Digital social innovation: An overview and research framework

Abstract

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). Often, DSI is less about technological innovation and more about social innovation—a process of finding innovative, effective and sustainable solutions to pressing societal challenges, such as those listed in sustainable development goals (SDGs). Thus, technology can be anywhere in the range of simple WhatsApp enabled groups (Parthiban et al., 2021; Parthiban, Qureshi, Bandyopadhyay, et al., 2020) and advanced blockchain-enabled supply chain (Hota et al., 2021), but its deployment is innovative in tackling wicked social problems, such as poverty, inequality, social exclusion, marginalisation and poor healthcare access (Bhatt et al., 2021; Escobedo et al., 2021; Hota & Mitra, 2021; Jha et al., 2016; Leong et al., 2016; Qureshi et al., 2018). The DSI initiatives can be led by social entrepreneurs, government agencies, charities, trust, non-government organisations (NGOs), cooperatives or corporations under their corporate social responsibilities. However, given the scope and scale of SDGs, such initiatives more likely involve cross-sector partnerships and multiple stakeholders. Various international agencies envisage the role of DSIs in achieving SDGs in three principal ways: providing access to information for example, commodity prices and weather information to the small landholding farmers; providing access to services to marginalised communities for example, education, health and financial services; and measuring and monitoring the SDGs progress for example, evidence-based, real-time measurements (UNGA, 2015; United Nation, 2021). The extant research highlights several instances of DSI, even though the term itself is not used often. For example, a social enterprise in India used a simple battery-operated portable projector to disseminate locally embedded farming best practices (Qureshi et al., 2018). In this special issue, Ravishankar (2021) highlights how a financial intermediary, Rang De, leveraged a digital platform to provide small loans to marginalised farmers. Hota et al. (2021) studied Ethitrade, a social intermediary, which uses advanced block chain technology to provide better prices to rural farmers by establishing provenance. DSI is, therefore, a current and important topic and a promising research area for information systems (IS) and management researchers. Thus, DSI holds tremendous promise at the conceptual, practical and pragmatic levels in addressing social issues and achieving SDGs; however, we have only recently started developing a theoretical understanding of this complex and fast-emerging phenomenon. As of now, this stream of research mostly focuses on issues around accessing information and services but has paid scant attention to issues related to measuring and monitoring SDGs progress (see Table 2). Also, research on ethical dilemmas inherent in engaging with marginalised communities and negotiating various ways power manifests in these contexts has been lacking. This editorial provides a research framework to highlight various stimulating research directions and theoretical lenses to explore them. DSI enables businesses, NGOs, government agencies and social entrepreneurs to leverage digital technologies to generate positive social impacts. These entities can collaborate using digital technologies to co-create knowledge and solutions to address a wide range of social needs in disadvantaged, socially excluded and marginalised groups at a scale that was unimaginable before the rise of internet-enabled technologies. In recent years, digital innovations have challenged all aspects of contemporary business models, disrupting, transforming and replacing them with new models regularly. These transformations have been manifested in several ways. Technology-savvy companies have built platforms or utilities exploiting internet-based infrastructure to increase the pace of innovation. These digital innovations led to a paradigm shift in how technology is leveraged to generate value (Parthiban et al., 2021), as exemplified by the sharing economy (Qureshi et al., 2021a), collaborative consumption (Shalini et al., 2021), gig work and crowdsourcing (Deng et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2020). However, societal outcomes of these digital innovations are at best mixed, as highlighted in privacy and security concerns (Newell & Marabelli, 2015), surveillance (Zuboff, 2019), oppressive and unethical outcomes of algorithms (Kane et al., 2021), and discrimination and exploitation in sharing economy platforms (Attri & Bapuji, 2021; Van Doorn, 2017). Compared to commercial use of information communication technologies (ICTs), the digital transformation in the social space has been less dramatic, especially in using technology to solve wicked social problems (Qureshi, Pan, & Zheng, 2017; Riaz & Qureshi, 2017). Thus, even though there is potential for using these emerging ICTs to address social issues, that potential remains largely unfulfilled, representing an opportunity to create social value through DSI. These social values form the crux of the UN's SDGs that aim at peaceful and prosperous existence for everyone in the society. However, social issues described as part of the UN's SDGs present a list of interminable, critical and intractable problems that require innovative and socially embedded solutions that leverage digital technology. With the role and finances of governments shrinking in many countries and NGOs struggling to raise funds, the wicked social problems identified under the SDGs cannot be addressed without the participation of every segment of society, including corporations, business professionals and academics. At the same time, because the COVID-19 pandemic - a highly infectious disease caused by a form of coronavirus - has left deep scars and threatened our survival in many aspects, a question worth pondering is whether IS, as a discipline, has paid adequate attention so far to issues about sustainability. We think IS can do more (cf. Kane et al., 2021; Lin et al., 2015; Walsham, 2012). COVID-19 has catalysed the use of online platforms for offices and educational institutions, digital modes for monetary transactions and mobile phones for spreading awareness (De et al., 2020), but these changes hold major implications for sustainability, which continues to remain under-researched. We sincerely believe that given the centrality of the relation between technology (in particular information technology) and society in the post-pandemic world, IS scholars are in a unique position to contribute to both research and practice pertaining to sustainability and many other grand societal challenges. In particular, IS research can shed light on the multi-disciplinary knowledge of SDGs and, more importantly, contribute to achieving SDGs. Given the solid foundation of multi-disciplinary expertise developed, we posit that DSI presents an opportunity and a challenge to IS and management scholars equipped with the necessary expertise, global networks and social motivation to generate positive social impact. For example, identifying and extending theories that can help us understand the role ICTs can play in achieving the UN's SDGs will go a long way in generating new insights in the field relevant to at least 4.5 billion people. In addition, many multi-lateral organisations and corporations have publicly declared their support for SDGs. Many organisations have committed to audacious goals of net zero emissions targets in line with a 1.5 C future. These public declarations are likely to create competitive pressure; and some companies, corporations and agglomerations may leapfrog to organise partnerships, restructure processes and position their services and products to project themselves as leaders in sustainable development. Such competition will open up a whole suite of opportunities for scholars to study the phenomenon of DSI at various levels and across those levels. However, on the flip side, corporations have engaged in greenwashing, hijacked green movements, created precarious work in the name of sharing economy and designed elaborate algorithms that track users' every action online (Delmas & Burbano, 2011; Kalleberg, 2009; Kane et al., 2021; Newell & Marabelli, 2015; Van Doorn, 2017; Zuboff, 2019). Understanding how DSIs can overcome these issues represent opportunities for generating critical insights needed for the evolution of this field. As we learned from combating the COVID-19 pandemic, there are research opportunities for IS researchers who aspire to tackle SDGs (Pan & Zhang, 2021). In particular, the SDGs represent significant new opportunities and challenges for organisations that would like to engage base-of-the-pyramid11 We intentionally use the term base-of-the-pyramid (Kistruck et al., 2013; Parthiban et al., 2021) instead of bottom-of-the-pyramid (Prahalad, 2004). Our discomfort with bottom-of-the-pyramid is due to its unfortunate origin in selling to poor and creating fortune for multinational companies (refer to seminal critique by Karnani, 2007). In addition, the term is condescending at its best and derogatory at its worst, as it refer to these populations as “bottom”. In contrast, the base-of-the-pyramid acknowledges that these populations represent the foundation (base) of humanity, on which everything else is built. The focus of the base-of-the-pyramid initiatives are on developing capabilities, generating livelihoods, and empowering these populations (Parthiban, Qureshi, Bandyopadhyay et al., 2020, 2021; Qureshi et al., 2018; Shalini et al., 2021). producers, artisans and employees (Madon & Sharanappa, 2013; Parthiban et al., 2021; Parthiban, Qureshi, Bandyopadhyay, et al., 2020; Qureshi et al., 2018; Shalini et al., 2021). The investment needed to achieve UN's SDGs is estimated to be up to US$3 trillion a year for 15 years (Goldsmith, 2015). Addressing SDGs will create competencies within these organisations to cooperate in these environments and develop cross-sector partnerships. To achieve SDGs, we must leverage existing and widely deployed technologies, develop new innovative services and improve the reach of technological solutions. ICTs are poised to play an extended role in today's developing countries (Faik & Walsham, 2013). As witnessed in the mobile phone diffusion phenomenon (Meso et al., 2005), the developing countries could potentially leapfrog through their use of mobile platform-based applications to achieve digital transformation. This leapfrogging would enable them to close the technological gap with developed countries at a much faster rate than previously anticipated (Datta, 2011; Davison et al., 2000; Tim, Pan, Ractham, & Kaewkitipong, 2017), representing exciting possibilities to leverage ICTs for designing innovative solutions. Here, it is important to note that leapfrogging in technology for its sake will not provide any tangible benefits to those who are most marginalised. These technological advancements should be coupled with social innovation to leapfrog in the human development index. We see in developed as well as developing countries that ICTs are increasingly enabling and driving the transformation of the most expensive public services such as healthcare, education, energy, agriculture and environmental monitoring and protection (Pan et al., 2006; Pee et al., 2021; Riaz & Qureshi, 2017; Rose et al., 2015; Stahl et al., 2012). Digitisation has transformed the global value chain and supported innovative models such as cloud work, socially responsible outsourcing or impact sourcing (Heeks & Arun, 2010; Kannothra et al., 2017; Malik & Nicholson, 2020), social intermediation (Kistruck et al., 2013), social entrepreneurship (Bhatt et al., 2019; Qureshi et al., 2016) and social business (UNCTAD, 2017). Digital platforms and crowdsourcing have led to innovative social solutions and services in the third sector, such as more fluid, decentralised and dynamic ways of organising collective action (Bennett & Segerberg, 2012) and disaster response (Tim, Pan, Ractham, & Kaewkitipong, 2017) and funding new forms of NGOs and charitable programmes (Zheng & Yu, 2016). In addition, open-source software (OSS), open data or even open ICT ecosystems have been widely applied in government service, education and healthcare (Qureshi & Fang, 2011; Smith & Elder, 2010; Smith & Reilly, 2013). However, we do not assume that ICTs are the solutions for SDGs. We acknowledge the negative consequences of ICTs, such as rising income inequalities, excessive electricity consumption leading to pollution, oppressive and exploitative algorithms, discriminatory sharing economy platforms, social media-induced polarisation and surveillance. Thus, ICTs can result in dystopian outcomes if not carefully curated. In the following section, we provide a research framework for DSI, where social takes precedence over digital. By integrating research in ICTs for development, social entrepreneurship and social innovation, we propose a framework to understand the process of DSI and identify interesting research avenues (see Figure 1). Organisations and agencies engaged in development activities, especially at the base-of-the-pyramid (Attri & Bapuji, 2021; Hota & Mitra, 2021; Kistruck et al., 2013), encounter issues related to agency and social structures (Bhatt, 2021; Bhatt et al., 2019; Pillai, Pandey, & Bhatt, 2021). These organisations possess agency to bring change, but that agency is constrained by social structures, informal institutions and local norms (Battilana, 2006; Garud et al., 2007; Qureshi et al., 2016). Likewise, organisations involved in DSI have some agency to bring change but need to be socially embedded in the context (Avgerou & Li, 2013; Hota et al., 2019; Parthiban, Qureshi, Bandyopadhyay, et al., 2020). Without agency, no social change is possible (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998). While organisations engaged in the base-of-the-pyramid do not possess absolute agency, they cannot let the social context dictate their actions entirely, as that would prevent any meaningful social change (Faik et al., 2020; Qureshi et al., 2018). Therefore, these organisations need to exercise embedded agency (Garud et al., 2007; Qureshi et al., 2016). Their agency results, in part, from their ability to bring external knowledge and resources (Hota et al., 2019; Parthiban et al., 2021; Shalini et al., 2021), their ICT expertise (Krauss, 2018; Leong et al., 2015; Qureshi et al., 2021a) and their reflexivity (Claus et al., 2021; Krauss, 2018; Qureshi, Riaz, & Ruebottom, 2017; van Wijk et al., 2020). In contrast, as shown in Figure 1, their social embeddedness helps them be aware of local formal and informal institutions (Bernardi et al., 2019; Masiero & Prakash, 2020; Parthiban, Qureshi, Bandyopadhyay, et al., 2020), leverage local knowledge and resources (Escobedo et al., 2021; Hota et al., 2019; Karanasios & Slavova, 2019) and navigate exploitative social structures (Iivari et al., 2018; Qureshi et al., 2018; Riaz & Qureshi, 2017). In Table 1, we provide a list of research questions on how digital social innovators (DSIrs) leverage agency and social embeddedness, and we provide theoretical lenses to explore these questions. The list is intended to be representative of the field, not exhaustive. We organise these research questions under the themes of agency, social embeddedness and embedded agency (see Table 1). How do DSIrs catalyse and mobilise local actors to bring social change? Collective action (Ghobadi & Clegg, 2015; Leong, Faik, et al., 2020; Sæbø et al., 2020; Thapa et al., 2012; Young, 2018; Young et al., 2019; Zheng & Yu, 2016) What role DSI plays in social movements, and how social movements catalyse DSI? Social movements (Ghobadi & Clegg, 2015; Leong, Faik, et al., 2020; McKenna, 2020; Miranda et al., 2016; Young et al., 2019) The embedded agency of DSIrs helps them simultaneously understand their capabilities (agency) and the constraints imposed by their social embeddedness. In addition, this embedded agency helps identify various challenges faced by the communities the DSIrs would like to serve and their ability to address those challenges. Thus, the embedded agency helps DSIrs to identify opportunities to make the most significant social impact. Given that the DSI initiatives focus on creating social value and social impact (Qureshi, Pan, & Zheng, 2017), these initiatives can be understood based on their impact on SDGs. In Table 2, we have categorised the studies into various SDGs based on our reading of research reported in these papers. We also note theories or perspectives used in these studies. Entrepreneurship literature has recognised the importance of imagination, creativity and serendipity in innovation (Amabile, 1988; Dew, 2009; Ward, 2004) and in discovering or creating opportunities (Alvarez & Barney, 2007; Barreto, 2012). Thus, most of the theories in entrepreneurial opportunity research can be categorised into opportunity discovery and opportunity creation. In Table 3, we provide various research questions and theories related to opportunity discovery and opportunity creation by DSIrs. In appreciation of the differences between DSI and commercial innovation, rather than entirely relying on commercial entrepreneurship, we integrate theories from social entrepreneurship and digital entrepreneurship. Does the focus of DSIrs on sustainable development goals result in the creation of new opportunities? Does leveraging digital technologies in the process of social innovation create new opportunities? How should DSIrs incorporate digital artefacts to create new opportunities? What roles do collective action and social movements play in opportunity creation by DSIrs? Any implementation of DSI needs to account for social context and social hierarchies. Unlike digital divide research, which is mostly concerned with access issues on account of lack of digital infrastructure, digital literacy and other relevant skills (Diaz Andrade & Doolin, 2016; Zheng & Walsham, 2021), DSI research should account for the complex Web of social structures, informal institutions and intersectionality (Qureshi et al., 2018; Rajão & Marcolino, 2016; Thompson, 2012) that results in social and digital exclusion (Zheng & Walsham, 2008). Provisioning access to digital technologies, although important, is only a first step. In many instances, even when access to physical devices is provided, the social structures prevent any meaningful participation (Iivari et al., 2018; Qureshi et al., 2018; Riaz & Qureshi, 2017). Thus, to create any meaningful social impact on selected SDGs, DSIrs need to prioritise addressing social issues over technological finesse. We label this construct as the social-first approach. The social-first approach distinguishes the societal platform from the commercial platform. Societal platforms represent a collaborative approach to address grand societal challenges or wicked problems at scale, sustainably and with speed.22 Societal platforms is an emerging paradigm for creating public goods through enabling co-creation and amplifying interactions. More information can be found here: https://societalplatform.org/. Our second construct emanates from the social-first approach. DSIrs should strive to maximise social impact; if a simple and primitive digital technology can achieve that goal, so be it. Thus, DSIrs should adhere to the principle of technoficing. Building on the concept of satisficing33 Satisficing occurs on account of the bounded rationality of the decision-maker, leading to inefficient outcomes (Simon, 1957, 1979). Satisficing happens because of the decision-maker's cognitive limits in identifying and evaluating all possible options (Williamson, 1985), resulting in them settling for the good enough option rather than pursuing the best option. (March, 1991; Simon, 1957, 1979) and socialficing44 Socialficing is “the purposeful pursuit of social objectives at the expense of financial efficiency … While satisficing equates rationality with financial efficiency maximisation, socialficing equates rationality with taking actions that best further what are often complex social and financial organisational objectives” (Kistruck et al., 2013, pp. 60–61). (Kistruck et al., 2013), we define technoficing as the purposeful pursuit of social objectives using a technology that is good enough and appropriate for the purpose. In fact, a simple technology implemented after embedded engagement with the community can go a long way to achieving goals compared with an advanced technology that is simply thrust on the communities. Our final construct, cultural bricolage (Baker & Nelson, 2005; Rao et al., 2005; Zilber, 2006), is defined as the innovative recombination and ad hoc use of available cultural resources to overcome resource constraints and rigid social hierarchies in addressing wicked social problems (Parthiban, Qureshi, Bhatt, & Bandyopadhyay, 2020; Qureshi et al., 2018). As DSIs are primarily implemented in contexts marked by resource constraints and constraining social norms, DSIrs are required to leverage local cultural resources as much as possible and recombine them innovatively to create possibilities where none exists. Parthiban, Qureshi, Bhatt, and Bandyopadhyay (2020) demonstrate how a DSIr innovatively recombined the cultural “resources” of social norms around urban elderly and rural education to address dual issues of productive aging and access to quality education. Cultural bricolage can be studied in combination with the growing fields of frugal innovation and grassroots innovation (Baker & Nelson, 2005; Desa, 2012; Rosca et al., 2017; Seyfang & Smith, 2007; Smith et al., 2016). In Table 4, we provide various research questions and theories related to structuring DSI, categorising them into social-first, technoficing and cultural bricolage. How do digital social innovators (DSIrs) maximise their social impact? How do DSIrs generate livelihoods for marginalised groups? How do societal platforms emerge? What are the characteristics of societal platforms? How do DSIrs identify appropriate technology for the purpose? How do DSIrs balance between technological innovation and social innovation? How do DSIrs achieve cultural resource recombination to enhance social impact? What role does cultural bricolage play in frugal innovation by DSIrs? How do DSIrs overcome resource constraints through cultural bricolage? Cultural resources recombination (Baker & Nelson, 2005; Di Domenico et al., 2009; Parthiban, Qureshi, Bhatt, & Bandyopadhyay, 2020); Frugal innovation (Rosca et al., 2017); grassroots innovation (Seyfang & Smith, 2007; Smith et al., 2016; Zorina & Karanasios, 2021); resources constraints (Bhatt et al., 2019; Hota et al., 2019) SDGs present opportunities as well as a daunting challenge because of the sheer breadth and depth of issues facing global communities. Thus, any successful idea that has the potential to improve any of the SDGs needs to be quickly scaled (André & Pache, 2016; Parthiban, Qureshi, Bandyopadhyay, et al., 2020). While there is an apparent urgency to scale social impact (Dembek et al., 2016) and, by extension, DSI, research has indicated that current approaches to scaling the organisation rather than the idea are full of pitfalls (Grimes et al., 2019; Onyx et al., 2018). Scaling impact by scaling organisations may not always be a practical or sustainable strategy considering the various costs and agency-related issues (Cannatelli, 2017; Grimes et al., 2020). In fact, in some cases, the scaling of organisations has resulted in organisations drifting away from their social mission (Klein et al., 2020; Ometto et al., 2019). Finally, many SDGs are classified as wicked problems due to the complexities involved, and no single organisation can tackle them effectively alone (Head & Alford, 2015). Therefore, DSIrs are increasingly looking towards creating partnerships that might help them increase their social impact. One such example Catalyst2030, a collaboration platform for social enterprises, is engaged in addressing SDGs, including through DSIs. One of the most high-profile DSI examples, M-Pesa mobile money, showcases the importance of public–private partnerships. Emerging research in this domain has suggested that DSIrs seeking to scale their impact need to account for the peculiarities of social intermediation and market linkages (Hota et al., 2019; Kistruck et al., 2013; Parthiban, Qureshi, Bandyopadhyay, et al., 2020; Shalini et al., 2021), the open and emergent nature of innovations for the base-of-the-pyramid population (Madon & Schoemaker, 2021; Parthiban et al., 2021), and the need for intensive learning and strategical “drift” to achieve adaptive innovation (Foster & Heeks, 2013). Literature on scaling has identified, broadly, six approaches to scaling social impact (André & Pache, 2016; Bhatt et al., 2021; Parthiban, Qureshi, Bandyopadhyay, et al., 2020) that are relevant to DSI: scaling by diversification, scaling up, scaling across, scaling deep, ecosystem approach and scaling by bridging complementary institutional voids (BCIVs; see Table 5). Scaling by diversification, also known as growing the organisation, refers to using the same channel or platform to tackle multiple SDGs by providing multiple services and products. Scaling up, another approach to growing the organisation, is a strategy of increasing impact of DSI by reaching more beneficiaries in different locations, which requires the organisation to scale its capacities and logistics to serve more beneficiaries with different needs. Scaling across, also known as growing the idea, uses an open innovation approach that focuses on disseminating and sharing the DSI with other DSIrs to let the idea grow and, by extension, lead to a higher social impact. Scaling deep is an approach where DSIrs engage with the same communities and on the same SDG over a long period to improve targeted outcomes substantially. The ecosystem approach to scaling acknowledges that SDGs are targeted to wicked problems that can be beyond any individual DSIr. It leverages the power of many to tackle complex problems. In this approach, various organisations synergise their DSI to tackle large-scale intractable problems of SDGs (Bhatt et al., 2021). Scaling by BCIVs is an approach where DSIrs identify two complementary SDGs and use DSI to address them simultaneously. Parthiban, Qureshi, Bandyopadhyay, et al. (2020) provided an example where educated retired urban elderly were engaged through a platform in decent and meaningful work (SDG#8, decent work and economic growth) to help overcome the lack of teachers in a rural area to provide quality education to poor kids (SDG#4, quality education). How do digital social innovators (DSIrs) leverage technology to bring more products and services? How do DSIrs decide which product or services to bring to maximise social impact? How do DSIrs decide the degree of open innovation in digital social innovation (DSI)? To what extent should scaling across leverage crowdsourcing? What are the trade-offs between open innovation and controlling DSI, and how do DSIrs resolve these trade-offs? What are the facilitators and barriers to using social movements and collective actions to scaling across the social innovation? Open innovation (Feller et al., 2011; Madon & Schoemaker, 2021; Parthiban et al., 2021; Yun et al., 2017) Crowdsourcing (Liu et al., 2020; Schlagwein et al., 2019; Taylor & Joshi, 2019) Paradox/tension (Kibere, 2016; Mahrer & Krimmer, 2005; McLennan, 2016; Poole & Van de Ven, 1989; Rajão & Marcolino, 2016; Smith & Lewis, 2011) Collective action (Ghobadi & Clegg, 2015; Leong, Faik, et al., 2020; Sæbø et al., 2020; Thapa et al., 2012; Young, 2018; Young et al., 2019; Zheng & Yu, 2016); social movements (Ghobadi & Clegg, 2015; Leong, Faik, et al., 2020; McKenna, 2020; Miranda et al., 2016; Young et al., 2019) Does long-term engagement of DSIrs develop capabilities in local communities? If so, how? Capability approach (Cibangu, 2020; Diaz Andrade & Doolin, 2016; Kleine et al., 2012; Nemer, 2016; Poveda & Roberts, 2018; Zheng & Walsham, 2008) Does the long-term engagement of DSIrs make local communities resilient? If so, how? Resilience framework (Heeks & Ospina, 2019; Tim et al., 2021) Empowerment (Alao et al., 2017; Bailur et al., 2018; Pandey & Zheng, 2020) Does long-term engagement transform local institutions? If so, how? Institutionalisation (Bernardi et al., 2019; Madon et al., 2009; Masiero & Prakash, 2020; Silva & Backhouse, 2003) How do DSIrs structure ecosystems for scaling social impact? What role does value co-creation play in structuring ecosystems for social impact? How do DSIrs leverage cross-sector partnerships to structure ecosystems for scaling social impact? Ecosystem approach (Acs et al., 2018; Bhatt et al., 2021; Jha et al., 2016) Value co-creation (Barraket & Loosemore, 2018; Ostertag et al., 2021; Parthiban et al., 2021) Cross-sector partnership (Di Domenico et al., 2009; Selsky & Parker, 2005) How do DSIrs identify complementary institutional voids? Institutional voids (Mair & Marti, 2009; Parthiban, Qureshi, Bandyopadhyay, et al., 2020) How is DSI designed to leverage technology to achieve through BCIVs? Design research (Holeman & Barrett, 2017;