procedures that allow an adequate articulation of the entities linked to PIRI. In this sense, a model was formulated to facilitate the university management of social innovation in the institution under study, which articulates the dependencies of entrepreneurship, research and social projection, so that the benefits are oriented both to the university community and to the territories.

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 21st century has brought a cornucopia of new knowledge and technologies. But there has been little progress in our ability to solve social problems using social innovation – the deliberate invention of new solutions to meet social needs - across the globe. Geoff Mulgan is a pioneer in the global field of social innovation. Building on his experience advising international governments, businesses and foundations, he explains how it provides answers to today’s global social, economic and sustainability issues. He argues for matching R&D in technology and science with a socially focused R&D and harnessing creative imagination on a larger scale than ever before. Weaving together history, ideas, policy and practice, he shows how social innovation is now coming of age, offering a comprehensive view of what can be done to solve the global social challenges we face.

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 examines the ways in which universities can play a crucial role in inclusive development, social innovation and social entrepreneurship. It aims to prove the importance of inclusive development and inclusive innovation on economic growth and demonstrate the ways in which universities can be pioneers in this area through initiatives in social responsibility and social innovation. For example, providing access to a university education without discrimination of race, gender, income status, or other factors would help to diminish the increasing income differentials currently being experienced in many countries, especially in the developing world. The research and studies included in this book provide insight into possible actions that can be taken by universities and public and private shareholders in inclusive development, social innovation, social entrepreneurship and overall regional economic and social development.

Following Kuhn, this article conceptualizes social entrepreneurship as a field of action in a pre–paradigmatic state that currently lacks an established epistemology. Using approaches from neo–institutional theory, this research focuses on the microstructures of legitimation that characterize the development of social entrepreneurship in terms of its key actors, discourses, and emerging narrative logics. This analysis suggests that the dominant discourses of social entrepreneurship represent legitimating material for resource–rich actors in a process of reflexive isomorphism. Returning to Kuhn, the article concludes by delineating a critical role for scholarly research on social entrepreneurship in terms of resolving conflicting discourses within its future paradigmatic development.

As we grapple with how to respond to some of the world’s most pressing problems, such as inequality, poverty and climate change, there is growing global interest in ‘social innovation’ as a potential solution. But what exactly is ‘social innovation’? This book describes three ways to theorise social innovation when seeking to manage and organize for both social and economic progress.

La dernière décennie a été marquée par une croissance mondiale du nombre d’initiatives d’innovation sociale lancées dans le secteur universitaire. Ces initiatives visent à résoudre des problèmes sociaux complexes et à induire des changements institutionnels et systémiques. Cette poussée de l’activité d’innovation sociale se produit sans une base de connaissances empiriques bien développée. Nous y contribuons en fournissant une description et une analyse complètes de toutes les initiatives d’innovation sociale auxquelles participe le secteur universitaire canadien, de leurs caractéristiques et du paysage qu’elles constituent. Résultats notables: près de la moitié des 96 universités canadiennes sont associées à au moins une initiative; de nombreuses initiatives sont interdisciplinaires et mettent l’accent sur la résolution de problèmes en collaboration avec des secteurs extérieurs à l’université; Les agences gouvernementales et les fondations caritatives sont les sources de financement les plus courantes. Les résultats suggèrent: il existe un potentiel de croissance de l’innovation sociale dans le secteur; il y a moins de liens internes et de regroupement d’initiatives que ne le recommande la théorie de l’innovation; l’accent mis sur la collaboration extérieure rejoint la «troisième mission» des universités, qui existe depuis longtemps, mais les innovateurs sociaux ont des objectifs, des méthodes et des processus distincts pour mener à bien cette mission. Nous concluons avec les orientations pour les recherches futures. Keywords / Mots clés: Universities; Higher education; Social innovation; Community engagement; Service mission; Social change; Canada / Universités; Établissements d’enseignement supérieur; Innovation sociale; Engagement communautaire; Mission de service; Changement social; Canada

L'Institut de statistique de l'UNESCO (ISU) est la source officielle et fiable de données comparables à l'échelle internationale sur l'éducation, la science, la culture et la communication. En tant qu'agence statistique officielle de l'UNESCO, l'ISU produit un large éventail de bases de données de pointe pour alimenter les politiques et les investissements nécessaires pour transformer des vies et propulser le monde vers ses objectifs de développement. L'ISU offre un accès gratuit aux données pour tous les pays et groupements régionaux de l'UNESCO de 1970 à la dernière année disponible. L'ISU encourage les développeurs et les chercheurs à créer des sites Web et des applications qui exploitent à fond les données de diffusion de l'ISU. En plus d'une puissante API basée sur des normes, l'ISU prend en charge un navigateur de données et un service de téléchargement de données en masse (BDDS).

Mosaic est le pôle multidisciplinaire de formation et de recherche d’HEC Montréal spécialisé en management de l’innovation et de la créativité. Mosaic est un accélérateur d’innovation et de créativité. La mission de Mosaic est d’aider les dirigeants et les organisations à relever le défi de l’innovation en s’inspirant de méthodologies issues de l’industrie créative, et en faisant évoluer leur pratique.

Waste generation, especially hazardous waste, can strongly affect the environment and human lives. There is an urgent need to implement sustainable hazardous waste management tools to reduce their harmful impact on the environment stemming from incorrect waste management. However, there is still a lack of business model concepts combining sustainable development and risk management in reverse logistic value chains for hazardous waste. Therefore, the authors develop a novel sustainable business model canvas for both an entity and the logistics system using the Osterwalder's Business Model Canvas integrated with the concept of sustainable development in economic, social and environmental areas (Triple Bottom Line, TBL) and risk-related elements. Then, using the developed sustainable business model canvas, the model for the logistics system for the treatment of hazardous waste containing asbestos was successfully created. The model was implemented in the prototype of computer software in the form of electronic network services.