Votre recherche

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.

Background Social innovations in health are inclusive solutions to address the healthcare delivery gap that meet the needs of end users through a multi-stakeholder, community-engaged process. While social innovations for health have shown promise in closing the healthcare delivery gap, more research is needed to evaluate, scale up, and sustain social innovation. Research checklists can standardize and improve reporting of research findings, promote transparency, and increase replicability of study results and findings. Methods and findings The research checklist was developed through a 3-step community-engaged process, including a global open call for ideas, a scoping review, and a 3-round modified Delphi process. The call for entries solicited checklists and related items and was open between November 27, 2019 and February 1, 2020. In addition to the open call submissions and scoping review findings, a 17-item Social Innovation For Health Research (SIFHR) Checklist was developed based on the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) Checklist. The checklist was then refined during 3 rounds of Delphi surveys conducted between May and June 2020. The resulting checklist will facilitate more complete and transparent reporting, increase end-user engagement, and help assess social innovation projects. A limitation of the open call was requiring internet access, which likely discouraged participation of some subgroups. Conclusions The SIFHR Checklist will strengthen the reporting of social innovation for health research studies. More research is needed on social innovation for health.

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.

Cette recherche vise à comprendre le processus de coproduction d’innovations sociales dans le contexte des plateformes numériques. À travers l’étude de la plateforme "Solidarité Covid-19 Francophonie", nous analysons comment l’intelligence artificielle facilite la collaboration entre des acteurs de cultures différentes et/ou développant des projets dans des domaines variés. Les résultats de l’étude ethnographique, complétée par une analyse quantitative, révèlent le développement des pratiques collaboratives grâce aux différents types de connecteurs, humains ou non-humains, qui organisent les échanges et facilitent la circulation de ressources affectives et cognitives. De manière paradoxale, l’analyse montre la difficulté de la plateforme à inclure certains publics.

Cette recherche vise à comprendre le processus de coproduction d’innovations sociales dans le contexte des plateformes numériques. À travers l’étude de la plateforme "Solidarité Covid-19 Francophonie", nous analysons comment l’intelligence artificielle facilite la collaboration entre des acteurs de cultures différentes et/ou développant des projets dans des domaines variés. Les résultats de l’étude ethnographique, complétée par une analyse quantitative, révèlent le développement des pratiques collaboratives grâce aux différents types de connecteurs, humains ou non-humains, qui organisent les échanges et facilitent la circulation de ressources affectives et cognitives. De manière paradoxale, l’analyse montre la difficulté de la plateforme à inclure certains publics.

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.

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.

Potential contributions of universities to social innovation are explored with special attention to Southern countries. The normative guide is the notion of Sustainable Human Development understood as stressing the agency of least-advantaged sectors. The main challenges stem from decreasing sustainability and increasing inequality. Their impacts are highly dependent on how the tension between economic growth and environmental protection is managed. Improving actual perspectives demands harnessing advanced knowledge to foster inclusive and frugal innovation. For this to occur, universities need to be main actors. The context in which they act is analyzed with reference to the National Systems of Innovation conceptualization. Possible evolutions of universities as agents of social innovation are discussed with the aid of the Multi-Level Perspective. The importance of the Southern experience of innovating in scarcity conditions is highlighted and illustrated with the specific experience of a Latin American university. The cooperation of universities with weak social actors in ways that involve advanced knowledge appears as a key theoretical issue and as a difficult practical problem for the effective engagement of universities in social innovation. The diverse issues that such engagement needs to integrate conform an ambitious research program, of which the paper aims at giving a first glimpse.

Potential contributions of universities to social innovation are explored with special attention to Southern countries. The normative guide is the notion of Sustainable Human Development understood as stressing the agency of least-advantaged sectors. The main challenges stem from decreasing sustainability and increasing inequality. Their impacts are highly dependent on how the tension between economic growth and environmental protection is managed. Improving actual perspectives demands harnessing advanced knowledge to foster inclusive and frugal innovation. For this to occur, universities need to be main actors. The context in which they act is analyzed with reference to the National Systems of Innovation conceptualization. Possible evolutions of universities as agents of social innovation are discussed with the aid of the Multi-Level Perspective. The importance of the Southern experience of innovating in scarcity conditions is highlighted and illustrated with the specific experience of a Latin American university. The cooperation of universities with weak social actors in ways that involve advanced knowledge appears as a key theoretical issue and as a difficult practical problem for the effective engagement of universities in social innovation. The diverse issues that such engagement needs to integrate conform an ambitious research program, of which the paper aims at giving a first glimpse.

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.

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.

Social innovation is conceptualised as having two intimately related pillars: institutional innovation and locally embedded innovation, in the sense of social economy. Two main research questions were addressed: how political, institutional innovation is fostered and how does it influence social economy? A mixed methods research was conducted in the Mühlviertel NUTS3 region. Despite a framework of enhanced autonomy and institutional innovation for the main stakeholders, both macro and micro analysis illustrate a lack of intermediate space to: a) link the innovative agenda to high-state political agendas, and b) link institutional innovation to social economy.

Social innovation is conceptualised as having two intimately related pillars: institutional innovation and locally embedded innovation, in the sense of social economy. Two main research questions were addressed: how political, institutional innovation is fostered and how does it influence social economy? A mixed methods research was conducted in the Mühlviertel NUTS3 region. Despite a framework of enhanced autonomy and institutional innovation for the main stakeholders, both macro and micro analysis illustrate a lack of intermediate space to: a) link the innovative agenda to high-state political agendas, and b) link institutional innovation to social economy.

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.

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.

Background Social innovations in health are inclusive solutions to address the healthcare delivery gap that meet the needs of end users through a multi-stakeholder, community-engaged process. While social innovations for health have shown promise in closing the healthcare delivery gap, more research is needed to evaluate, scale up, and sustain social innovation. Research checklists can standardize and improve reporting of research findings, promote transparency, and increase replicability of study results and findings. Methods and findings The research checklist was developed through a 3-step community-engaged process, including a global open call for ideas, a scoping review, and a 3-round modified Delphi process. The call for entries solicited checklists and related items and was open between November 27, 2019 and February 1, 2020. In addition to the open call submissions and scoping review findings, a 17-item Social Innovation For Health Research (SIFHR) Checklist was developed based on the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) Checklist. The checklist was then refined during 3 rounds of Delphi surveys conducted between May and June 2020. The resulting checklist will facilitate more complete and transparent reporting, increase end-user engagement, and help assess social innovation projects. A limitation of the open call was requiring internet access, which likely discouraged participation of some subgroups. Conclusions The SIFHR Checklist will strengthen the reporting of social innovation for health research studies. More research is needed on social innovation for health.

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.

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.

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

Inspired by the South American research tradition known as “social technology,” this article proposes an operational framework to advance the understanding of mechanisms that help to promote social transformation. To illustrate its theorizing potential, we apply the framework to a nonprofit organization–Parole d’excluEs–that was created in Montreal (Canada) in 2006 and that has been promoting citizen mobilization and commitment to social change (parole-dexclues.ca). To that end, we offer a theoretical paper with an empirical illustration as a first step in a reflection on employing a global South theoretical lens–drawing on the concept of social technology–to make sense of a global North social innovation experience and to advance existing knowledge on the mechanisms of social transformation. The results contribute to social innovation research and practice, particularly at the interface between the management and nonprofit literatures.