Votre recherche

The concepts of entrepreneurship and citizenship intersect more and more in the educational projects of social entrepreneurship. In this article, we have analyzed an experiment conducted by a nonprofit organization whose mission is to increase citizen participation. We are interested in the discourses and tools that it has mobilized for training in social entrepreneurship. Our objective is to uncover the norms and values underlying the conception of citizenship transmitted through the training. We show that there are tensions between the aims of democratic citizenship promoted by the organization and the concept of the citizen that underlies training in social entrepreneurship. Our contribution is twofold: 1) We enrich the literature on education for democratic citizenship by analyzing a new approach, that of education in social entrepreneurship; 2) We take a critical look at the concept of social entrepreneurship when it is used in training for democratic citizenship by analyzing this practice and framing it within the field of social innovation

The term ‘social innovation’ has come to gather all manner of meanings from policymakers and politicians across the political spectrum. But while actors may unproblematically unite around a broad perspective of social innovation as bringing about (positive) social change, we rarely see evidence of a shared vision for the kind of social change that social innovation ought to bring about. Taking inspiration from methods that recognise the utopian thinking inherent in the social innovation concept, we draw upon Erik Olin Wright’s concept of ‘real utopias’ to investigate the moral underpinnings inherent in the public statements of Ashoka, one of the most prominent social innovation actors operating in the world today. We seek to animate discussion on the moral principles that guide social innovation discourse through examining the problems that Ashoka is trying to solve through social innovation, the world they are striving to create, and the strategies they propose to realise their vision.

There have been many creative responses to modern economic, political and technological developments and their (un)intended social and ecological consequences. These responses provide the soil for the type of social innovation identified in this article: citizen innovation as niche restoration. It is about civic action that creates novelty by seeking to restore the places and practices citizens already value. Drawing from an in-depth case study on decentralized water management, the concept of citizen innovation as niche restoration is explored, and its implications for political participation and sustainability discussed.

The rise of social innovation expresses a discontent with innovation as we know it, and its ability to deliver just and sustainable outcomes. Yet, social innovation is also notoriously vague as a concept, thereby putting into doubt whether the concept offers any real improvements or alternatives. This paper issues an invitation to think about social innovation as a collaborative concept. The conceptual framework shows collaboration, rather than contestation, to offer a space for the working together of different perspectives and actors. The collaborative concept frame welcomes and seeks to explain a diversity of uses. Singling out key features of social innovation as a collaborative concept, it seeks to contribute to an emerging practice that makes different contributions part of a progressive conversation about social innovation, the evaluative ideas associated with it and the evidence from policies and projects. Identifying transformative, taxonomical and transitional–sceptical uses of social innovation, the paper highlights the importance of analysing the evaluative aspects of the multisectoral reconfigurations associated with social innovation so as to keep track of its role for justice and sustainability.

The term ‘social innovation’ has come to gather all manner of meanings from policymakers and politicians across the political spectrum. But while actors may unproblematically unite around a broad perspective of social innovation as bringing about (positive) social change, we rarely see evidence of a shared vision for the kind of social change that social innovation ought to bring about. Taking inspiration from methods that recognise the utopian thinking inherent in the social innovation concept, we draw upon Erik Olin Wright’s concept of ‘real utopias’ to investigate the moral underpinnings inherent in the public statements of Ashoka, one of the most prominent social innovation actors operating in the world today. We seek to animate discussion on the moral principles that guide social innovation discourse through examining the problems that Ashoka is trying to solve through social innovation, the world they are striving to create, and the strategies they propose to realise their vision.

There are calls for social innovation to help with the effort to halt biodiversity loss. However, research on social innovation and biodiversity is dispersed and covers a multitude of disciplines. A systematic overview of research on social innovation and biodiversity is missing and this paper contributes by focusing on social innovation to tackle the drivers of biodiversity loss and unsustainability. The paper reviews research on social innovation in changing land use (agriculture, forestry, aquatic ecosystems and cities), in tackling exploitation of organisms (fishing, hunting, harvesting), and in addressing threats of climate change, pollution and invasive species. Across these drivers, we find a) a strong emphasis on social innovation as civic action for changing practices in addressing unsustainability, b) that social innovation research tends to focus on local experimentation although there are bodies of literature on policy-driven innovations and consumer/producer-driven innovations, and c) that there is very little research taking a critical perspective to explore negative or unintended consequences of social innovation. Drawing on the review, we propose three cross cutting issues that can be a focus for future research, practice and supportive policy: social innovation for nature-based solutions, social innovation for participatory governance, and social innovation for technology that tackles biodiversity loss.

Interest in social innovations (SIs) from both the academic and the policy side is growing. Nonetheless, we still know little about which sustainable development goals (SDGs) SIs already address. Furthermore, only little is known about who the innovators developing and implementing SIs are. In this paper, we aim to bring more clarity and structure to the field of SIs. Firstly, a systematic literature review was conducted, before a content analysis was used to analyze the definitions used with regard to similarities. Secondly, all case studies described in the reviewed articles were then further systematically analyzed in order to identify the social or environmental problems addressed and the innovators involved. For the purpose of classifying the diverse types of problems, we used the globally known and broadly accepted 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs). Results showed that most SI case studies deal with an improvement of health and well-being. Furthermore, our study illustrates that there is a pronounced difference in the focus of SIs between developing and developed countries. Concerning the innovators, our results indicate that five types of innovators are fundamentally involved in developing and implementing SIs: social entrepreneurs, NGOs and non-profits, public institutions, civil society, firms, and social enterprises. Our definition analysis as well as the identification and classification of the innovators and addressed social needs bring much-needed clarity and structure to the field. However, our systematic review shows that SI is still in its infancy and it will be interesting to see where the field will head.

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.

The purpose of this study is to develop a dual-functional university-enabled social innovation process model on the subject of low-cost houses that addresses the distinct elements of social obligation and university teaching-learning. Design/methodology/approach This study has predominantly adopted a longitudinal single case study approach, where data have been collected through interviews, survey, participant observation, direct observation and document review. The case study details on the social innovation processes, which was conducted by Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia. Findings This study has demonstrated the social innovation processes toward addressing the issue of insufficient low-cost houses, concurrently benefitting the teaching-learning dimension. Three sub-innovations have been highlighted in the developed social innovation process model, which are collaboration process, teaching-learning and design-construct innovation. Originality/value The development of the social innovation process model for low-cost houses through university-enabled initiative is a novel establishment, particularly for developing nations, as limited studies have been conducted in this regard. The significant insights into how university could play a role in addressing major social issues, along with their core focus (teaching-learning and research development), is a breakthrough for further diffusions of social innovation by universities.

A social innovation ecosystem is a set of actors from different societal sectors and their environments with legal and cultural norms, supportive infrastructures and many other elements, which enable or inhibit the development of social innovations. In this context, several issues regarding information reuse and integration can be found. In this paper, we present an observational study where a real case of an emerging social innovation ecosystem was modeled and analyzed in order to identify the challenges faced by the actors. Results show the importance of adopting digital ecosystem concepts for an approach in which social innovation actors interact and collaborate through the support provided by a common technological platform, composing what we called as Social Innovation Digital Ecosystem (SIDE). Such approach aims to support social innovation actors towards fostering collaboration, co-creation, knowledge, and information sharing and reuse, enabling the development, dissemination and generation of more effective social innovations.

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

Nous proposons un regard réflexif sur deux expériences de recherche-projet menées dans le cadre de thèses de doctorat. Notre réflexion porte sur les apports et limites de cette démarche dans le cadre de projets ancrés dans les champs de la santé et du handicap, plus spécifiquement des troubles du sommeil et des troubles du spectre de l’autisme. La proposition repose sur la démonstration de l’intérêt de la conception participative propre à la recherche-projet dans ces domaines sensibles au sein desquels l’enjeu de l’inclusion des acteurs apparaît comme majeur.

Social innovation (SI) is a promising concept that has been developed and mobilized in academia, government policies, philanthropic programs, entrepreneurial projects. Scholars propose multiple conceptions and categorization of what is SI (trajectories, approaches, theoretical strands, paradigms, streams). Some recent work has also addressed the question of who is doing SI. In both cases, the what and the who remain the key characteristic of SI. Two approaches are confronted: one where SI is more presented as a concept that reproduces the neoliberal–capitalist societies; a second that conceives SI as a transformative and emancipatory pathway. With this article, I contribute to the possibilities to conceive SI as performative concept. My proposition is to analyze SI as a discourse with precise performative practices and apparatus. By doing so, it allows scholars and practitioners to better reflect and identify the effects, tensions and ambivalence and possibilities of SI. Moreover, it gives us few key aspects of what might constitute an emancipatory 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.

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...

Face à la conception technocratique et entrepreneuriale portée par les pouvoirs publics, une approche alternative de l’innovation sociale, plus populaire et moins visible, à travers l’exploration d’initiatives citoyennes. Prenant comme point de départ le constat d’une appropriation institutionnelle de l’innovation sociale, orientée vers la compétitivité et l’efficacité marchande des expériences de l’économie sociale et solidaire, l’ouvrage vise à la fois à apporter un regard critique sur cette conception de l’innovation sociale et à remettre en lumière des expérimentations citoyennes peu prises en compte par les pouvoirs publics. Il montre ainsi la nécessité d’un tournant épistémologique valorisant les dynamiques de coproduction des savoirs et des politiques entre acteurs, chercheurs et institutions.

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.

Technology is the answer, but what was the question? Introduction Many firms, charities and governments are in favour of more innovation, and like to side with the new against the old. But should they? A moment's reflection shows that it's not altogether coherent (whether intellectually, ethically or in terms of policy) to simply be in favour of innovation, whether that innovation is a product, a service or a social idea. Some innovations are unambiguously good (like penicillin or the telephone). Others are unambiguously bad (like concentration camps or nerve gas). Many are ambiguous. Pesticides kill parasites but also pollute the water supply. New surveillance technologies may increase workplace productivity but leave workers more stressed and unhappy. Smart missiles may be good for the nations deploying them and terrible for the ones on the receiving end.In finance, Paul Volcker, former head of the US Federal Reserve, said that the only good financial innovation he could think of was the automated teller machine. That was an exaggeration. But there is no doubt that many financial innovations destroyed more value than they created, even as they enriched their providers, and that regulators and policy makers failed to distinguish the good from the bad, with very costly results. In technology, too, a similar scepticism had emerged by the late 2010s, with digital social media described as the ‘new tobacco’, associated with harm rather than good, with addiction rather than help. Or, to take another example: when the US Central Intelligence Agency's venture capital arm, In-QTel, invested heavily in firms like Palantir, which then became contractors for the intelligence and military (a prime example of the ‘entrepreneurial state’), it was far from obvious how much this was good or bad for the world.The traditional justification for a capitalist market economy is that the net effects of market-led innovation leave behind far more winners than losers, and that markets are better able to pick technologies than bureaucracies or committees. But even if, overall, the patterns of change generate more winners than losers, there are likely to be some, perhaps many, cases where the opposite happens. It would be useful to know.

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.