Votre recherche

This article explores how health innovation designers articulate are and responsibility when designing new health technologies. Towards this end, we draw on Tronto’s ethic of care framework and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) scholarship to analyse interviews with Canadian health innovators (n ¼ 31). Our findings clarify how respondents: 1) direct their attention to needs and ways to improve care; 2) mobilise their skill set to take care of problems; 3) engage in what we call ‘care-making’ practices by prioritising key material qualities; and 4) operationalise responsiveness to caregivers and care-receivers through user-centred design. We discuss the inclusion of health innovation designers within the care relationship as ‘caremakers’ as well as the tensions underlying their ways of caring and their conflicting responsibilities.

The Syrian refugee crisis has been termed “the greatest humanitarian crisis of the last century” and countries around the world have stepped up to provide safe haven to millions of Syrians fleeing violence. Canada's unique private sponsorship policy coupled with government sponsorship of refugees saw more than 40,000 welcomed to Canada in a matter of months prompting the need for new processes and solutions. Grassroots organizations emerged, with new partnerships, processes and approaches enabled with new applications of simple technologies and revealed opportunities to leverage and amplify government resources. While fragmented and sometimes primitive these efforts signaled new opportunities to create an innovative “sharing economy” approach. This paper will review the relations between these new initiatives, actors and networks and the opportunities to drive systems change through a social innovation lens.

Local energy policy agendas require commonly defined desirable future visions and collective agenda-setting to spur collaborative action. However, methods designed for multi-stakeholder engagement often do not sufficiently open up deliberative processes to all voices, and efforts to envision desired futures built from current local energy challenges are usually designed by and oriented towards specialists. With this paper, we aimed to explore how the theoretical strengths of storytelling for supporting local policy processes play out in practice. We contrast what the literature states about the potential of storytelling for solving complex challenges and facilitating collaborative processes to the lessons learnt from actually using storytelling in a set of 17 multi-stakeholder workshops across 17 European countries run as part of the H2020 SHAPE ENERGY project. The workshops were each designed around a tangible local energy policy challenge. We found storytelling has unique strengths in terms of enabling significant (un)learning regarding stakeholder relationships, allowing participants to step into others’ perspectives, keeping hold of diversity, and the use of ‘we’ in stories leading to concrete future initiatives. We also note specific learnings about when these outcomes may not be achieved, for example due to fears, traditions, hierarchical structures, as well as the need for sufficient time for planning, facilitator training and stakeholder invitations. We conclude that as an innovative, playful and flexible methodology, storytelling can undoubtedly be a valuable additional tool for policymakers where there is a desire for deliberative stakeholder involvement, and appetite to tailor approaches to local contexts.

Social innovations have proven to be valuable in identifying, designing and implementing new solutions to social and environmental problems. The recent COVID-19 outbreak has put a spotlight on the potential of social innovation as a resilience mechanism, including for local development. This paper presents a preliminary framework for analysing social innovation ecosystems at the local level. It can help policy makers to better understand the different concepts around social innovation, and to develop policies to support social innovation and its implementation. The first section considers the features of social innovation and the benefits it can bring. The second section provides an analytical framework for social innovation at the local level. The final section sets a number of guidelines that support the implementation of social innovation ecosystems at local level, including examples of specific policy instruments.

The importance of knowledge co-creation – the joint production of innovation between industry, research and possibly other stakeholders, such as civil society – has been increasingly acknowledged. This paper builds on 13 cross-country case studies and co-creation experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic to characterise the diversity of knowledge co-creation initiatives and identify lessons for policy. The paper identifies a strong rationale for policy to support knowledge co-creation because the benefits of successful co-creation initiatives outweigh the initial co-ordination costs. Moreover, knowledge co-creation initiatives can contribute to democratising innovation. Successful initiatives engage all stakeholders and have effective governance and management structures. They also have clearly defined ownership and use rights of the collaborations’ outcomes and benefit from favourable conditions to operate, including temporary staff mobility and institutional set-ups that facilitate collaboration and effective communication among participants.

La co-construction est un processus par lequel des acteurs différents confrontent leurs points de vue et s’engagent dans une transformation de ceux-ci jusqu’au moment où ils s’accordent sur des traductions qu’ils ne perçoivent plus comme incompatibles. Ce moment particulier est celui où ils pensent avoir défini un « monde commun » qui va fonder leur compromis ; ils pourront alors poursuivre leur coopération afin de construire un projet d’action commun et réfléchir ensemble à sa mise en œuvre. La notion de co-construction s’est largement diffusée dans le monde académique et non académique. Cependant, sa définition reste encore aujourd’hui incertaine et fait l’objet de propositions dans la littérature grise des dossiers, finalisée par des institutions (certains conseils généraux, entre autres) ou des cabinets conseil. Pratiquement aucun dictionnaire de sociologie ou de sciences humaines ne la définit à l’exception du Dictionnaire de la participation . « Le terme co-construction est devenu depuis quelques années très en vue. Il se retrouve dans beaucoup d’articles et livres à portée académique. L’univers professionnel n’en est pas moins en reste où cette approche de gestion semble l’un des moyens pour pérenniser la performance des organisations. Néanmoins, lorsque l’on s’y attarde un peu plus en profondeur, on constate qu’il est davantage cité que conceptualisé. Très peu d’auteurs s’y sont réellement attardés ». C’est une notion ambiguë et la proximité avec des notions voisines plus académiques comme la coopération n’est sans doute pas une condition facilitatrice pour une explicitation de ses dimensions propres…

Social innovation and high-quality agricultural systems are important for rural development. However, there is little information on methods for measuring the process and outcome of social innovation, particularly at the regional level. This study aimed to answer the research question: Which social innovation metrics can be applied to analyze rural development at the regional level? We carried out a systematic review of the literature on factors and indicators of social innovation, assessed the characteristics of social innovation in value-added agricultural production systems in developed countries, and proposed social innovation indicators for evaluating value-added agricultural systems in developing countries. Key elements of the process and outcome dimensions of social innovation were identified and used to generate factors, subfactors, indicators, and subindicators. The literature review showed that more research is needed on the outcomes of social innovation. Future studies should investigate the social transformations promoted by rural tourism and biodiversity valorization.

This paper provides an overview of the state of art of research on social entrepreneurship and the establishment of this topic in the academic world. It uses scientometric methods in measuring the maturity of social entrepreneurship research. The empirical part reveals the exponentially growing number of papers, the institutionalization of social entrepreneurship in seven dimensions, the emergence of thematic clusters, and methodological issues. The paper makes concrete suggestions on how to overcome methodological challenges. Furthermore, we provide a ranking of the 22 most cited academic contributions in social entrepreneurship. Surprisingly, almost half of the most cited papers have not been published in journals but in books, raising doubts about the current (over-)rating of journal publications.

Social innovation is related to new products, services, and models aiming to improve human well-being and create social relationships and collaborations. The business model innovation (BMI) context can foster social innovation and can be applied in social innovation projects and initiatives. What is important for social BMI is the social mission, which needs to be defined in order to be able to move forward with the strategy, the value proposition, and the best practices of the business. Based on the existing social innovation literature and case studies, this paper proposes an “ecosystem” approach that can provide an integrated framework for social business models. This approach adopts the quadruple/quintuple helix innovation models which are able to promote social innovation, enabling a locus-centric and triple-bottom-line-centric entrepreneurial process of knowledge discovery and exploitation. Such a framework may help to study the role, nature, and dynamics of social co-opetitive fractal ecosystems, given emphasis on civil society, political structures, environment, and sustainability. In addition, the social innovation case studies presented in this paper highlight that targeted open innovation is a key element for social BMI.

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.

The number of theories of innovation systems has grown considerably over the past two decades and several innovation system approaches have been developed. The focus of most has been on the development of technological innovations which create economic value. However, addressing macro-level societal problems – sociotechnical and environmental challengesin which the production, dissemination and use of social and technical knowledge and technology can potentially resolve the problem – has been overlooked. The present study argues that in order to resolve such problems, a combination of technical innovations (covering the technological aspects of the problem) and social innovations (covering the social aspects of the problem) are required.Instead of focusing on the development of a particular technology or industry, an innovation system must focus on solving problems; it must utilize technical innovations alongside economic and social innovations to do so. To this end, the present study highlights the need for a framework for the analysis of macro-level societal problems by reviewing innovation systems literature and proposes a new approach named "Problem-oriented innovation systems". We conceptualize this approach based on event history analysis and through case study of the US air pollution problem and the way it was successfully resolved by using technical and social innovations.The results show that a problem-oriented innovation system has eight functions: System monitoring and guidance, technical and social knowledge creation, technical and social entrepreneurship, knowledge dissemination, collaboration and synergy, public awareness, standardization and resource mobilization. Finally, a framework for analyzing the innovation process is proposed to solve the macro-level societal problem. This approach can be used to solve global problems such as global warming and climate change which ask for collaboration among different countries.

The dependence on digital technologies has seen a significant increase during COVID-19 pandemic, to ensure that social connectivity and work goes on, in spite of lockdowns and the physical controls on movement. Though digital learning is expected to create abundant life-long learning opportunities for learners worldwide in this challenging time, there is a danger to further impose inequalities and inadequate access to quality education and life-long learning for the unconnected or poorly connected population. This paper shares our experience of reengineering a MOOC platform as `Community led MOOCs' to serve the learning needs of most under represented single mother communities in Bario - a remote settlement of Kelabits in the Borneo Island of Malaysia. This paper then explores TRIZ based heuristic models to address the socio-technological barriers to lifelong learning and proposes TRIZ principles that can trigger social innovation and creativity in designing lifelong learning solutions for rural communities.

In this chapter I turn to how social science can be adapted to the challenges and tools of the 2020s, becoming more data driven, more experimental and fuelled by more dynamic feedback between theory and practice. Social science at its grandest is the way societies understand themselves: why they cohere or fall apart; why some grow and others shrink; why some care and others hate; how big structural forces explain the apparently special facts of our own biographies. It observes but also shapes action, and then learns from those actions.Starting with the idea of social science as collective selfknowledge, I describe how new approaches to intelligence of all kinds can help to reinvigorate it. I begin with data and computational social science and then move on to cover the idea of social R&D and experimentation, new ways for universities to link into practice, including social science parks, accelerators tied to social goals, challenge-based methods and social labs of all kinds, before concluding with the core argument: an account of how social science can engage with the emerging field of intelligence design. This is, I hope, a plausible and desirable direction of travel.The rise of data-driven and computational social ScienceWe are all familiar with the extraordinary explosion of new ways to observe social phenomena, which are bound to change how we ask social questions and how we answer them. Each of us leaves a data trail of whom we talk to, what we eat and where we go. It's easier than ever to survey people, to spot patterns, to scrape the web, to pick up data from sensors or to interpret moods from facial expressions. It's easier than ever to gather perceptions and emotions as well as material facts – for example, through sentiment analysis of public debates. And it's easier than ever for organisations to practise social science – whether it's investment organisations analysing market patterns, human resources departments using behavioural science or local authorities using ethnography.These tools are not monopolised by professional social scientists. In cities, for example, offices of data analytics link multiple data sets and governments use data to feed tools using AI – like Predpol or HART – to predict who is most likely to go to hospital or end up in prison.

L’entreprise ReSanté-Vous est positionnée sur le secteur de la santé, à destination des personnes âgées. Elle a élaboré une proposition de valeur fondée sur l’innovation sociale. L’étude du cas de ce business model permet de discuter des critères permettant de définir un tel métier, et dans quelle mesure les modèles existants sont bien adaptés à ses dimensions sociales et solidaires, ou de création de valeur sociétale. L’exposé du cas débouche sur l’identification d’une série de forces et faiblesses du modèle économique, et la nécessité de mieux appréhender le concept d’impact social.

Interrelations between creativity, innovativeness and entrepreneurial skills of individuals have long been discussed in the literature. Due to the challenges regarding their measurement, most studies focused on the intentions rather than the outcomes. The idea generation that requires creativity is the first stage of social innovation. The young population's creative potentials in participating social innovation practices deserve a special attention as they play a critical role in the innovativeness and entrepreneurship of societies. This study aims to explore the factors that determine the creative intentions of university students that are important in generating social innovation projects. A structured survey based on the literature was conducted among 600 management and engineering students from 3 universities from the different percentiles of the Entrepreneurial and Innovative University Index for 2012 of the Turkish Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology. The survey included questions on the demographic characteristics, environmental factors, motivators, university/institutional context, perceptions and creative thinking attitudes. By conducting reliability and factor analysis, accuracy and validity of data is tested and the impact factors were identified. Findings reveal that visionary attitude, curiosity, exploration and learning, attitude for own creativity, self-esteem, perception about the learnability of creativity, university and social environment are components of creative thinking intentions of students and some of these factors vary by year of study and university.

Eleven papers explore research in entrepreneurship and community engagement in the context of Syracuse University's Scholarship in Action Model, which emphasizes sustainable campus-community entrepreneurial partnerships and applied research on the outcomes of these. Papers discuss the five keys to success in academic entrepreneurship; transforming a professional curriculum through engagement with practice--the Global Enterprise Technology Program at Syracuse University; tapping our fountain of youth--the guiding philosophy and first report on the Syracuse Student Startup Accelerator; Syracuse University Technology Commercialization Clinics; community development law and legal education; the Syracuse Miracle--inspiring entrepreneurs through conversations; the South Side Newspaper Project; bridging a traumatic past to an envisioned future--a case study of social entrepreneurship; inclusive entrepreneurship; the role of information and motivation in the process of innovation; and students serving as catalysts within a teacher education innovation.

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.

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

This chapter considers the role of universities in stimulating social innovation, and in particular the issue that despite possessing substantive knowledge that might be useful for stimulating social innovation, universities to date have not been widely engaged in social innovation activities in the context of Quadruple Helix developmental models. We explain this in terms of the institutional logics of engaged universities, in which entrepreneurial logics have emerged in recent decades, that frame the desirable forms of university-society engagement in terms of the economic benefits they bring. We ask whether institutional logics could explain this resistance of universities to social innovation. Drawing on two case studies of universities sincerely committed to supporting social innovation, we chart the effects of institutional logics on university-supported social innovation. We observe that there is a “missing middle” between enthusiastic managers and engaged professors, in which four factors serve to undermine social innovation activities becoming strategically important to HEIs. We conclude by noting that this missing middle also serves to segment the operation of Quadruple Helix relationships, thereby undermining university contributions to societal development more generally.