Votre recherche

This article extends the field conceptualisation of social change and innovation adoption, which hinges upon the strategic capacities of actors, to the online environment. We focus on a key aspect of social movement organisations (SMOs), competition for members, resources and attention over an environmental risk issue. The incorporation of network theory enables us to map how the structural position of actors in the field is associated with their actions – for example, their response to an exogenous shock such as a new threat to the environment. We analyse how actors in the online environmental movement respond to the emergence of nanoscience and technology (NST) as a risk issue, and test the field theory hypothesis that dominated actors are more likely to adopt this issue in the early stages of emergence. Our findings challenge field theory orthodoxy and suggest that whilst challengers innovate, dominants co-opt by adopting the issue in a second stage. Finally, we examine why the notion that NST entails significant environmental and health risks was not propelled into wider public consciousness.

People with disabilities are an important actor and target group in social innovation initiatives worldwide, as there is a clear need for better inclusion of this group in society. A way to improve the inclusion of people with disabilities is the development of assistive technology. In practice, people with disabilities often use technologies of which the primary use is not that of an assistive technology. They use the technology for a different use and context than the developer intended – termed 'secondary use'. The current paper studies the factors that are needed to make the secondary use of technology a success. First, a literature review and explorative study in the Netherlands are performed, after which a framework on the secondary use of technology for inclusion, specifically for people with disabilities, is developed.

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.

Frugal innovation has gained prominence based on its potential contribution to sustainable development and the new opportunities that it offers to low-income customers. This paper aims to analyse the strategic knowledge transfer practices implemented by an entrepreneurial university for fostering frugal innovations within an emerging economy. Design/methodology/approach This study adopted a case study methodological approach. The selected case was the University of Campinas (Unicamp), one of the leading universities in Brazil in terms of research quality and technology transfer. The study built upon 14 interviews with key informants and secondary sources of data (official and public documents). Findings The findings highlight the multidimensional dynamics of frugal innovations arising from university–industry relationships. Key dimensions considered include the internal capabilities of universities to foster frugal innovations and connect them to markets, the surrounding innovation ecosystems in which the university is embedded and the overarching institutional framework. Research limitations/implications The analysis of strategic management practices for frugal innovation requires an evolutionary perspective, but the findings lacked sufficient longitudinal information for a formal evaluation. Also, as our empirical analysis is based on an in-depth case study of one university, further validation in other contexts would be necessary. Practical implications This study offers new insights regarding the effectiveness of university-business collaboration partnerships for developing frugal innovations in emerging economies. Policymakers should promote societal programs enhancing the active participation of all agents involved in the entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystem. University managers should understand the challenges and the opportunities behind the adoption of an inclusive and societal orientation. Social implications By adopting frugal innovation practices, universities can enhance their contribution of meeting the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. Originality/value The literature on frugal innovation has emphasized the importance of networking between different types of firms, NGOs and governments, but the role of universities in frugal innovation remains mostly unexplored. This study addresses this gap by exploring how entrepreneurial universities participate in frugal innovations to meet societal challenges.

The main aim of the paper is to question the viability of measuring social innovation with the current state of knowledge on the one hand, and to make suggestions for better measurement of it on the other. To reach this aim, the literature on the traditional measures of technological innovation and the previous attempts of measuring social innovation is surveyed. Despite relatively narrow scope of the literature mainly originated from the very recent and pioneer experiments, one may argue that the first findings do not present a promising picture for future studies. Therefore, existing trials to measure social innovation have to be critically screened to ascertain problematic areas, and hence, to provide plausible solutions. The problems with social innovation metrics are not only limited with obtaining concrete and trustworthy results, but also extended to statistical, methodological and even conceptual spheres.

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.

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.

Nous présentons dans cet article les résultats d’une enquête sur les politiques publiques de régulation de l’intelligence artificielle et en particulier sur les stratégies mises en œuvre dans des cadres socio-politiques aux échelles nationales, européennes et internationales. La France a créé des instances dans lesquels des « frottements » entre acteurs différents sont possibles, comme les groupes d’experts ou le Partenariat Mondial sur l’Intelligence Artificielle. Nous considérons que le travail de la part de l’ensemble des groupes sociaux, impliqués dans les instances que nous observons, est consubstantiel à la régulation. Les acteurs publics et privés s’organisent pour échanger et interagir de façon structurée, notamment par la mise en place de ces instances, comme le PMIA. Les dispositifs et instruments, auxquels les différents acteurs participent, contribuent à conférer un sens aux activités de régulation. Notre hypothèse repose sur l’émergence d’un « modèle français » de la régulation qui tend à promouvoir la « confiance » et dont le sens est de parvenir à l’acceptabilité sociale de l’IA.

À seulement dix ans de l’échéance fixée pour atteindre les Objectifs de développement durable (ODD), les agences et organisations de développement ont besoin d’innover rapidement dans leurs approches en matière de processus décisionnels et de résolution des problèmes. De nouveaux enseignements et de nouvelles conceptions, nés des usages émergents des technologies, peuvent servir de vecteurs à certaines innovations. Ce document d’orientation applique le nouveau paradigme des intelligences – qui comprend l’intelligence des données, l’intelligence artificielle, l’intelligence collective et l’intelligence incorporée – pour présenter une vue d’ensemble des risques et bénéfices associés à différents usages émergents des technologies aux praticiens du développement ainsi qu’aux responsables et décideurs politiques. Ces analyses sont, dans la mesure du possible, illustrées d’exemples issus du terrain. Nous recommandons dans ce Policy Paper de créer un cadre décisionnel pour aider les praticiens à déterminer s’ils doivent investir dans des technologies émergentes et comment ces dernières peuvent être efficacement mises au service des objectifs de développement. Cette première itération du cadre décisionnel cherche à définir précisément les objectifs de développement pertinents tout en prenant en compte le contexte existant avant d’aborder la question des solutions en évaluant la maturité, les défis, les implications financières et les risques posés par l’usage des technologies, ainsi que la présence de facteurs limitants et de catalyseurs qui pourraient en moduler l’impact et l’adéquation.

Potential contributions of universities to social innovation are explored with special attention to Southern countries. The normative guide is the notion of Sustainable Human Development understood as stressing the agency of least-advantaged sectors. The main challenges stem from decreasing sustainability and increasing inequality. Their impacts are highly dependent on how the tension between economic growth and environmental protection is managed. Improving actual perspectives demands harnessing advanced knowledge to foster inclusive and frugal innovation. For this to occur, universities need to be main actors. The context in which they act is analyzed with reference to the National Systems of Innovation conceptualization. Possible evolutions of universities as agents of social innovation are discussed with the aid of the Multi-Level Perspective. The importance of the Southern experience of innovating in scarcity conditions is highlighted and illustrated with the specific experience of a Latin American university. The cooperation of universities with weak social actors in ways that involve advanced knowledge appears as a key theoretical issue and as a difficult practical problem for the effective engagement of universities in social innovation. The diverse issues that such engagement needs to integrate conform an ambitious research program, of which the paper aims at giving a first glimpse.

Social innovation is conceptualised as having two intimately related pillars: institutional innovation and locally embedded innovation, in the sense of social economy. Two main research questions were addressed: how political, institutional innovation is fostered and how does it influence social economy? A mixed methods research was conducted in the Mühlviertel NUTS3 region. Despite a framework of enhanced autonomy and institutional innovation for the main stakeholders, both macro and micro analysis illustrate a lack of intermediate space to: a) link the innovative agenda to high-state political agendas, and b) link institutional innovation to social economy.

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.

In the past twenty years, innovation has slowly, but steadily, become an important presence in development cooperation discourse and practice. The ambitious UN 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda has accelerated this trend, providing a strong framework for the main argument in favour of an innovation agenda for international development: without new ideas and innovative solutions, solving the current global development challenges will not be possible. Although this innovation-push is in line with a wider predominant view of innovation as an inherently positive force of progress, that alone does not explain when, how, and why innovation becomes a key topic in the field. This paper seeks to fill this gap in the literature, providing an initial overview of innovation in development cooperation in the post-2000s. It argues, firstly, that innovation has always been part of international development policy and practice. Secondly, it links the recent strengthening of the innovation discourse to three trends in the systemic transformation of the field: the triumph of metrics-based agendas, the ICTs and digitalization revolutions, and the role of private sector actors. It concludes by critically assessing the implications of this narrative in changing the politics of innovation towards more inclusive sustainable development policies and practices.

This study examines the influence of digitalisation and social entrepreneurship on national well-being. Taking a configurational approach, the results show that digitalisation can benefit national well-being if the country has an adequate educational system, good governance, and a philanthropy-oriented financial system. Digitalisation can leverage these conditions in promoting national well-being. The study also contributes to entrepreneurship literature as it clarifies the role of social entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurship impacts national well-being when institutions are weak, but it is indifferent in developed economies, which gives support to the institutional void perspective. This finding contributes to the ongoing debate on the role of the institutions on the creation of social enterprises and advances knowledge on the social impact of social entrepreneurship. Additionally, the results show that a combination of conditions is required to achieve high levels of national well-being.

The last few years witnessed theoretical and practical contributions to the field of social innovation and social enterprise. However, analysis of the interplay between these two different realms is still limited. This article aims to fill some gaps in this respect. We deal with historical reconstruction of the concept of Social Enterprise and Social Innovation, and their conceptual premises. We consider the process of creation of social innovation in social enterprises. As members’ motivations, ownership rights and governance rules in social enterprises create a new relational context and new routines, which are germane to the production of social knowledge and deliberation, social innovation can be considered one of the main outcomes of this setting. Social motivations, collective action of a cooperative kind, multistakeholder governance and socialization of resources, and their interplay are singled out as main drivers of innovation. Social innovation is seen as akin to novelty in social interaction, a non-standardized and non-standardizable outcome of the operation of this organizational form.

Human–computer interaction (HCI) is a cornerstone for the success of technical innovation in the logistics and supply chain sector. As a major part of social sustainability, this interaction is changing as artificial intelligence applications (Internet of Things, autonomous transport, Physical Internet) are implemented, leading to larger machine autonomy, and hence the transition from a primary executive to a supervisory role of human operators. A fundamental question concerns the level of control transferred to machines, such as autonomous vehicles and automatic materials handling devices. Problems include a lack of human trust toward automatic decision making or an inclination to override the system in case automated decisions are misperceived. This paper outlines a theoretical framework, describing different levels of acceptance and trust as a key HCI element of technology innovation, and points to the possible danger of an artificial divide at both the individual and firm level. Based upon the findings of four benchmark cases, a classification of the roles of human employees in adopting innovations is developed. Measures at operational, tactical, and strategic level are discussed to improve HCI, more in particular the capacity of individuals and firms to apply state‐of‐the‐art techniques and to prevent an artificial divide, thereby increasing social sustainability.

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.

Cette recherche se propose d’explorer le processus de développement de l’entreprise d’économie sociale issue d’un partenariat fondateur. Nous nous intéressons plus particulièrement à la façon dont l’entreprise d’économie sociale opère, à travers ses choix d’orientation et organisationnels, l’équilibre entre ses besoins propres de développement et les besoins spécifiques de son partenaire de fondation. La Caisse d’économie Desjardins de la Culture constitue le terrain d’investigation. Le rôle de cette organisation, issue d’un partenariat avec l’Union des artistes (UDA), est passé de celui de prestataire de services aux membres de l’UDA à celui d’agent de développement du milieu de la culture. En décrivant les étapes et leviers de ce passage, nous nous attachons à comprendre le mécanisme d’autonomisation de l’organisation par rapport à son partenaire d’origine.

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.