Votre recherche

Methodology for systematic literature reviews (SLRs) is not well developed in public policy compared to the health field. This paper explores use of the health PRISMA protocol for SLRs to guide an SLR of antecedents of trailblazing and adoption of public policy innovation and whether it is a suitable protocol for public policy. Trailblazing is the first two stages—invention and early adoption—of Rogers’ (1995) five stages of innovation adoption in a governmental or organizational population. Completing applicable items in the checklist, a SLR of 87 peerreviewed publications identified 594 antecedents; trailblazing/adoption and empirical/nonempirical studies are distinguished and the theories reflected are identified.

Are the antecedents identified in trailblazing/adoption and quantitative/qualitative public policy innovation studies similar or different? This quantitative study answers this question by identifying, categorizing and analyzing their antecedents, identified in a systematic literature review (SLR). Trailblazing is the first three adoptions of an innovation in its population/ community, adoption is all adoptions, in any organization. If their antecedents were different, this would lend credibility to the idea that they are different phenomena. The criteria for inclusion in the SLR were met by 87 publications; 594 antecedents were identified. Analysis identified 508 unique antecedents, 28 grouped antecedents, 5 factors and 3 clusters.

Are the antecedents identified in trailblazing/adoption and quantitative/qualitative public policy innovation studies similar or different? This quantitative study answers this question by identifying, categorizing and analyzing their antecedents, identified in a systematic literature review (SLR). Trailblazing is the first three adoptions of an innovation in its population/ community, adoption is all adoptions, in any organization. If their antecedents were different, this would lend credibility to the idea that they are different phenomena. The criteria for inclusion in the SLR were met by 87 publications; 594 antecedents were identified. Analysis identified 508 unique antecedents, 28 grouped antecedents, 5 factors and 3 clusters.

A systematic literature review (SLR) of antecedents of trailblazing and adoption of public policy innovation was conducted. Many antecedents were found—594. A terminology and classification system for them was therefore developed (unique antecedents-508, grouped antecedents-28, factors-15, clusters-3). Differences among trailblazing/adoption and quantitative/qualitative studies were explored six ways. Eleven grouped antecedents of trailblazing were importantly different from those of adoption, 17 were not. Grouped antecedents of quantitative and qualitative studies were not importantly different and so were used as the standard. Only trailblazing had different antecedents from the other three types of study (adoption, quantitative, qualitative). Eight grouped antecedents were the best indicators of policy innovation. Of the three clusters of antecedents, external and internal cluster grouped antecedents were equally important for all four kinds of study; political cluster antecedents were different for trailblazing. Although there was no one best political indicator (large difference from adoption) for trailblazing, political cluster was more important for trailblazing than adoption. Political cluster was higher (had a higher proportion of mentions) and internal cluster lower for trailblazing; political cluster was lower and internal cluster higher for adoption. The important antecedents for public policy innovation were compared to those for the private/public sector, public process/policy and public/social innovation: Differences were found. The best antecedent indicators of trailblazing of policy innovation identified in the literature were external environment, drivers, obstacles (external) and people (internal).

A systematic literature review (SLR) of antecedents of trailblazing and adoption of public policy innovation was conducted. Many antecedents were found—594. A terminology and classification system for them was therefore developed (unique antecedents-508, grouped antecedents-28, factors-15, clusters-3). Differences among trailblazing/adoption and quantitative/qualitative studies were explored six ways. Eleven grouped antecedents of trailblazing were importantly different from those of adoption, 17 were not. Grouped antecedents of quantitative and qualitative studies were not importantly different and so were used as the standard. Only trailblazing had different antecedents from the other three types of study (adoption, quantitative, qualitative). Eight grouped antecedents were the best indicators of policy innovation. Of the three clusters of antecedents, external and internal cluster grouped antecedents were equally important for all four kinds of study; political cluster antecedents were different for trailblazing. Although there was no one best political indicator (large difference from adoption) for trailblazing, political cluster was more important for trailblazing than adoption. Political cluster was higher (had a higher proportion of mentions) and internal cluster lower for trailblazing; political cluster was lower and internal cluster higher for adoption. The important antecedents for public policy innovation were compared to those for the private/public sector, public process/policy and public/social innovation: Differences were found. The best antecedent indicators of trailblazing of policy innovation identified in the literature were external environment, drivers, obstacles (external) and people (internal).

Despite recommendations for more quantitative analyses of public sector innovation factors (Glor, 2014a; de Vries, Bekker and Tummers, 2016), there has been limited examination of them. This paper identifies and explores six factors (ideology, politics, the economy, external support, resources, effects) that influenced the introduction and survival or termination of the first time these public sector innovations and their five organizations (I&O) were introduced in North America. It assesses their key antecedent factors before creation (Time 1) and the same factors again at the time of their fate 15 to 44 years later (Time 2). They were assessed with a new measurement instrument examining the six factors (Glor, 2017a). The tool has 1267 statements (items) and 555 pairs of data, with scoring distributed on a five-point Likert scale. Three expert raters completed the instrument (Glor, 2017b). Based on mean scores, the most important factors in Time 1 (creation of I&O) were found to be the economy, resources, effects and external support and in Time 2 (survival/termination) ideology and politics. This methodology could potentially be used to study the remaining 154 Government of Saskatchewan (GoS) population’s innovations and that of other populations.

Despite recommendations for more quantitative analyses of public sector innovation factors (Glor, 2014a; de Vries, Bekker and Tummers, 2016), there has been limited examination of them. This paper identifies and explores six factors (ideology, politics, the economy, external support, resources, effects) that influenced the introduction and survival or termination of the first time these public sector innovations and their five organizations (I&O) were introduced in North America. It assesses their key antecedent factors before creation (Time 1) and the same factors again at the time of their fate 15 to 44 years later (Time 2). They were assessed with a new measurement instrument examining the six factors (Glor, 2017a). The tool has 1267 statements (items) and 555 pairs of data, with scoring distributed on a five-point Likert scale. Three expert raters completed the instrument (Glor, 2017b). Based on mean scores, the most important factors in Time 1 (creation of I&O) were found to be the economy, resources, effects and external support and in Time 2 (survival/termination) ideology and politics. This methodology could potentially be used to study the remaining 154 Government of Saskatchewan (GoS) population’s innovations and that of other populations.

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.

Indigenous communities across Canada have established principles to guide ethical research within their respective communities. Thorough cataloging and description of these would inform university research ethics boards, researchers, and scholars and facilitate meaningful research that respects Indigenous-defined ethical values. A scoping study was conducted of all relevant peer-reviewed literature and public-facing Indigenous research ethical guidelines from First Nations, Metis, and Inuit communities and organizations in Canada. A total of 20 different Indigenous research ethics boards, frameworks, and protocols were identified. Analysis resulted in three key themes: (1) balancing individual and collective rights; (2) upholding culturally-grounded ethical principles; and (3) ensuring community-driven/self-determined research. Findings demonstrate how employment of Indigenous ethical principles in research positively contributes to research outcomes.

Background Social innovations in health are inclusive solutions to address the healthcare delivery gap that meet the needs of end users through a multi-stakeholder, community-engaged process. While social innovations for health have shown promise in closing the healthcare delivery gap, more research is needed to evaluate, scale up, and sustain social innovation. Research checklists can standardize and improve reporting of research findings, promote transparency, and increase replicability of study results and findings. Methods and findings The research checklist was developed through a 3-step community-engaged process, including a global open call for ideas, a scoping review, and a 3-round modified Delphi process. The call for entries solicited checklists and related items and was open between November 27, 2019 and February 1, 2020. In addition to the open call submissions and scoping review findings, a 17-item Social Innovation For Health Research (SIFHR) Checklist was developed based on the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) Checklist. The checklist was then refined during 3 rounds of Delphi surveys conducted between May and June 2020. The resulting checklist will facilitate more complete and transparent reporting, increase end-user engagement, and help assess social innovation projects. A limitation of the open call was requiring internet access, which likely discouraged participation of some subgroups. Conclusions The SIFHR Checklist will strengthen the reporting of social innovation for health research studies. More research is needed on social innovation for health.

Social innovation (SI) is a promising concept that has been developed and mobilized in academia, government policies, philanthropic programs, entrepreneurial projects. Scholars propose multiple conceptions and categorization of what is SI (trajectories, approaches, theoretical strands, paradigms, streams). Some recent work has also addressed the question of who is doing SI. In both cases, the what and the who remain the key characteristic of SI. Two approaches are confronted: one where SI is more presented as a concept that reproduces the neoliberal–capitalist societies; a second that conceives SI as a transformative and emancipatory pathway. With this article, I contribute to the possibilities to conceive SI as performative concept. My proposition is to analyze SI as a discourse with precise performative practices and apparatus. By doing so, it allows scholars and practitioners to better reflect and identify the effects, tensions and ambivalence and possibilities of SI. Moreover, it gives us few key aspects of what might constitute an emancipatory social innovation.

Social innovation (SI) is a promising concept that has been developed and mobilized in academia, government policies, philanthropic programs, entrepreneurial projects. Scholars propose multiple conceptions and categorization of what is SI (trajectories, approaches, theoretical strands, paradigms, streams). Some recent work has also addressed the question of who is doing SI. In both cases, the what and the who remain the key characteristic of SI. Two approaches are confronted: one where SI is more presented as a concept that reproduces the neoliberal–capitalist societies; a second that conceives SI as a transformative and emancipatory pathway. With this article, I contribute to the possibilities to conceive SI as performative concept. My proposition is to analyze SI as a discourse with precise performative practices and apparatus. By doing so, it allows scholars and practitioners to better reflect and identify the effects, tensions and ambivalence and possibilities of SI. Moreover, it gives us few key aspects of what might constitute an emancipatory social innovation.

Although healthcare managers make increasingly difficult decisions about health innovations, the way they may interact with innovators to foster health system sustainability remains underexplored. Drawing on the Responsible Innovation in Health (RIH) framework, this paper analyses interviews ( n=37) with Canadian and Brazilian innovators to identify: how they operationalize inclusive design processes; what influences the responsiveness of their innovation to system-level challenges; and how they consider the level and intensity of care required by their innovation. Our qualitative findings indicate that innovators seek to: 1) engage stakeholders at an early ideation stage through context-specific methods combining both formal and informal strategies; 2) address specific system-level benefits but often struggle with the positioning of their solution within the health system; and 3) mitigate staff shortages in specialized care, increase general practitioners’ capacity or patients and informal caregivers’ autonomy. These findings provide empirical insights on how healthcare managers can promote and organize collaborative processes that harness innovation towards more sustainable health systems. By adopting a RIH-oriented managerial role, they can set in place more inclusive design processes, articulate key system-level challenges, and help innovators adjust the level and intensity of care required by their innovation.

Although healthcare managers make increasingly difficult decisions about health innovations, the way they may interact with innovators to foster health system sustainability remains underexplored. Drawing on the Responsible Innovation in Health (RIH) framework, this paper analyses interviews ( n=37) with Canadian and Brazilian innovators to identify: how they operationalize inclusive design processes; what influences the responsiveness of their innovation to system-level challenges; and how they consider the level and intensity of care required by their innovation. Our qualitative findings indicate that innovators seek to: 1) engage stakeholders at an early ideation stage through context-specific methods combining both formal and informal strategies; 2) address specific system-level benefits but often struggle with the positioning of their solution within the health system; and 3) mitigate staff shortages in specialized care, increase general practitioners’ capacity or patients and informal caregivers’ autonomy. These findings provide empirical insights on how healthcare managers can promote and organize collaborative processes that harness innovation towards more sustainable health systems. By adopting a RIH-oriented managerial role, they can set in place more inclusive design processes, articulate key system-level challenges, and help innovators adjust the level and intensity of care required by their innovation.

The concepts of entrepreneurship and citizenship intersect more and more in the educational projects of social entrepreneurship. In this article, we have analyzed an experiment conducted by a nonprofit organization whose mission is to increase citizen participation. We are interested in the discourses and tools that it has mobilized for training in social entrepreneurship. Our objective is to uncover the norms and values underlying the conception of citizenship transmitted through the training. We show that there are tensions between the aims of democratic citizenship promoted by the organization and the concept of the citizen that underlies training in social entrepreneurship. Our contribution is twofold: 1) We enrich the literature on education for democratic citizenship by analyzing a new approach, that of education in social entrepreneurship; 2) We take a critical look at the concept of social entrepreneurship when it is used in training for democratic citizenship by analyzing this practice and framing it within the field of social innovation

Dans le document de réflexion et de consultation L’université québécoise du futur, Rémi Quirion, le scientifique en chef du Québec, expose les assises nécessaires à une réflexion de plus grande ampleur sur l’avenir des universités au Québec. Ces assises se déclinent en six points : les tendances susceptibles d’influencer les universités du futur; les éléments importants de l’évolution du système universitaire québécois depuis la fin du XXe siècle; une réflexion concernant plusieurs aspects de la mission universitaire, dont les conditions nécessaires à son accomplissement; les préoccupations fondamentales devant l’inspirer (dont trois nouveaux enjeux pour les universités); une synthèse des différents constats sur lesquels fonder les principales pistes d’action susceptibles de concourir à la pertinence continue de l’institution universitaire. Ces pistes sont celles sur lesquelles le gouvernement propose aux Québécois de se prononcer dans le cadre de consultations en cours et ultérieures. Après avoir présenté le contexte de préparation et le contenu du rapport L’université québécoise du futur, nous exposerons les constats et les recommandations qui en sont issues de la part du scientifique en chef.

Dans le document de réflexion et de consultation L’université québécoise du futur, Rémi Quirion, le scientifique en chef du Québec, expose les assises nécessaires à une réflexion de plus grande ampleur sur l’avenir des universités au Québec. Ces assises se déclinent en six points : les tendances susceptibles d’influencer les universités du futur; les éléments importants de l’évolution du système universitaire québécois depuis la fin du XXe siècle; une réflexion concernant plusieurs aspects de la mission universitaire, dont les conditions nécessaires à son accomplissement; les préoccupations fondamentales devant l’inspirer (dont trois nouveaux enjeux pour les universités); une synthèse des différents constats sur lesquels fonder les principales pistes d’action susceptibles de concourir à la pertinence continue de l’institution universitaire. Ces pistes sont celles sur lesquelles le gouvernement propose aux Québécois de se prononcer dans le cadre de consultations en cours et ultérieures. Après avoir présenté le contexte de préparation et le contenu du rapport L’université québécoise du futur, nous exposerons les constats et les recommandations qui en sont issues de la part du scientifique en chef.

Inspired by the South American research tradition known as “social technology,” this article proposes an operational framework to advance the understanding of mechanisms that help to promote social transformation. To illustrate its theorizing potential, we apply the framework to a nonprofit organization–Parole d’excluEs–that was created in Montreal (Canada) in 2006 and that has been promoting citizen mobilization and commitment to social change (parole-dexclues.ca). To that end, we offer a theoretical paper with an empirical illustration as a first step in a reflection on employing a global South theoretical lens–drawing on the concept of social technology–to make sense of a global North social innovation experience and to advance existing knowledge on the mechanisms of social transformation. The results contribute to social innovation research and practice, particularly at the interface between the management and nonprofit literatures.

The purpose of this paper is to explore multiple Canadian educators' experiences with the Map the System (MTS) competition, designed to foster and grow systems thinking capacity among students exploring complex questions. The challenge has been an opportunity for social innovation programs (from the nascent to the established) across Canadian post-secondaries to engage both with their own communities and with social innovators internationally, connecting social innovation spaces as part of their third mission. Across the organizations, students valued the interdisciplinary and systems thinking qualities, and organizations benefited from the external competition, there remain questions about organizational engagement in social innovation as a deeply transformative process internally. Design/methodology/approach All Canadian post-secondary institutions who participated in the 2020 MTS competition (17) were invited to a digital roundtable to discuss their experiences. Ten were able to participate, representing a range of post-secondaries (including large research institutions, undergraduate-only universities and colleges). To facilitate discussion, participants met to discuss format and topics; for the roundtable itself, participant educators used a google form to capture their experiences. These were summarized, anonymized and redistributed for validation and clarification. To reflect this collaborative approach, all participant educators are listed as authors on this paper, alphabetically after the organizing authors. Findings For students participating in MTS, they have built both their interdisciplinary and systems thinking skills, as well as their commitment to achieving meaningful change in their community. But MTS arrived in fertile environments and acted as an accelerant, driving attention, validation and connection. Yet while this might align with post-secondary education’s third mission, educators expressed concerns about sustainability, internal commitment to change and navigating tensions between a challenge approach and collaborative work, and internal work and national competition limitations. This complicates the simple insertion of MTS in a post-secondary’s social innovation-related third mission. Research limitations/implications This study was limited to Canadian post-secondaries participating in MTS, and therefore are not representative of either post-secondaries in Canada, or all the MTS participants although Canada is well represented in the challenge itself. Additionally, while the authors believe their approach to treat all participants as authors, and ensured multiple feedback opportunities in private and collectively, this is a deliberate and potentially controversial move away from a traditional study. Social implications More than half of Canadian universities (a subgroup of post-secondaries) had at least one social innovation initiative, but questions have been raised about whether these initiatives are being evaluated internally, or are triggering the kinds of transformative internal work that might be an outcome. Understanding the impact of MTS one example of a social innovation-related initiative can help advance the broader conversation about the place (s) for social innovation in the post-secondary landscape – and where there is still significant work to be done. Originality/value As Canada has only participated in MTS for four years, this is the first inter-institution consideration of its related opportunities and obstacles as a vehicle for transformational social innovation. As well, educators talking openly and frankly to educators reinforces the collaborative quality of social innovation across the post-secondary landscape.

The purpose of this paper is to explore multiple Canadian educators' experiences with the Map the System (MTS) competition, designed to foster and grow systems thinking capacity among students exploring complex questions. The challenge has been an opportunity for social innovation programs (from the nascent to the established) across Canadian post-secondaries to engage both with their own communities and with social innovators internationally, connecting social innovation spaces as part of their third mission. Across the organizations, students valued the interdisciplinary and systems thinking qualities, and organizations benefited from the external competition, there remain questions about organizational engagement in social innovation as a deeply transformative process internally. Design/methodology/approach All Canadian post-secondary institutions who participated in the 2020 MTS competition (17) were invited to a digital roundtable to discuss their experiences. Ten were able to participate, representing a range of post-secondaries (including large research institutions, undergraduate-only universities and colleges). To facilitate discussion, participants met to discuss format and topics; for the roundtable itself, participant educators used a google form to capture their experiences. These were summarized, anonymized and redistributed for validation and clarification. To reflect this collaborative approach, all participant educators are listed as authors on this paper, alphabetically after the organizing authors. Findings For students participating in MTS, they have built both their interdisciplinary and systems thinking skills, as well as their commitment to achieving meaningful change in their community. But MTS arrived in fertile environments and acted as an accelerant, driving attention, validation and connection. Yet while this might align with post-secondary education’s third mission, educators expressed concerns about sustainability, internal commitment to change and navigating tensions between a challenge approach and collaborative work, and internal work and national competition limitations. This complicates the simple insertion of MTS in a post-secondary’s social innovation-related third mission. Research limitations/implications This study was limited to Canadian post-secondaries participating in MTS, and therefore are not representative of either post-secondaries in Canada, or all the MTS participants although Canada is well represented in the challenge itself. Additionally, while the authors believe their approach to treat all participants as authors, and ensured multiple feedback opportunities in private and collectively, this is a deliberate and potentially controversial move away from a traditional study. Social implications More than half of Canadian universities (a subgroup of post-secondaries) had at least one social innovation initiative, but questions have been raised about whether these initiatives are being evaluated internally, or are triggering the kinds of transformative internal work that might be an outcome. Understanding the impact of MTS one example of a social innovation-related initiative can help advance the broader conversation about the place (s) for social innovation in the post-secondary landscape – and where there is still significant work to be done. Originality/value As Canada has only participated in MTS for four years, this is the first inter-institution consideration of its related opportunities and obstacles as a vehicle for transformational social innovation. As well, educators talking openly and frankly to educators reinforces the collaborative quality of social innovation across the post-secondary landscape.