Votre recherche

Un article de la revue Revue internationale de l'économie sociale, diffusée par la plateforme Érudit.

With the advent of smart cities (SCs), governance has been placed at the core of the debate on how to create public value and achieve a high quality of life in urban environments. In particular, given that public value is rooted in democratic theory and new technologies that promote networking spaces have emerged, citizen participation represents one of the principal instruments to make government open and close to the citizenry needs. Participation in urban governance has undergone a great development: from the first postmodernist ideals of countering expert dominance to today’s focus on learning and social innovation, where citizen participation is conceptualized as co-creation and co-production. Despite this development, there is a lack of research to know how this new governance context is taking place in the SC arena. Addressing this situation, in this article, we present an exhaustive survey of the research literature and a deep study of the experience in participative initiatives followed by SCs in Europe. Through an analysis of 149 SC initiatives from 76 European cities, we provide interesting insights about how participatory models have been introduced in the different areas and dimensions of the cities, how citizen engagement is promoted in SC initiatives, and whether the so-called creative SCs are those with a higher number of projects governed in a participatory way.

In an increasingly globalized world, the challenges of society need to be tackled not by single organisations but by a multitude of stakeholders. Universities can contribute by extending their role and by collaborating with external stakeholders. This study employs qualitative methods to explore how a university engages with its innovation ecosystem through two different projects.The findings, connected to the development of educational and digital systems,show: 1) evidence of two extreme approaches to external stakeholder engagement and 2) three levels of tensions (multi-layered tensions) - on an overarching level, between stakeholder groups, and within groups of stakeholders. The contribution connects to literature on open innovation, quadruple helixes and lastly to university social innovation, especially responsibility diffusion.

Public innovation has received increasing attention in recent years. Experiments with new governance structures, such as New Public Management and New Public Governance, have challenged the traditional top-down, internally driven forms of innovation in the public sector and have entailed a search for new forms of open, collaborative and interactive innovation, implying a reframing of public innovation activities. However, introducing these new frames of innovation causes uncertainties in the public sector, necessitating better understanding of how public innovation can be changed to address societal needs. This paper uses materials from case studies of 21 public living labs across Europe to analyse the lessons that can be learned from public sector participation in living labs in terms of their contribution to reframing public innovation. The “frame” construct is used to analyse and provide an understanding of how participation in living labs helps public actors to reframe innovation and address public and societal needs. Three living lab framings for changing public innovation are identified (processual learning, restrained space and democratic engagement), and the degree of intensity of these framings with respect to involving stakeholders and addressing societal challenges is discussed. The paper contributes to knowledge of public sector innovation by extending previous accounts of how public innovation can be improved.

Responsible Innovation can be the corporate answer to tackle the grand societal challenges. However, companies still have not implemented the concept in their daily innovation practices. Furthermore, citizens, as the voice of societal needs and issues, only have been involved in corporate innovation processes (design thinking, co-creation) on a very limited scale. This raises the question on how to enable the participation of citizens in corporate innovation processes in an effective and efficient way. Therefore, certain quality criteria need to be defined and tested, which has not been researched before in such a context. The aim of this exploratory case study, thus, is to develop and test quality criteria of citizen participation and find out what quality companies can reach in 20 pilot-workshops all over Europe.

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.

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.

Higher Education Institutions, like many other organizations, are facing pressure from the development of digital technologies as a push towards the digitization of their activities and towards a type of change that some describe as disruptive and that forces them to review their processes and structures. This article describes the case of the medialab of the University of Salamanca, MEDIALAB USAL, as an experience of new learning space in higher education. Its origin is explained from the experiences of citizen technology laboratories and experimental laboratories at the point of intersection between Art, Science and Technology. Its structure and working methods are explained, and its activities are illustrated through the description of four educational innovation projects based on different digital technologies: a mathematics didactics project using AppInventor, Wikipedia as a tool for knowledge generation, Arduino for innovation in the teaching of Fine Arts and a university Hackathon as an activity to introduce students to social and entrepreneurial innovation processes.

Funding opportunities for social innovators are endless. If you have a good idea or initiative already, money can follow if you know where to look for.

The purpose of the social innovation scholarship is to enable SSE students to pursue opportunities within the realm of social entrepreneurship and social innovation. It represents an opportunity for SSE students to spend the summer working for and supporting a social entrepreneur or NGO somewhere in the world. It is a chance to leverage their business skills to create real change.

Conclusion du chapitre: L’investissement à impact social cherche à se réaliser et teste différents outils. Si son action concrète reste à ce jour faible, son idéologie infuse. Et avec elle l’idée que le marché répond mieux aux besoins sociaux que la subvention publique et la solidarité nationale. Autour de cette approche, des acteurs émergent pour parvenir à mesurer et convertir en indicateurs financiers les activités associatives, sociales et écologiques. Des agences se développent, notamment sur la mesure d’impact, pour nourrir ce nouveau marché en puissance. S’il est bénéfique pour les investisseurs qui y gagnent de l’argent et une belle image, il est destructeur pour les politiques sociales dont l’objectif ne peut être la recherche d’une rentabilité financière.

Des aides financières encouragent l’innovation scientifique en Suisse. Le domaine social est désormais aussi concerné. Comment présenter sa requête pour améliorer ses chances de décrocher un financement fédéral ? Repères et conseils.

L'innovation sociale consiste à élaborer de nouveaux projets, services et modèles afin de mieux répondre aux questions sociales. Les citoyens et les partenaires du secteur privé, notamment la société civile, sont invités à apporter leur contribution pour améliorer les services sociaux.

conception et mise en œuvre de réponses créatives aux besoins sociaux

The importance of university social responsibility (USR) is given by the commitment assumed by the university towards its stakeholders. This study aims at providing new insights on this topic, by analyzing the level of performance in USR that universities communicate. To this end, a structured procedure in five phases is proposed, analyzing elements of the strategic direction and considering the use of USR indicators which are grouped in the four main areas of impact (organizational, educational, cognitive and social). To do this, a qualitative approach has been followed, supported by the use of text analysis software as well as by frequency and spider diagrams. To illustrate its use and the type of analysis it allows, the procedure is applied to the case of the Catalan higher education system, presenting the results at different levels. The study ends with the discussion of the implications, a list of recommendations and suggestion for future works.

Whereas the economic impact of universities is undisputed, the social impact of universities remains vague. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether and how universities influence firms’ social engagement. Based on survey data of more than 7,000 German firms, our results reveal that universities positively affect firms’ social engagement mainly through teaching activities. Hence, our findings give impetus to a reinforcement of the university mission ‘teaching’ as a central lever for social change and increased social awareness as well as to a reorientation of the third university mission toward social needs. This paper thereby contributes to our understanding of the changing missions and values of universities and adds to the literature by exploring the underlying mechanisms of the social impact of universities. We conclude the paper with fruitful future avenues of research.

Des aides financières encouragent l’innovation scientifique en Suisse. Le domaine social est désormais aussi concerné. Comment présenter sa requête pour améliorer ses chances de décrocher un financement fédéral ? Repères et conseils

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.

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.

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.