Votre recherche

Voici donc, au terme de 10 mois de discussions, un document concis formulant des propositions de recommandations afin d’identifier 1) des voies privilégiées pour assurer que les universités québécoises demeurent à la pointe de l’évolution mondiale des sciences et des pratiques administratives, culturelles et sociales et qu’elles restent pertinentes, créatives et audacieuses, et 2) les réformes souhaitables dans l’organisation et les pratiques des établissements. Ce document est le résultat d’échanges soutenus d’un groupe de travail formé de toutes les composantes de l’université, auxquelles se sont joints des hauts fonctionnaires et un haut dirigeant d’entreprise. Il s’agit en quelque sorte de la première phase de la réflexion sur l’avenir des universités au service d’une société apprenante. La deuxième composante de la réflexion est maintenant prête à être orchestrée, à savoir un travail de délibération collective au sujet des hypothèses et des recommandations du groupe de travail. Plus précisément, le présent document, qui sera diffusé à la mi-septembre 2020, fera l’objet d’un vaste débat lors d’une activité de réflexion à laquelle seront conviés, cet automne, le monde universitaire, les ministères, les organismes publics et les groupes de la société civile intéressés par les questions universitaires. À partir des travaux initiaux de ce groupe de travail, l’objectif de cette délibération collective est de favoriser un large débat sur le rapport et les recommandations du groupe. Au terme de cette délibération, le groupe s’est vu mandater pour définir les lignes de force de la journée et les consensus qui se sont dégagés, et formuler des recommandations avec des propositions de réformes ou pistes d’action auprès du ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur.

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.

L'UNESCO a récemment lancé des consultations internationales visant à élaborer une recommandation sur la science ouverte qui sera adoptée par les États membres en 2021. Cette recommandation comprendra une définition commune, un ensemble de valeurs partagées et des propositions d'action. À l'invitation de la Commission canadienne pour l'UNESCO, ce document vise à contribuer au processus de consultation en répondant aux questions suivantes : • Pourquoi et comment la science devrait-elle être « ouverte » ? Pour qui et avec qui ? • S'agit-il simplement de mettre les articles et les données scientifiques à la disposition des chercheurs et chercheuses du monde entier au moment de leur publication, afin qu'ils et elles ne passent pas à côté de résultats importants qui pourraient contribuer à leurs travaux ou les accélérer ? • Cette ouverture pourrait-elle également permettre aux citoyennes et citoyens du monde entier de contribuer à la science avec leurs capacités et expertises, par exemple par le biais de la science citoyenne ou de projets de recherche-action participative ? • Une science véritablement ouverte inclut-elle une pluralité de modes de connaissance, y compris ceux propres aux cultures autochtones, aux cultures des pays du Sud et à d'autres groupes exclus et marginalisés dans le Nord global ? Le document comporte quatre sections : « La science ouverte et la pandémie » présente et explore différentes formes d'ouverture qui sont apparues dans le cadre d’une crise où la science semble soudainement essentielle au bien-être de tous. Les trois sections suivantes expliquent les principales dimensions de trois formes d'ouverture scientifique : l'ouverture aux publications et aux données, 2 l'ouverture à la société, et l'ouverture aux savoirs2 et épistémologies3 exclus. Nous concluons par des considérations. Points saillants • Même si de nombreux pays et universitaires considèrent que la « science ouverte » désigne la même chose que le « libre accès » aux publications et aux données, nous soutenons qu'elle peut et doit aller plus loin. • En analysant toutes les possibilités d’« ouverture » de la science pendant la pandémie COVID-19, nous montrons que, pour être plus pertinente, la science pourrait également s'ouvrir à la société, en particulier aux organisations de la société civile et aux mouvements sociaux. • Nous suggérons aussi une plus grande ouverture aux savoirs et aux systèmes de pensée qui proviennent des peuples autochtones, des minorités et des cultures des pays du Sud. Ces savoirs sont souvent ignorés ou exclus de la science eurocentrique, alors qu'ils pourraient enrichir les conversations scientifiques. • Enfin, nous proposons des considérations pour chacune de ces formes d'ouverture afin de parvenir à une science ouverte équitable et décolonisée, pour et avec les communautés, au-delà du libre accès.

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

REAP stands for Reciprocity, Externalities, Access and Partnership. It is about how a University can work with communities for mutual benefit as well as the enhancement of the city, town or district in which the University is located

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

Ces écrits d’auteures et auteurs éclairants relatent des récits d’occasions, de réalisations et de défis que le mouvement d’innovation sociale a vécu et continuera de vivre en soutenant le changement social au Canada. Il comprend des réflexions qui s’étendent de 2017 à aujourd’hui, incluant la crise de la COVID-19. Parmi les personnes ayant contribué à cet ouvrage, on retrouve notamment l’Honorable Ahmed Hussen, Nabeel Ahmed, Dan Breznitz, Stephen Couchman, Melanie Goodchild, Nicolas Langelier, John Lorinc, Kristin Pue, Vinod Rajasekeran, Marilyn Struthers et plusieurs membres du personnel de la Fondation.

The 13 methods featured are: Accelerator programmes Anticipatory regulation Challenge prizes Crowdfunding Experimentation Futures Impact investment Innovation mapping People Powered Results: the 100 day challenge Prototyping Public and social innovation labs Scaling grants for social innovations Standards of Evidence

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

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

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.

Over the past few decades, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has been perceived as an antecedent of competitive advantage. It was, moreover, placed at the top of the business agenda and recognized as a key driver of performance. Under this context, the present study sets to investigate how strategic CSR (SCSR) affects organizational performance and whether firms operating in “controversial” sectors should adopt SCSR activities. To this aim, this study reviews the body of knowledge on the topic, through a systematic review of the literature. After searching for academic publications in the Scopus database and selecting publications based on their relevance, 32 studies have been included in the review. Their analysis sheds light on common findings and contradicting arguments. Results show the main attributes of strategic, as opposed to non-strategic CSR activities. The importance of effective communication of SCSR activities is highlighted. SCSR is linked to “shared value”, as well as to competitive advantage, social innovation and good reputation. Voices of criticism focus on using SCSR as an empty promise that is used to counteract unethical behavior. Finally, more research is needed on the implementation of SCSR activities during recessionary periods.

Background: Identifying social innovation in health initiatives, promoting quality of life through them, and transforming current health conditions demand the knowledge, comprehension and appropriation of the theoretical and methodological developments of this concept. Academic developments in social innovation have mainly occurred in and been documented for English-speaking countries, although...

This article uses a conceptual approach to propose an innovation model for regional universities. It demonstrates that the traditional university encounters several obstacles that hinder its full integration into the development of its respective region and explains why currently known models cannot adapt to regions that have deficient relationships with the government and lack an entrepreneurial base. The new model is based on a structure composed of units called “innovation hubs” and incorporates social innovation, thus permitting the university to become integrated into the regional innovation ecosystems. The Magdalena University in Colombia was used as a reference in developing the model. Keywords: hub; social innovation; university innovation models; regional innovation ecosystems

University social responsibility (USR) is an important assessment criterion of the QS Stars. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the social orientation of universities as intellectual leaders in the development of society gains particular importance. The research purpose is to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the university activity directions in the framework of strategies (USR). An empirical assessment of the level and complementary factors of USR in the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) was conducted, using the method of integral and expert assessment. Grounded on scoring according to the principal component analysis, the structure of the factors of the USR development in the BRICS countries was determined. Multifactor regression modeling allowed substantiating the priority of factors stimulating the development of USR in the BRICS countries in modern conditions and arguing the main barriers to introducing the concept of social responsibility into university activities and expanding the stakeholders’ circle in it. The research results showed that the university management creativity, effective communication with the public and stakeholders, the quality of the educational process and the development of scientific activities stimulate USR development in the BRICS countries and should be used as the basis for the strategic planning of activities in the context of the continuing COVID-19 pandemic. Conceptual trends in the USR development can be useful for universities in the studied countries when adapting strategic development plans regarding the social needs of modern society.

Recent years have seen a surge of interest in prefigurative politics, which refers to the political strategies that model a future society on a micro level and aim to instantiate radical social change in and through practice. While most previous studies have focused on defining the concept and categorizing various types of prefiguration, this paper contributes by investigating under what circumstances prefiguration leads to revolutionary social change. The paper takes an original approach to these issues by turning to transition studies and the socio-technical change literature. This field focuses on the technical equivalence of prefiguration: namely, the relationship between small-scale niche innovations and large-scale technological transitions. Through theoretical discussions and empirical illustrations, this paper presents a typology of five transition pathways through which prefigurative strategies may result in a range of social change outcomes from reformative to revolutionary transformation.

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.

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.

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