Votre recherche

Catalina Ortiz

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.

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.

Despite the recent surge of research on leader humility, it remains unclear how and when teams benefit from it. Drawing on social cognitive theory, we propose a moderated mediation model that we test using multisource, time-lagged data collected from 71 teams in a university-affiliated hospital. We find that humble leaders indirectly enhance team innovation via greater team reflexivity. Additionally, we consider the average level of proactive personality of team members as a boundary condition of the positive effect of leader humility. Our results show that leader humility prompts team reflexivity only when team mean level of proactive personality is high, which in turn increases team innovation. Bridging social cognitive theory with research on humble leadership in teams, our study offers important implications for both theory and practice.

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.

Reputation systems are a popular feature of web-based platforms for ensuring that their users abide by platform rules and regulations and are incentivized to demonstrate honest, trustworthy conduct. Accrual of "reputation" in these platforms, most prominently those in the e-commerce domain, is motivated by self-interested goals such as acquiring an advantage over competing platform users. Therefore, in community-oriented platforms, where the goals are to foster collaboration and cooperation among community members, such reputation systems are inappropriate and indeed contrary to the intended ethos of the community and actions of its members. In this article, we argue for a new form of reputation system that encourages cooperation rather than competition, derived from conceptualizing platform communities as a networked assemblage of users and their created content. In doing so, we use techniques from social network analysis to conceive a form of reputation that represents members' community involvement over a period of time rather than a sum of direct ratings from other members. We describe the design and implementation of our reputation system prototype called "commonshare" and preliminary results of its use within a Digital Social Innovation platform. Further, we discuss its potential to generate insight into other networked communities for their administrators and encourage cooperation between their users.

This paper reports on a long-term collaboration with a self-organised social clinic, within solidarity movements in Greece. The collaboration focused on the co-creation of an oral history group within the social clinic, aiming to record and make sense of a collection of digital oral histories from its volunteers and volunteers-doctors. The process aimed to support reflection and shape the future of the clinic's ongoing social innovation and to transform institutional public health services. Positioning the work of solidarity movement as designing social innovation, the work contributes to CSCW and 'infrastructuring' in Participatory Design aspiring to support social activism and social transformation processes. More specifically, through our empirical insights on the process of infrastructuring an oral history group within a social movement; and related insights about their ongoing participatory health service provision-we provide implications for CSCW concerned with its role in institutional healthcare service transformation.

As an image and location sharing platform, Instagram offers intimate visual access to events, experiences and situations in a manner that is mobile and contextual. Partnering with Australian Red Cross, this paper develops a mixed methodology for using Instagram data to identify and understand individuals’ everyday humanitarian activity in a major urban centre (Melbourne, Australia) outside of the temporal frame of crisis. The research integrates hashtag data collection with thematic analysis in a Geographic Information System (GIS) to use visualise the links between types of humanitarian action, their motivations and contextual situations to precise urban locations. These attributes of Instagram posting practices offer a base layer of information about disparate prosocial action taking place in an urban context. We see this as informing and sustaining a new hybrid mode of promotional and humanitarian communication, evidencing social good ‘place making’ and enabling new forms of visible humanitarian participation.

As an image and location sharing platform, Instagram offers intimate visual access to events, experiences and situations in a manner that is mobile and contextual. Partnering with Australian Red Cross, this paper develops a mixed methodology for using Instagram data to identify and understand individuals’ everyday humanitarian activity in a major urban centre (Melbourne, Australia) outside of the temporal frame of crisis. The research integrates hashtag data collection with thematic analysis in a Geographic Information System (GIS) to use visualise the links between types of humanitarian action, their motivations and contextual situations to precise urban locations. These attributes of Instagram posting practices offer a base layer of information about disparate prosocial action taking place in an urban context. We see this as informing and sustaining a new hybrid mode of promotional and humanitarian communication, evidencing social good ‘place making’ and enabling new forms of visible humanitarian participation.

Quelles sont les conditions de la maximisation de l’impact, et notamment sa pérennisation, du mécénat de compétence tech au profit des organisations dont la mission relève directement et prioritairement de la gestion du bien commun au service de l’intérêt général ? Telle est la question de recherche que la Fondation Devoteam a posée à l’ESSEC au moment de la mise en place de son programme #TechFor-People, afin de s’assurer de la pertinence de ce programme pour répondre aux besoins sur le long terme des structures de l’ESS (Économie Sociale et Solidaire) en transformation digitale. Afin de répondre à cette problématique l’ESSEC a réalisé une évaluation d’impact social fondée sur les cadres théoriques de la théorie du changement et de la théorie des parties prenantes, avec l’analyse de besoin, une collecte de données qualitatives ex-ante ainsi qu’une collecte de données quantitative ex-ante et ex-post. L’analyse de ces collectes révèle une dichotomie spécifique aux structures de l’ESS utilisant le programme que nous avons catégorisées en Tech Driven d’une part, ou Tech Powered d’autre part, avec des besoins et des conditions de pérennisation spécifiques en fonction de la catégorie qui leur correspond.

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.

Stories of community resilience and rapid innovation have emerged during the global pandemic caused by COVID-19. As communities, organizations, and individuals have had to shift modalities during the pandemic, they have identified ways to sustain community well-being. Prior to COVID-19, colleges and universities were hailed as anchors of economic and social resilience and well-being for communities of place. In this light, this commentary highlights stories of rapid community innovation occurring at Hobart & William Smith Colleges in the Finger Lakes region of New York. A series of vignettes are presented showcasing lessons and on-going questions regarding rapid pivots, community values, and diversity and inclusion during (and after) the pandemic. Overall, these insights can inform future local collaborative development efforts post-COVID-19 between colleges/universities and their local community.

Digital social innovation (DSI) involves the use of digital technologies in the development and implementation of innovative products, services, processes and business models that seek to improve the well-being and agency of socially disadvantaged groups or address social problems related to marginality, inequality and social exclusion (Qureshi, Pan, & Zheng, 2017; Shalini et al., 2021). Information Systems Frontiers, 22 (11), 1 - 21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-09991-6 153 Parthiban, R., Qureshi, I., Bandyopadhyay, S., & Jaikumar, S. (2021). Social inclusion/exclusion (Diaz Andrade & Doolin, 2016; Iivari et al., 2018; Riaz & Qureshi, 2017); social inequality (Qureshi et al., 2018; Zheng & Walsham, 2008, 2021) Embedded agency of DSIrs How are DSIrs able to engage with local institutions yet bring change in these very same institutions? 151 Pandey, M., Bhati, M., Shukla, D. M., & Qureshi, I. (2021). 152 Parthiban, R., Qureshi, I., Bandyopadhyay, S., Bhatt, B., & Jaikumar, S. (2020).

Digital social innovation (DSI) involves the use of digital technologies in the development and implementation of innovative products, services, processes and business models that seek to improve the well-being and agency of socially disadvantaged groups or address social problems related to marginality, inequality and social exclusion (Qureshi, Pan, & Zheng, 2017; Shalini et al., 2021). Information Systems Frontiers, 22 (11), 1 - 21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-09991-6 153 Parthiban, R., Qureshi, I., Bandyopadhyay, S., & Jaikumar, S. (2021). Social inclusion/exclusion (Diaz Andrade & Doolin, 2016; Iivari et al., 2018; Riaz & Qureshi, 2017); social inequality (Qureshi et al., 2018; Zheng & Walsham, 2008, 2021) Embedded agency of DSIrs How are DSIrs able to engage with local institutions yet bring change in these very same institutions? 151 Pandey, M., Bhati, M., Shukla, D. M., & Qureshi, I. (2021). 152 Parthiban, R., Qureshi, I., Bandyopadhyay, S., Bhatt, B., & Jaikumar, S. (2020).

This article responds to increasing discourses on digital social innovation (DSI) from the perspectives of women entrepreneurs. Using the individual differences theory of gender and information technology (IDTGIT), this research explores how digital technology is used by women entrepreneurs to create opportunities in response to the challenges associated with individual identity, individual influences, social influences and structural influences. We also extend the IDTGIT by exploring how technology is used by women entrepreneurs in their DSI ventures and how technology facilitates the social impact of such ventures. This paper draws on a qualitative study using interviews with 17 women entrepreneurs in Australia, and our findings indicate that individual identity, individual influences and social and structural influences play a significant role in inhibiting women entrepreneurs' business ventures but technology helps to create opportunities for women entrepreneurs to address these factors. We also found that technology plays a role in helping women entrepreneurs to pursue social innovation in two different ways: through social innovation that is embodied by technology and social innovation that is enabled by technology. Our findings further indicate the social impact of DSI in the areas of education, employment, environment and climate, community development and progress and healthcare. The theoretical and practical implications of DSI for women entrepreneurs are provided.

This article responds to increasing discourses on digital social innovation (DSI) from the perspectives of women entrepreneurs. Using the individual differences theory of gender and information technology (IDTGIT), this research explores how digital technology is used by women entrepreneurs to create opportunities in response to the challenges associated with individual identity, individual influences, social influences and structural influences. We also extend the IDTGIT by exploring how technology is used by women entrepreneurs in their DSI ventures and how technology facilitates the social impact of such ventures. This paper draws on a qualitative study using interviews with 17 women entrepreneurs in Australia, and our findings indicate that individual identity, individual influences and social and structural influences play a significant role in inhibiting women entrepreneurs' business ventures but technology helps to create opportunities for women entrepreneurs to address these factors. We also found that technology plays a role in helping women entrepreneurs to pursue social innovation in two different ways: through social innovation that is embodied by technology and social innovation that is enabled by technology. Our findings further indicate the social impact of DSI in the areas of education, employment, environment and climate, community development and progress and healthcare. The theoretical and practical implications of DSI for women entrepreneurs are provided.

The Public Health Agency of Canada’s Innovation Strategy (PHAC-IS) was established amid calls for diverse structural funding mechanisms that could support research agendas to inform policy making across multiple levels and jurisdictions. Influenced by a shifting emphasis towards a population health approach and growing interest in social innovation and systems change, the PHAC-IS was created as a national grantmaking program that funded the testing and delivery of promising population health interventions between 2009 and 2020.

The Public Health Agency of Canada’s Innovation Strategy (PHAC-IS) was established amid calls for diverse structural funding mechanisms that could support research agendas to inform policy making across multiple levels and jurisdictions. Influenced by a shifting emphasis towards a population health approach and growing interest in social innovation and systems change, the PHAC-IS was created as a national grantmaking program that funded the testing and delivery of promising population health interventions between 2009 and 2020.

This study explored how social housing communities can contribute to the transition to a circular economy (CE) in cities. The CE promotes ways for rethinking and reshaping current practices of producing and consuming to enhance resource efficiency while satisfying our needs to enable us to prosper sustainably. Resource efficiency in cities relies on production and consumption patterns that are connected to people behaviours. Up to now, the CE has mainly concentrated on different levels of technological system innovations with limited attention to social practices and behavioural change. On the other side, communities and groups of interest show playing a crucial role in the promotion of sustainable practices through initiatives of social innovation (SI). Through case study analysis and comparison, the project investigated contemporary SI initiatives implemented by urban communities and groups of interest aiming at promoting alternative production-consumption practices. Seven types of SI for resource circularity have been identified. Based on this typology, the study defined potential opportunities, benefits and challenges for social housing communities. These findings also highlighted a complementary role that SI can play in the CE implementation in cities. Therefore, the project suggested the introduction of emerging SI concepts into the current CE approach to support development.