Votre recherche

We conjecture that adoption of agricultural biotech innovation imposes relationship-specific investments that exacerbate hold-up costs between biotech producers and farmers. Moreover, the increasing presence of biotech reduces biodiversity, which is a significant negative externality on food production across farms. As such, increasing biotech has the potential to exacerbate food insecurity. By contrast, certified organic operations have the potential to have the opposite effect. We examine 15 agrarian states in the U.S. and find evidence strongly consistent with these propositions. We discuss implications for policy, practice, and future research.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Le débat sur le rapport entre l’innovation sociale et les villes s’est élargi au cours des dernières décennies. Ce débat met en évidence l’intérêt suscité par les processus de coconstruction des savoirs dans les laboratoires vivants en innovation sociale (LVIS). Cet article a pour objectif de présenter une approche conceptuelle et analytique du traitement des LVIS, ainsi que de décrire et de mettre en perspective deux expériences de mise en oeuvre de LVIS dans les villes : l’Observatoire de l’innovation sociale de Florianópolis (OBISF) au Brésil et Territoires innovants en économie sociale et solidaire (TIESS) à Montréal au Canada. Bien qu’ils émergent dans des réalités et des contextes différents avec des méthodologies de mise en oeuvre spécifiques, qui sont présentées dans le texte, la discussion et l’analyse des deux cas apportent des pistes d’apprentissage sur les défis et les perspectives quant à la coconstruction des connaissances visant à renforcer les dynamiques d’innovation sociale à l’échelle d’une ville.

Le débat sur le rapport entre l’innovation sociale et les villes s’est élargi au cours des dernières décennies. Ce débat met en évidence l’intérêt suscité par les processus de coconstruction des savoirs dans les laboratoires vivants en innovation sociale (LVIS). Cet article a pour objectif de présenter une approche conceptuelle et analytique du traitement des LVIS, ainsi que de décrire et de mettre en perspective deux expériences de mise en oeuvre de LVIS dans les villes : l’Observatoire de l’innovation sociale de Florianópolis (OBISF) au Brésil et Territoires innovants en économie sociale et solidaire (TIESS) à Montréal au Canada. Bien qu’ils émergent dans des réalités et des contextes différents avec des méthodologies de mise en oeuvre spécifiques, qui sont présentées dans le texte, la discussion et l’analyse des deux cas apportent des pistes d’apprentissage sur les défis et les perspectives quant à la coconstruction des connaissances visant à renforcer les dynamiques d’innovation sociale à l’échelle d’une ville.

University intellectual property policies, and the accompanying strategies for incubation of IP via licensing and spin outs, have not received much analysis from academic lawyers. Moreover, despite the success of universities in the UK at generating income from IP, not much is known about how transferable this success is when considered in the light of a rapidly growing middle-income developing economy such as Mexico’s. In this article we analyse critically some of the key tenets of IP policies at universities in the UK to identify what the key legal principles underpinning university innovation are. We further consider the potential application of these principles in Mexico, where so far only a limited number of universities have developed IP policies and strategies in line with the incubator model. We explain how universities in Mexico could implement these research findings in their own IP policies. We further note that the mere provision of an IP policy is not a panacea – on its own it is insufficient for ensuring technology transfer and it may even encourage unnecessary patenting. Further investment in infrastructure and in establishing a culture of incubation and entrepreneurship is also required.

University intellectual property policies, and the accompanying strategies for incubation of IP via licensing and spin outs, have not received much analysis from academic lawyers. Moreover, despite the success of universities in the UK at generating income from IP, not much is known about how transferable this success is when considered in the light of a rapidly growing middle-income developing economy such as Mexico’s. In this article we analyse critically some of the key tenets of IP policies at universities in the UK to identify what the key legal principles underpinning university innovation are. We further consider the potential application of these principles in Mexico, where so far only a limited number of universities have developed IP policies and strategies in line with the incubator model. We explain how universities in Mexico could implement these research findings in their own IP policies. We further note that the mere provision of an IP policy is not a panacea – on its own it is insufficient for ensuring technology transfer and it may even encourage unnecessary patenting. Further investment in infrastructure and in establishing a culture of incubation and entrepreneurship is also required.

Academic literature about the idea of social innovation grew sharply over the last decade, with researchers trying to define its concept and presenting several examples of successful social innovations. However, to support the development of social innovation initiatives is important to have a conceptual framework that allows evaluating its true impact. The purpose of this paper is to identify the boundary conditions for an effective set of social innovation indicators, which will help to have a more informed decision-making process. The main conclusion is that the impact of social innovations can be conceived as a set of results that manifests itself through different time periods, at different spatial scales, and must take into account the value experienced by all stakeholders involved. Thus, since a positive social innovation outcome depends on diverse factors and conditions, being most often context-dependent, it means that rather than imposing a specific set of indicators, based on a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach a measuring process procedure should be adopted to assess the impact of social innovations.

University students will be our future business leaders, and will have to address social problems caused by business by implementing solutions such as social entrepreneurship ventures. In order to facilitate the learning process that will foster social entrepreneurship, however, a more holistic pedagogy is needed. Based on learning theory, we propose that students' social entrepreneurship actions will depend on their learning about CSR and their absorptive capacity. We propose that instructors and higher education institutions can enhance this absorptive capacity by exploiting Web 2.0 technologies. We tested our proposition with a sample of 425 university students using structural equation modeling and found support for the proposed relationships.

University students will be our future business leaders, and will have to address social problems caused by business by implementing solutions such as social entrepreneurship ventures. In order to facilitate the learning process that will foster social entrepreneurship, however, a more holistic pedagogy is needed. Based on learning theory, we propose that students' social entrepreneurship actions will depend on their learning about CSR and their absorptive capacity. We propose that instructors and higher education institutions can enhance this absorptive capacity by exploiting Web 2.0 technologies. We tested our proposition with a sample of 425 university students using structural equation modeling and found support for the proposed relationships.

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.

Les recherches en éducation s’enracinent profondément dans la réalité complexe des phénomènes d’enseignement et d’apprentissage, convoquant les acteurs de la recherche et de l’éducation à appréhender cette complexité dans un travail commun. L’inscription de ce travail dans une perspective participative ou collaborative nécessite une intelligibilité accrue des processus collaboratifs à l’oeuvre et des défis qu’ils posent aux différents acteurs. Nous proposons dans cet article un modèle théorique des processus de collaboration fondé sur une construction épistémologique et méthodologique croisant des cadres théoriques issus de l’anthropologie, de la psychologie, de la philosophie, de la didactique et des sciences du langage, avec pour ambition de créer une meilleure intelligibilité des processus à l’oeuvre dans les recherches participatives en éducation.

Widening income and knowledge inequalities have led to growing expectations for universities to integrate social innovation in their core missions as a response to societal problems. This systematic review of literature provides an overview of the state-of-the-art of knowledge on the role of the university in enabling social innovation through its missions of teaching, research and third mission. It also identifies knowledge gaps in the field. A bibliometric approach wasused to identify and analyze books, journal articles and reports examining factors driving social innovation activities at universities, organizational and insitutional change to accommodate such activities as well as their impact. The review reveals that the literature on university engagement in socially-oriented activities as part of the third mission of the university is conceptually well developed and a growing field of inquiry. It also points to gaps in the knowledge base; relatively few studies address issues related to institutional change and incentive structures that influences the ability of universities to engage in social innovation. Likewise, impact studies on social innovation activities at universities are scarce. Further research that builds an impact measurement framework would support the process of integrating social innovation activities in the three missions of the university.

Widening income and knowledge inequalities have led to growing expectations for universities to integrate social innovation in their core missions as a response to societal problems. This systematic review of literature provides an overview of the state-of-the-art of knowledge on the role of the university in enabling social innovation through its missions of teaching, research and third mission. It also identifies knowledge gaps in the field. A bibliometric approach wasused to identify and analyze books, journal articles and reports examining factors driving social innovation activities at universities, organizational and insitutional change to accommodate such activities as well as their impact. The review reveals that the literature on university engagement in socially-oriented activities as part of the third mission of the university is conceptually well developed and a growing field of inquiry. It also points to gaps in the knowledge base; relatively few studies address issues related to institutional change and incentive structures that influences the ability of universities to engage in social innovation. Likewise, impact studies on social innovation activities at universities are scarce. Further research that builds an impact measurement framework would support the process of integrating social innovation activities in the three missions of the university.

Purpose: By taking a micro-level perspective, this paper aims to examine the influence of the ongoing paradigm shift from technological to social innovation on principal investigators (PIs) and thereby links the two emerging research fields of entrepreneurial ecosystems and social innovation. The purpose of this paper is to build the basis for future empirical analyses. Design/methodology/approach: The paper is a conceptual paper and therefore focuses on theoretical considerations. Taking a quadruple helix approach, PIs are outlined as central actors of entrepreneurial ecosystems and transformative agents of the innovation process. Findings: PIs can proactively shape the innovation process and thus the shift from technological to social innovation, through various channels. They can affect all other actors of the quadruple helix, e.g. by exerting influence on the process of scientific change, on the public opinion and/or on the industry partners. Further, the paradigm shift might change the universities' role in the quadruple helix, substantiating their importance in the process of social change. Practical implications: As PIs are influencing all other actors of the quadruple helix, they are central actors of entrepreneurial ecosystems and thus crucial players in the innovation process. Hence, they need to be supported in fulfilling their role of transformative agents, accelerating and shaping the paradigm shift from technological to social innovation. Universities should therefore reconsider their missions and vision as well as their role within the society. Originality/value: This paper considers the influence of an ongoing paradigm shift from technological to social innovation on entrepreneurial ecosystems. This work focuses especially on the PIs' role as transformative agents. Therefore, it builds a bridge from entrepreneurial ecosystems to social innovation and thus contributes to both research fields. Moreover, the paper shows the great potential of PIs to influence and shape social innovation.

Purpose: By taking a micro-level perspective, this paper aims to examine the influence of the ongoing paradigm shift from technological to social innovation on principal investigators (PIs) and thereby links the two emerging research fields of entrepreneurial ecosystems and social innovation. The purpose of this paper is to build the basis for future empirical analyses. Design/methodology/approach: The paper is a conceptual paper and therefore focuses on theoretical considerations. Taking a quadruple helix approach, PIs are outlined as central actors of entrepreneurial ecosystems and transformative agents of the innovation process. Findings: PIs can proactively shape the innovation process and thus the shift from technological to social innovation, through various channels. They can affect all other actors of the quadruple helix, e.g. by exerting influence on the process of scientific change, on the public opinion and/or on the industry partners. Further, the paradigm shift might change the universities' role in the quadruple helix, substantiating their importance in the process of social change. Practical implications: As PIs are influencing all other actors of the quadruple helix, they are central actors of entrepreneurial ecosystems and thus crucial players in the innovation process. Hence, they need to be supported in fulfilling their role of transformative agents, accelerating and shaping the paradigm shift from technological to social innovation. Universities should therefore reconsider their missions and vision as well as their role within the society. Originality/value: This paper considers the influence of an ongoing paradigm shift from technological to social innovation on entrepreneurial ecosystems. This work focuses especially on the PIs' role as transformative agents. Therefore, it builds a bridge from entrepreneurial ecosystems to social innovation and thus contributes to both research fields. Moreover, the paper shows the great potential of PIs to influence and shape social innovation.