Rechercher

Recent studies regarding Social Innovation (SI) represent a small percentage of the academic research, and as a consequence the methodologies, focuses, and practices about this topic have not been consolidated. The social innovations generate intangible benefits, mainly qualitative, which makes it difficult to evaluate, even though few authors have indicated the distinguishable characteristics of SI there is not consensus about how to measure it. This document presents the results of a research project with the main objective of identifying the criteria distinguishing SI, and to propose a tool to facilitate its measurement, tracing, and potential assessment. A systematic criteria revision was performed along with a comparative study of eight SI projects from Latin America, prioritizing such criteria. With this information a proposal was developed, including the criteria, associated questions and ponderations. In order to validate the utility of this tool, the evaluation of the project "Implementation of a Solar-Eolic hybrid system in a school in remoted and insolated areas" was performed. The evaluation process allowed to inquire and discover the weaknesses and to explore the limiting causes for every criterion, giving place for recommendations directed to the developers and beneficiaries of the project. Throughout this tool it can be determined whether a project can be considered a successful SI or not; in case of not being successful, the method exerts a simple view of the characteristics that need improvement.

This chapter is about evidence and whether we can, or should, know our impact, the effect we have in the world. It addresses the difficulties as well as the possibilities of evidence for innovators and politicians, civil servants and head teachers, charities and doctors. I also touch on the question at the level of daily life, the moral question of whether we help those around us to be healthier, happier and more prosperous. Knowing our own impacts is, I argue, as much a moral prerogative as the traditional philosophical injunction of knowing ourselves.The enlightenment storyMany of us imbibed from an early age what can be called the enlightenment story. In this story new knowledge is steadily accumulated, mainly in universities and from academic journals. Theories are invented, tested, refuted and then improved. Scepticism helps to refine them and, as Wittgenstein wrote, the child first learns belief and only then learns doubt. You could say that at school we learn knowledge, and then at university we learn to question that knowledge.Belief is strengthened precisely because it has already been knocked down. And so, accumulating knowledge shows that this medicine, that economic policy or this teaching method works and many others don’t. The successful method then spreads, because when you design a better mousetrap the world beats a path to your door. It spreads because people are rational and want to do better and are persuaded by evidence. And so, the world progresses. Light replaces darkness. Effective solutions displace failed ones.It's easy to mock the enlightenment story. The sociologists of science have shown a much messier pattern of change – full of barriers, wilful resistance and peer pressure. But the old enlightenment story contains a good deal of truth and is preferable to the alternatives. Because of intense pressures to act on evidence, and habits of doubt among maintenance staff and engineers, aircraft do not drop out of the sky. Smoking made the slow progress from evidence of harm, through taxes and warnings to full-scale bans, and millions of lives were saved.Experimental methods have been used for many decades.

In the kingdom of ends everything has either a price or a dignity. What has a price can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; what on the other hand is raised above all price and therefore admits of no equivalent has a dignity.One of the fascinating features of the history of science is how often new ways of seeing preceded new insights. The achromatic-lens microscope in the early 19th century paved the way for germ theory, and X-ray crystallography in the early 20th century played a vital role in the later discovery of the structure of DNA. In the same way flows of data – for example, about how people move around a city, or how blood cells change – can prompt new insights.But how important is measurement to social change? Many people are attracted to metrics and indices of all kinds. But, as my colleague Mark Moore used to warn, ‘do you really think the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement were counting the placards or measuring the decibels of their cries for human rights?’ In social change, as in our own daily lives, measurement often feels inappropriate for the things that matter most.This chapter examines some of the history of social observation as a tool for public policy, social innovation and social change, and I suggest where it might lead in the future. Without some means of measurement, it can be hard to know if a social innovation is good. It may feel good to the beneficiaries – but still be less effective than an alternative. Or it may work well for one group but not another. And, even if it may not be appropriate to measure the passions of movements, once these ideas become part of the mainstream, and are transformed into the cool logic of laws, regulations and programmes, measurements do start to matter a lot, as the Civil Rights Movement discovered.A short history of measurementFor centuries, governments have sought to map and measure social phenomena in order to better exercise control over them. In the modern era these attempts can be traced back to figures like Sir William Petty in England and the cameralists in Prussia.

The aim of this research is to explore the dynamics and impact of open social innovation, within the context of fab labs and makerspaces. Using an exploratory methodology based on 12 semi-structured interviews of fab lab founders belonging to The Centres for Maker Innovation and Technology (CMIT) programme – a network of 170 fab labs located in Eastern Europe – this research explores the impact of an adopting an open approach in relation to the different stages of social innovation (prompts, proposals, prototypes, sustaining, scaling and diffusion, systemic change) as well as social impact. The main results of this study are that while the CMIT programme provided each fab lab with similar initial conditions (identical funding, objectives and rules), the open social innovation approached adopted enabled to give birth to a wide diversity of fab labs, each being very well adapted to the local environment, social needs and constraints and able to deliver social impact in just a matter of years; a result that would be hard to achieve with a centralised top-down approach. The study identified three types of CMITs – Education, Industry and Residential – which could be similar or different depending on the stage of social open innovation. Furthermore, this paper discusses the main difficulties social entrepreneurs encounter as a part of the open social innovation process, as well as means to overcome them. In this respect, this study adds to the literature on fab labs by providing more comprehensive view of the challenges faced by fab labs (and makerspaces) founders, as well as suggestions of strategies enabling to ensure their long-term sustainability.

This chapter shows that there is a possibility of fostering an enabling and innovative multistakeholder partnership for creating sustainable impact and transformative change with local communities. It argues that the collaborative efforts among district administration, educational institutions and civil society groups in supporting innovation and entrepreneurship can play an extremely important role in livelihood security and empowerment of marginalized sections. The chapter outlines the transformation of a marginalized and underdeveloped district of India. It presents a background of the district with a focus on farmers’ distress and discusses the mode of organization of elites and marginalized peoples under welfare and neoliberal regimes. The chapter also outlines the impact that state–university engagement on the communities. The neoliberal regime made the elite-based cooperatives ineffective, as they came under mismanagement and overexploitation by those in power. Neoliberal reform introduced a new vulnerability among Indian farmers, especially in certain states, such as Maharashtra.

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

This study seeks to understand the nature and process of social innovation driven by mature social economy enterprises, and the innovative capability that supports it. The research examines enterprise capabilities by means of the institutional approach to social innovation and the Resource-Based View theory (RBV). Based on grounded theory, this research focuses on a single case, the creation of the Desjardins Environment Fund (DEF). Launched 25 years ago,1 DEF is the first mutual fund in North America to include extra-financial criteria in its evaluation of business environmental management practices (fund securities) for the information of individual investors. The findings of this empirical research show how a major cooperative bank can generate social innovation and how this entails organizational innovations. The findings also reveal how these innovations benefit from the strategic and process resources that the Desjardins Movement managed to develop while taking into account both its core business (as a bank) and its purpose (as a cooperative). This study shows that the innovative potential of the mature social economy enterprise should not be underestimated.

Reviews the social role of universities in the urban context Covers themes and models of major interest Explains how to ensure a legacy of grassroots initiatives

This work compares in a comparative way some advances in the promotion and management of Social Innovation adopted by four Latin American countries, including Panama, in order to generate more knowledge to promote the strengthening and design of new public policies in this ambit. Panama is in the incipient stage of Social Innovation management, compared to the other three countries analyzed: Colombia, Costa Rica and Chile. Among the structural elements addressed are: regulations, the degree of institutionality, mechanisms and incentives to promote social innovation projects and good institutionalized practices. Since 2014, Panama shows its interest and advances in the subject, in the academic and university academic sectors, which can take advantage of social innovation to obtain a greater impact in the country and promote a more inclusive social development. Colombia began efforts to promote Social Innovation in 2007, Chile and Costa Rica in 2014, as well as Panama. These three countries have a higher level of progress in the elements analyzed in their Social Innovation ecosystems than Panama, however, they do not have enough mechanisms to clearly identify the failures that prevent the strengthening of the culture of social innovation and, therefore, the establishment of much more effective public policies.

Presents different ways to design and develop social innovations in businesses and organizations Highlights elements of social innovation in higher education Examines social innovation in practice Features case studies from different regions around the world

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.

In the business ethics literature, the growing interest in social entrepreneurship has remained limited to the assumption that pursuing a social mission will clash against the pursuit of associated economic achievements. This ignores recent developments in the social entrepreneurship literature which show that social missions and economic achievement can also have a mutually constitutive relation. We address this gap adopting the notion of shared value (SV) for an ethical inquiry of social entrepreneurship. Using a sensemaking framework, we assume that the emergence of SV propositions can be captured through the analysis of how social entrepreneurs make sense of events of change, selecting the journey of three exemplar cases for an inductive empirical inquiry. From our findings, we propose three themes for further examination. First, the ethical groundings of entrepreneurial SV are mostly shaped by idiosyncratic imperatives that inform both social mission and economic gain from the onset. Second, the ethical groundings of entrepreneurial SV will be likely operationalised as a filtering device, which allows for resilience as well as potentially detrimental blind spots. And third, the ethical groundings of entrepreneurial SV are expressed through ongoing transparency. Whilst there are agendas, these are not necessarily hidden but instead are likely put on show for the scrutiny of markets and communities. We hope that this evidence can add more light to our still modest understanding of the ethical groundings of social entrepreneurship.

Afin de réfléchir à la relation dans le soin et son apprentissage, dix-sept personnes sont sollicitées pour participer à une journée de codesign. Cette méthodologie consiste, par une succession d’exercices protocolisés, à favoriser la créativité du groupe via une démarche d’intelligence collective. L’article vise à réfléchir aux conditions par lesquelles une telle méthodologie peut devenir une ressource capacitante pour penser l’apprentissage de l’éthique. Le présent travail souligne notamment la place centrale de l’affectivité dans la construction du climat d’innovation et dans le mécanisme de la pensée divergente. L’article ouvre in fine de nouveaux questionnements sur l’articulation des exercices, l’affectivité, le rôle de l’animateur ou encore celui de l’usager. Les perspectives de recherches invitent à un décloisonnement disciplinaire.

Site de la Chaire In.SITU | Recherche-innovation en stratégies intégrées Transports-Urbanisme de l'ESG UQAM Accès à des publications académiques, rapports et études, et les Cahiers In.SITU Cahier 1 - Les conditions de réussite d’un TOD : Retour sur la journée de réflexion du 28 janvier 2016 (TOD : transit-oriented development) Cahier 2 - Vivre et se déplacer, d’hier à aujourd’hui Montréal et Boucherville en exemples Cahier 3 - Portrait des disparités en matière de mobilité dans l’agglomération de Montréal Cahier 4 - Étude sur les facteurs et politiques de mobilité durable : le cas de la dépossession et réduction de l’usage de l’automobile Cahier 5 - La gestion de la demande : Revue des pratiques Cahier 6 - Inventaire illustré et raisonné de la gestion de la demande Cahier 7 - La gestion de la demande : analyse critique d’un registre d’action collective

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.

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

Articles de revues scientifiques : *Ex. Cohendet, P. & Pénin, J. (2011). « Patents to exclude versus include: Rethinking the management of intellectual property rights in a knowledge-based economy », Technology Innovation Management Review, Décembre, pp. 12-17. Ex. *Harvey, J.-F., Naggar, R., Cohendet, P. & Simon, L. (2013). « Gérer les idées pour mieux innover », Gestion: Revue Internationale de Gestion, Vol. 38, n°3, pp. 25-34. Articles publiés dans des ouvrages collectifs Livres et ouvrages : Ex. *Sarazin, B., Cohendet, P., Simon, L. (2017). Les communautés d’innovation. Éditions EMS. Autres publications de recherche

La Société du Quartier de l’innovation de Montréal est un Organisme à but non lucratif (OBNL) qui a été créé en 2013 à l’initiative de l’Université McGill et de l’École de technologie supérieure (ÉTS). NOTRE MISSION Cultiver un écosystème d’innovation unique au cœur de Montréal et favoriser la collaboration et l’expérimentation entre les milieux académique, entrepreneurial et citoyen dans le but de créer des retombées positives pour la société. Notre connaissance du milieu de l’innovation québécois est exhaustive