Social Innovation Research Research Articles

Co-creation of social innovations for healthy ageing in rural Europe – a process evaluation of a volunteer-led guided conversation toolkit using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT)

ABSTRACT We critically explored the use of Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) in the evaluation of a co-designed intervention toolkit for Healthy Ageing through Innovation in Rural Europe (HAIRE). The toolkit was co-designed and implemented in rural communities in Belgium, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. NPT was applied as a novel analytical framework to shed light on key practices and processes that supported implementation. Further, the paper discusses how social innovation research helps frame co-designing such interventions with local communities. During the study, 25 semi-structured interviews were conducted with project partners and volunteers who were involved in toolkit co-design and implementation. A need for co-designing toolkits that explore ageing holistically was identified. Holistic understandings of ageing can be developed by paying attention to person-centred and place-based (context-specific) aspects of ageing. Finally, we illustrate how NPT can guide future evaluation frameworks as it offers the flexibility required to understand context-specific implementation.

Social innovation in health training to engage researchers in resource-limited settings: process description and evaluation.

Research on social innovations in health has increased in recent years. However, little training is geared toward enhancing social innovation research capacity. Most health training for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is developed by individuals in high-income countries, disregarding LMIC researchers' wisdom and insights and the communities' needs. Our team organized a multi-phase investigation involving a series of surveys and co-creation group discussions to assess individuals' training needs that directly informed a subsequent co-created training workshop series. We conducted a Hennessy-Hicks Training Needs Assessment among the Social Innovation in Health Initiative (SIHI) network and formed a co-creation group comprising SIHI fellows to design related training workshops. We ran a final evaluation survey and analyzed the workshop series' strengths, weaknesses and threats. Descriptive and thematic analysis were employed to analyze survey data and open-ended responses. The final evaluation survey captured data from 165 learners in 35 countries, including 26 LMICs. Most participants (67.3%, 111/165) rated the training workshop series as excellent, and 30.3% (50/165) rated it as good on a five-point scale. The need for writing research grants and manuscripts was rated the highest priority. Learners were interested in community-engaged research and diversity, equity and inclusion. This workshop illustrated how co-creation could be an effective tool for developing training materials tailored for LMIC researchers. We also offer a template for conducting a needs assessment and subsequent training workshops for LMICs. The ground-up, locally developed courses may be more effective than externally developed training programs intended for LMICs.

Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship: Uncovering Themes, Trends, and Discourse

The world is marked by persistent and recurring socio-economic and environmental changes. The domains of social innovation and social entrepreneurship have gained prominence as catalysts for positive change and societal resilience. Despite the substantial body of literature assessing social innovation and social entrepreneurship, most studies address these topics through analyses of scientific production output or through systematic literature reviews. Conversely, the main objective of this paper is to conduct a thematic analysis of the existing scientific literature on social innovation and social entrepreneurship, published across various geographical contexts, to assess themes, trends, and discourse within these fields worldwide. Therefore, it synthesizes, analyzes, and evaluates the evolving landscape of social innovation and social entrepreneurship research over time, employing a sliding windows methodology. This approach divides the analyzed period into distinct times to meticulously track changes in themes and discourse over time. To accomplish this objective, this paper examines the evolving thematic dynamics of social innovation and social entrepreneurship within the scientific literature, serving as a driver and compelling researchers and practitioners to explore new dimensions in social innovation and social entrepreneurship. Evidence from the analysis is discussed, including the main theoretical and practical implications and proposals for future research. This paper emphasizes the importance of adaptive and resilient approaches within the domains of social innovation and social entrepreneurship and contributes to a deeper understanding of how social innovation and social entrepreneurship evolve and adapt over time, shedding light on the transformative potential of social innovation and social entrepreneurship.

Open social innovation: taking stock and moving forward*

ABSTRACT Open forms of organising innovation bear great potential to address societal challenges, such as the climate crisis. Existing approaches to open social innovation (OSI) draw on a corporate and organisation-centric open innovation model as a blueprint for addressing social and ecological problems. However, such problems are ‘wicked’ and ‘complex’ in nature and thus require concerted efforts from a diverse set of stakeholders, including businesses, government agencies, non-profits and communities. Based on a review of the open-, user- and social-innovation literature, this essay traces the evolution from an organisation-centric view (OSI 1.0) to a multi-stakeholder, cross-sectoral perspective (OSI 2.0). More specifically, we understand OSI as a concerted effort undertaken by multiple stakeholders from various sectors throughout the social innovation process, from diagnosing societal challenges, to developing ideas for how to solve problems, creating solutions, effectively scaling solutions and generating impact. We sharpen the terminology for OSI 2.0 and specify design dimensions for the effective orchestration of collaboration and coordination, and outline key areas for future research. Our objective is to foster dialogue between open- and user-innovation and social-innovation research.

Grassroots innovation and social innovation in perspective.

This article provides a comprehensive review of social innovation and grassroots innovation over the last 5 years, offering a detailed analysis of both concepts. This study explores the integration of grassroots innovation and social innovation based on an extensive literature review. It examines five dimensions within the literature: key fields, disciplines, actors, geographical areas and theoretical frameworks. Despite significant research in recent decades, there is a notable gap of literature devoted to grassroots innovation and its position within discourse of social innovation. This paper explores the differences and similarities between the concepts of social innovation and grassroots innovation in order to better understand the use of both concepts, the cases in which they are used and possible complementarities. The main findings of the literature on combining the concepts of social innovation and grassroots innovation focus on social enterprises, while research on grassroots innovation as a stand-alone concept focuses on community-led initiatives, civil society organisations, cooperatives and local leaders. Geographically, India plays a very important role in grassroots and social innovation research, followed by Brazil and Spain. In terms of theoretical approach, the combination of social innovation and grassroots innovation has a strong sociological focus, emphasising theories of social practice, collective action, solidarity and community. In contrast, the theoretical frameworks of grassroots innovation are more anchored in power relations and socio-technical transitions, including, for example, resistance to innovation. Grassroots innovation offers practical insights into understanding innovation through the lenses of grassroots and community-based social change. Similarly, social innovation can contribute to the debate on grassroots innovations by understanding not only the agency of actors, but also the innovation ecosystem, actors and types of innovation. Further empirical research on the understanding and application of both concepts in the global North and South in academic discourse offers great potential, therefore potential research questions have been raised here for further investigation.

Bibliometric Analysis of Social and Environmental Innovation Research Developments: Trend Identification, Key Concepts, and Collaboration in the Scientific Literature

A thorough bibliometric analysis is conducted in this study to investigate the state of social and environmental innovation research. The present study aims to identify developing trends, significant concepts, and collaboration networks in the subject by a thorough survey of scholarly literature. The analysis offers a comprehensive picture of the changing conversation around social and environmental innovation by incorporating a wide range of publications, such as reports, conference papers, and journal articles.The data shows a notable rise in publications over time pertaining to social and environmental innovation, indicating the field's increasing significance in tackling global issues. Research on social and environmental innovation is by its very nature interdisciplinary, incorporating elements from the social sciences, economics, business, and environmental science. This multidisciplinary approach makes it possible to fully comprehend difficult problems and come up with creative solutions. The existence of collaborative networks among scholars is highlighted by co-authorship network analysis. These networks make it easier to share knowledge, cross-pollinate concepts, and create all-encompassing solutions. The report highlights a number of topics related to emerging research, such as the role of technology in promoting social and environmental innovation, the circular economy and sustainable business models, inclusive entrepreneurship and social innovation, and sustainable supply chains. Researchers, practitioners, and policymakers can all benefit from the understanding this analysis provides. This information can be used by policymakers to guide the creation of laws that encourage environmental and social innovation. Experts are able to recognize new trends and recommended procedures. Scholars are able to pinpoint gaps in existing research and avenues for further investigation.

Innovation studies, social innovation, and sustainability transitions research: From mutual ignorance towards an integrative perspective?

This article is a first attempt towards building an integrative analytical framework to study goal-orientated transformative change (GOTC) processes, defined as system-transforming processes that are guided by the ambition to resolve current or expected future societal challenges. GOTC can only start once a broad range of possible goals are considered by key stakeholders and major relevant actors are committed to act. Hence, there is a need for widening the scope of the current, partial conceptual models to consider the co-evolutionary interactions between technology, economy, and society to better understand and effectively guide and/or assess GOTC. This claim is based on our focussed review of Innovation Studies, Social Innovation, and Sustainability Transitions research. We offer four building blocks for a new, integrative framework to analyse GOTC: its overarching goal; objects, types, and levels of change; mechanisms of change; and a set of criteria to assess change.

Shifting the paradigm: A critical review of social innovation literature

In this review of ten years of social innovation research (2012–2022), we define and explore three paradigms in the field: instrumentalist, strong, and democratic. We investigate how language usage and geography play a central role in identifying which paradigms recently published scholarship falls into. While we do not insist that sharp divisions exist between each paradigm, we do find that on the “instrumentalist” side, language tends to abstract or neutralize power relations. Further, these perspectives tend to derive from Western or Eurocentric orientations or biases. The “strong” paradigm accepts the necessity of institutional and stakeholder engagement and seeks to engage socially excluded populations. In contrast, geographical diversity, attendance to historicized and systemic inequalities, and elevation of the most marginalized communities are more likely to be centered in the “democratic” paradigm. We apply this discussion to recent research in arts-related social innovation and the related field of social entrepreneurship.

Energy Literacies

In October 2022, A/P Justin Leontini (Dept. of Mechanical and Product Design Engineering) and A/P Max Schleser (Dept. of Film, Games and Animation) ran a mobile storytelling workshop with a regional primary school in Victoria, Australia. Pupils learned digital storytelling and rookie smartphone filmmaking basics to engage in a discussion about energy. The co-created (Auguiste 2020) mobile stories are part of the development of an Energy Literacy Community Toolkit, which is developed by Schleser, Wheeler, Leontini and the Social Innovation Research Institute at Swinburne University of Technology for Central Victorian Greenhouse Alliance in connection with the Donald & Tarnagulla Microgrid Feasibility & Demonstration study. This study is supported by Centre for New Energy Technologies (C4NET) and the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources (CVGA 2022) in Victoria, Australia. This research creation project Where does Power come from? illustrates the Community Engagement: Donald and Tarnagulla Microgrid Feasibility Study project’s process and the co-created understanding for the next generation of power end-users. The research objective was to develop a community voice in the microgrid feasibility study. The co-created mobile stories are developed with an interest-based model (McCosker et al. 2018). Through understanding the communities’ perspectives and perceptions, this research worked with micro, horizontal hierarchies and ‘open space’ storytelling approaches (Zimmermann and De Michiel 2018, 2, 33 and 31). The theoretical underpinning draws upon a legacy of community arts (Dunn and Leeson 1997) and activism notion of ‘nothing about us without us’ (Charlton 2000). The co-created method enables to develop an understanding about particular thematic through applying a community point of view or language to develop a resource for the community. Mobile story making (Schleser 2018) is a conversation starter. The pupil’s, their parents, neighbours and other community members will ‘like’ these videos because they are featured in these stories (Gondry 2008). The project shifts the conversation to the heart of the community and provides new community engagement touch points. Understanding local community needs such as reliability, cost and self-sufficiency is a key element in setting up a community microgrid. Rural and regional communities tend to be at the end of the grid or have long distribution lines, leading to quality deterioration of the electricity supply. These communities and their businesses are seeking a balance of reliable, sustainable and low-cost electricity tailored to their needs (C4Net 2022).

The rising tide of criticality in social entrepreneurship and social innovation

In this article, we trace a rising tide of criticality to highlight three waves in a sea of social entrepreneurship/social innovation (SE/SI) research. Our aim is to draw attention to counter, alternative and critical perspectives in the field and how ‘dangerous’ their co-option by right wing narratives is. We review what we believe to be three waves in the development of a critical research agenda undertaken by a cohort of academics who, in their loyalty to the field, have sought to unpick the underlying assumptions in the practice of, and academic reflection on, social innovation. We set out the early instrumentalist critique, in which the success and social utility of SE/SI is questioned. We secondly highlight a post-structuralist shift, in which hidden and unheard voices and perspectives are welcomed and celebrated. The third wave, for us, constitutes a dangerous threat to the SE/SI project, threatening to undermine and co-opt the first two waves, as has happened in other related fields of intellectual endeavour. We position this paper to not only engage with scholars who challenge the normative assumptions behind social innovation research, but also to draw attention to the entry of right-wing politics in post-modernist critical theory. It is not that everything in this third wave is bad, but that everything becomes unexpectedly dangerous, especially if we uncritically adopt reflexivity, naturalization and performativity as politically and morally neutral positions. Contra to Foucault, in adopting a critical realist stance, we begin to propose that ‘the social’, posed as an inherently ‘good’ thing, is an ontological reality that is knowable, albeit given that our knowledge of what is ‘good’ is nonetheless limited and partial. In the first Skoll World Forum (2004) some activists put up posters in the toilets of Said Business School warning delegates, ‘beware social entrepreneurship: a wolf in sheep’s clothes!’ (Nicholls & Young, 2008, p. 272). We conclude our paper warning that SE/SI is not the only wolf to be concerned about!

Paradoxes of Transformative Social Innovation: From Critical Awareness towards Strategies of Inquiry

Society is transforming through a whirlpool of innovations. This includes technological as well as social innovations, i.e. changes in social relations involving new ways of doing, organizing, framing and knowing. Especially the potentials for transformative social innovation (TSI) are gaining the interest of progressive political actors and critical scholars. Occurring in the form of new modes of governance and alternative ways of working and living together, TSI involves the challenging, altering or replacing of dominant institutions. As documented in various strands of critical social inquiry and innovation research, TSI praxis is pervaded with contradictions, anomalies and paradoxes. This methodological contribution addresses the challenge that tends to remain: How to elaborate this general critical awareness into more operational ‘strategies of inquiry’? The paper discusses paradoxes of a) system reproduction, b) temporality, and c) reality construction. Identifying distinct kinds of contradictions and distinct empirical phenomena, this differentiation also calls attention to the associated differences between realist, processual and constructivist research philosophies. Gathering the empirical analyses, theoretical interpretations and methodological advances that have been made on these paradoxes, this contribution opens up the scope for critical and practically relevant innovation research: It is important to bridge the divide between rigorous but sterile methodological know-how, and critical-reflexive theorizing that lacks operational insights.

Editorial Presentation: Critical perspectives in social innovation, social enterprise and/or the social solidarity economy

Editorial Presentation: Critical perspectives in social innovation, social enterprise and/or the social solidarity economy

Artificial intelligence: a “promising technology”

This paper addresses the question of how the ups and downs in the development of artificial intelligence (AI) since its inception can be explained. It focuses on the development of artificial intelligence in Germany since the 1970s, and particularly on its current dynamics. An assumption is made that a mere reference to rapid advances in information technologies and the various methods and concepts of artificial intelligence in recent decades cannot adequately explain these dynamics, because from a social science perspective, this is an oversimplified, technology-centred explanation. Drawing on ideas from social scientific innovation research, the hypothesis is rather that artificial intelligence should be understood as a “promising technology”. Its various stages of development have always been driven by technological promises about its special powers and capabilities when applied to solving economic and societal challenges.

Bibliometric Analysis: Analysis of Government Social Media Innovations from 2012 to 2023

Government social media innovation is a trend carried out as an effort to respond to needs in the era of technological development and as an effort to improve services, especially in the public sector. Therefore, government social media innovation has become one of the research topics developed in recent years. As research on the topic of government social media innovation continues to develop, stakeholders need an up-to-date perspective on government social media innovation research. The aim of this research is to provide an objective and accurate summary of government social media innovation research using 194 documents taken from the Scopus database and analyzed using a bibliometric approach. Research was analyzed by publication per year, country of contributor, subject area, author, affiliation, and source. This research uses the CiteSpace application to analyze connectivity trends on related topics using keywords and reference nodes. The results of this research are useful for identifying clusters and research in communities such as royal colleges, sustainable development, public service delivery, and other clusters. This research can contribute to the body of knowledge quantitatively and accurately in terms of contributing to the knowledge map regarding government social media innovation and can be used as material for research reviews on similar topics and developed in the future.

Understanding rural context in the social innovation knowledge structure and its sector implementations

The concept of social innovation is increasingly being discussed to pursue sustainable development. New terms and keywords are created to cope with new ideas in various contexts. How these terms are developed in the current structure of knowledge and how we can reinterpret the semantic networks with the empirical context are the primary motivation of this paper. The rural social innovation knowledge structure is constructed to understand the phenomena better and cope with future needs. A multi-methods methodology is applied to construct the knowledge structure with the primary method being topic modeling. The results from topic modeling, co-word analysis, and co-citation are combined to co-construct the knowledge structure. The narratives for the built knowledge structure are then developed in the context of rural social innovation to enhance our understanding. This study found three findings. First, the trend of keywords “community”, “governance”, and “rural” have increased significantly in the field of social innovation. Second, an investigation of the intensity of the topics found six dominant groups of topics, namely actor, business model, natural resources, food security, governance, and urban. Third, the co-word analysis shows that the word innovation is closely related to the terms: sustainable development, social entrepreneurship, social enterprise, rural community, electronic commerce, co-design, and social behavior. The mapping of key terms shows that the structure of the global social innovation research landscape is quite complex. However, it can be broken down into five main parts: objectives, inputs, transformations, outputs, and outcomes.

Addressing the Unicorn in the Room: Toward a New Normal of Responsible Entrepreneurship

While entrepreneurial disruption has proven a source of previously unimaginable abundance by way of reforming legacy institutions, it is also frequently characterized by the displacement of existing professions, industries, and livelihoods. Prior research has often assumed that such reform and displacement are inevitable and inseparable aspects of entrepreneurial disruption. In this study, however, we argue that the institutional foundations which have led to the current configuration of the field of startup activity and the global emphasis on “unicorn startups” might be reoriented toward a “new normal” focused on responsible venture creation, wherein the reformative aspects of disruption are prioritized while displacement is controlled. We conclude by discussing paradoxes that must be managed as societies move toward an embrace of responsible entrepreneurship, while proposing several governance reforms needed to address such paradoxes. The resulting conceptual model advances a new theory of responsible entrepreneurship that challenges existing assumptions of entrepreneurial disruption while establishing the possibility of a “new normal.” Moreover, these insights contribute to existing scholarship on responsible and social innovation and bridge research on paradox and institutional change.

“Going out to get in”—Roles of forest conflicts in bottom‐linked environmental governance progressing toward socio‐political innovations

AbstractSocial innovation literature focuses commonly on roles of cooperation in addressing co‐evolution of civil society initiatives and state‐based governance toward sustainable solutions. However, roles of conflicts in driving social change are scarcely addressed in social innovation literature. We elaborated a concept of bottom‐linked environmental governance, which can take place either via collaboration, or by conflict, and which can progress toward socio‐political innovations. We show this progression by examining two longitudinal cases on forest controversies in Northern Finland. These are the cases of Inari and Muonio. They are characterized by dynamic processes of conflicts and collaboration between state‐based organizations (e.g., Finnish forestry enterprise of Metsähallitus), civil society actors (e.g., reindeer herders, nature‐based tourism entrepreneurs and environmental nongovernmental organizations). We conducted a qualitative deductive‐inductive content analysis on the study cases and uncovered a set of “going out to get in” strategies by civil society actors, emerging from frustration on state‐based participatory processes, and consisting of open disputes and pressure strategies outside the participatory processes to gain a seat and power at negotiation tables. Metsähallitus often responded by seeking to maintain its control over forest decisions. The interplay between these strategies led to continuous open disputes and finally to socio‐political innovations (e.g., comanagement arrangement). The findings lead us to discuss reasons for prolonged disputes, the question of whether sociopolitical innovations can benefit all, considerations on power relations, strategies, and counter responses, all being relevant more broadly, for both, social innovation research and decision‐making enabling socio‐political innovations.

Mapping the field of social capital with innovation and future research agenda: a bibliometric and visualization analysis

PurposeRecent years have seen a substantial increase in academic interest in social capital and innovation. Nonetheless, the bibliometric and visualization study on this subject is inadequate. This study aims to analyse the leading trends in literature that have connected social capital with innovation over the past few decades.Design/methodology/approachThis study attempts to provide an overview utilizing various bibliometric techniques combined with assorted themes and data extracted from the Scopus database. Results based on 716 documents reveal not only the principal modern trends but also the evolution of these scientific production developments.FindingsResults based on 716 Scopus indexed documents reveal the trends and trajectories as well as specific topics, journals and countries of social capital and innovation research Furthermore, this study offers an overview of trends and trajectories, as well as a visual and schematic framework for further research on this subject.Originality/valueSince there is lack of analyses the bibliographic data on social capital-related innovation, so this study is a unique contribution to the literature as complement. This may benefit researchers in identifying current trends and prospective study areas, as well as assisting future authors in conducting more efficient studies.

Social Innovation and Applied Research for Social Entrepreneurship. An Experience of Linking with the Environment Carried Out with Entrepreneurial Older Adults in Nueva Braunau, Los Lagos Region

Social Innovation and Applied Research for Social Entrepreneurship. An Experience of Linking with the Environment Carried Out with Entrepreneurial Older Adults in Nueva Braunau, Los Lagos Region

The Articulated Involvement of Stakeholders in Social Innovation Research. The CHILD-UP approach

The article focuses on the role of stakeholder involvement in social innovation research, exploring the reasons, strategies and difficulties associated with the dialogue between researchers and stakeholders. More than an original research article, it has the modest ambition of making a contribution to the current debate on the role of stakeholders in social research, based on the approach and results to date of an ongoing research project on the integration of migrant children, CHILD-UP, funded by the EU Horizon 2020 Programme in the period 2019–2022. In contrast to major contributions that focus on the relationship between researchers and policymakers, this article refers to many different categories of stakeholders, some of which are only active at the level of grassroots practice. Rather than focusing on the direct relation between researchers and decision makers, CHILD-UP has adopted a broader, predominantly bottom-up approach to how research results can influence current practices and future policies. After a general introduction referring to mainstream contributions on the subject, the articulated and decentralised approach of the CHILD-UP Project is described and discussed in the central part of the article. The purpose of this part is not to present the project in itself, but to illustrate how the general approach to stakeholder involvement has been translated into structures and activities that are considered an integral part of the research project. The final sections report results of interviews with project researchers and build on formative evaluation exercises conducted as the project has concluded its first two years of activity. According to these conclusions, the dialogue between researchers and stakeholders, although recognised as necessary and useful, it still has to overcome a number of difficulties of different nature and requires further efforts to produce all its potential benefits.