Votre recherche

Indigenous communities across Canada have established principles to guide ethical research within their respective communities. Thorough cataloging and description of these would inform university research ethics boards, researchers, and scholars and facilitate meaningful research that respects Indigenous-defined ethical values. A scoping study was conducted of all relevant peer-reviewed literature and public-facing Indigenous research ethical guidelines from First Nations, Metis, and Inuit communities and organizations in Canada. A total of 20 different Indigenous research ethics boards, frameworks, and protocols were identified. Analysis resulted in three key themes: (1) balancing individual and collective rights; (2) upholding culturally-grounded ethical principles; and (3) ensuring community-driven/self-determined research. Findings demonstrate how employment of Indigenous ethical principles in research positively contributes to research outcomes.

Abstract. Three points are discussed: first, that limits of technological fixes are revealed by current economic, social, and environmental problems; second, that these problems cannot be solved by a technological fix but require alternative forms of activity and being; third, that realizing these limits makes possible the re-emergence of the sacred. Two attitudes toward technology, nature, and the sacred are described: Technocrats desacralize nature and strive to shape it technologically for human ends alone; pernetarians resacralize nature and develop a perennial philosophy (synthesized from elements of different spiritual disciplines) allied with an enlarged, artful science, so as to design activities compatible with nature.

This Article provides the first legal examination of the immensely valuable but underappreciated phenomenon of social innovation. Innovations such as cognitive behavioral therapy, microfinance, and strategies to reduce hospital-based infections greatly enhance social welfare yet operate completely outside of the patent system, the primary legal mechanism for promoting innovation. This Article draws on empirical studies to elucidate this significant kind of innovation and explore its divergence from the classic model of technological innovation championed by the patent system. In so doing, it illustrates how patent law exhibits a rather crabbed, particularistic conception of innovation. Among other characteristics, innovation in the patent context is individualistic, arises from a discrete origin and history, and prioritizes novelty. Much social innovation, however, arises from communities rather than individual inventors, evolves from multiple histories, and entails expanding that which already exists from one context to another. These  Professor of Law and Chancellor’s Fellow, UC Davis School of Law. I would like to thank Camilla Hrdy, Chris Griffin, Richard Gruner, Courtney Joslin, Lydia Loren, Manesh Patel, and Darien Shanske for their comments on earlier versions of this paper. This Article benefitted substantially from presentations at the Intellectual Property Scholars Conference at Cardozo Law School, the East Bay Faculty Workshop, the Works in Progress Intellectual Property colloquium at Santa Clara School of Law, IP in The Trees at Lewis & Clark Law School, PatCon 4 at the University of San Diego School of Law, the Value Pluralism and Intellectual Property Law conference organized by the University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law and the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and BYU Law School. I would like to thank Dean Kevin Johnson and Associate Dean Vik Amar for providing generous institutional support for this project. I would also like to thank Erin Choi and the UC Davis School of Law library staff for exceptional research assistance. Finally, I would like to thank the excellent editors of the Washington University Law Review. 2 WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [VOL. 92:1 attributes, moreover, apply in large part to technological innovation as well, thus revealing how patent law relies upon and reinforces a rather distorted view of the innovative processes it seeks to promote. Moving from the descriptive to the prescriptive, this Article cautions against extending exclusive rights to social innovations and suggests several nonpatent mechanisms for accelerating this valuable activity. Finally, it examines the theoretical implications of social innovation for patent law, thus helping to contribute to a more holistic framework for innovation law and policy.

A living lab is a physical or virtual space in which to solve societal challenges, especially for urban areas, by bringing together various stakeholders for collaboration and collective ideation. Although the notion has received increasing attention from scholars, practitioners and policy makers, its essence remains unclear to many. We therefore performed a systematic literature review of a sample of 114 scholarly articles about living labs to understand the central facets discussed in the nascent literature. In particular, we explored the origin of the living lab concept and its key paradigms and characteristics, including stakeholder roles, contexts, challenges, main outcomes, and sustainability. While doing this, we discovered that the number of publications about living labs has increased significantly since 2015, and several journals are very active in publishing articles on the topic. The living lab is considered a multidisciplinary phenomenon and it encompasses various research domains despite typically being discussed under open and user innovation paradigms. What is more, the existing literature views living labs simultaneously as landscapes, real-life environments, and methodologies, and it suggests that they include heterogeneous stakeholders and apply various business models, methods, tools and approaches. Finally, living labs face some challenges, such as temporality, governance, efficiency, user recruitment, sustainability, scalability and unpredictable outcomes. In contrast, the benefits include tangible and intangible innovation and a broader diversity of innovation. Based on our analysis, we provide some implications and suggestions for future research.

This paper examines the evolution in the conceptualization of Social Innovation (SI) with a view to elucidating the multiplication of uses of the term over the last half century. We performed a comprehensive and systematic literature review extracting 252 definitions of SI through a search of 2,339 documents comprising academic papers, books and book chapters, together research and policy reports. To guide the inductive analysis of pluri-vocal discourses we assume innovation to be a learning-based process involving actors’ interactions and social practices. We apply mixed qualitative methodologies, combining content analysis based on an interpretivist ontology with cognitive mapping techniques. Our findings show that SI was introduced as an analytical concept by incipient academic communities and has spread in the last decades as a normative concept fuelled by development and innovation policies. SI is defined by a set of common core elements underpinning three different and interrelated discursive ‘areas’: processes of social change, sustainable development and the services sector. We point to some policy implications and a number of promising avenues for research towards the advancement of a broader socio-technical theory of innovation.

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

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

This paper examines the evolution in the conceptualization of Social Innovation (SI) with a view to elucidating the multiplication of uses of the term over the last half century. We performed a comprehensive and systematic literature review extracting 252 definitions of SI through a search of 2,339 documents comprising academic papers, books and book chapters, together research and policy reports. To guide the inductive analysis of pluri-vocal discourses we assume innovation to be a learning-based process involving actors’ interactions and social practices. We apply mixed qualitative methodologies, combining content analysis based on an interpretivist ontology with cognitive mapping techniques. Our findings show that SI was introduced as an analytical concept by incipient academic communities and has spread in the last decades as a normative concept fuelled by development and innovation policies. SI is defined by a set of common core elements underpinning three different and interrelated discursive ‘areas’: processes of social change, sustainable development and the services sector. We point to some policy implications and a number of promising avenues for research towards the advancement of a broader socio-technical theory of innovation.

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.

Cross-boundary teaming, within and across organizations, is an increasingly popular strategy for innovation. Knowledge diversity is seen to expand the range of views and ideas that teams can draw upon to innovate. Yet, case studies reveal that teaming across knowledge boundaries can be difficult in practice, and innovation is not always realized. Two streams of research are particularly relevant for understanding the challenges inherent in cross-boundary teaming: research on team effectiveness and research on knowledge in organizations. They offer complementary insights: the former stream focuses on group dynamics and measures team inputs, processes, emergent states, and outcomes, while the latter closely investigates dialog and objects in recurrent social practices. Drawing from both streams, this paper seeks to shed light on the complexity of cross-boundary teaming, while highlighting factors that may enhance its effectiveness. We develop an integrative model to provide greater explanatory power than previous approaches to assess cross-boundary teaming efforts and their innovation performance.

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

This essay revisits the historical development of a concept – tecnologia social – as one avenue for discussing alternatives to post-development, arguing that the Western-based historical path of technology development is one of the main sources of growing human impoverishment, social inequalities and economic dependency. The concept of tecnologia social points towards political processes that create opportunities to redefine the arrangements among social groups, artefacts and methods used in everyday life, particularly for production and consumption. Because the post-development debate has been criticised for formulating a sound and strong critique to mainstream development but failing to propose concrete empirical alternatives, we seek to foster the debate through the Latin American concept of tecnologia social.

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.

The case provides an opportunity to understand how tecnologia social – a South American concept that might be seen as an equivalent to social innovation – can help promote social change. To illustrate the potential of social technologies, the case of Agência de Redes is presented. The case is intended for use at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Its purpose is to promote the discussion of the South American concept of tecnologia social, as well as to analyse of one particular tecnologia social using a conceptual model to understand the mechanisms that might promote social change.

This case examines the major challenges faced by Productions Jeun’Est (PJE) and Prodigium, a social enterprise working in the cultural sector. The profits generated by Prodigium’s activities in the entertainment field are invested in the PJE training program that aims to increase the social inclusion of vulnerable youth by training them to be technicians in the cultural market. By studying this case, students are expected to understand the elements of a social business model, to analyze the role of the different elements forming a social innovation and to evaluate the challenges of planning its transfer to another context.

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.