Theoretical and Practical Approaches to Social Innovation 9781799866268, 9781799845881, 9781799845898

Citation preview

Theoretical and Practical Approaches to Social Innovation Chamindika Weerakoon Swinburne University of Technology, Australia

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Adela McMurray RMIT University, Australia

A volume in the Advances in Knowledge Acquisition, Transfer, and Management (AKATM) Book Series

Published in the United States of America by IGI Global Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue Hershey PA, USA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.igi-global.com Copyright © 2021 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Names: Weerakoon, Chamindika, DATE- author. | McMurray, Adela, author. Title: Theoretical and practical approaches to social innovation / by Chamindika Weerakoon and Adela McMurray. Description: Hershey, PA : Information Science Reference, [2021] | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “This book focuses on presenting the numerous ways in which social innovation has emerged as a relatively new field within the academic literature and illuminates, and consolidates multiple views of social innovation theory, research and practice by linking theory to practice “-- Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2020025665 (print) | LCCN 2020025666 (ebook) | ISBN 9781799845881 (hardcover) | ISBN 9781799866268 (paperback) | ISBN 9781799845898 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Social change. | Social problems. | Diffusion of innovations--Social aspects. | Technological innovations--Social aspects. Classification: LCC HM831 .W44 2021 (print) | LCC HM831 (ebook) | DDC 303.4--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020025665 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020025666 This book is published in the IGI Global book series Advances in Knowledge Acquisition, Transfer, and Management (AKATM) (ISSN: 2326-7607; eISSN: 2326-7615) British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library. All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher. For electronic access to this publication, please contact: [email protected].

Advances in Knowledge Acquisition, Transfer, and Management (AKATM) Book Series ISSN:2326-7607 EISSN:2326-7615 Editor-in-Chief: Murray E. Jennex, San Diego State University, USA Mission

Organizations and businesses continue to utilize knowledge management practices in order to streamline processes and procedures. The emergence of web technologies has provided new methods of information usage and knowledge sharing. The Advances in Knowledge Acquisition, Transfer, and Management (AKATM) Book Series brings together research on emerging technologies and their effect on information systems as well as the knowledge society. AKATM will provide researchers, students, practitioners, and industry leaders with research highlights surrounding the knowledge management discipline, including technology support issues and knowledge representation. Coverage

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

• Cognitive Theories • Cultural Impacts • Information and Communication Systems • Knowledge Acquisition and Transfer Processes • Knowledge Management Strategy • Knowledge Sharing • Organizational Learning • Organizational Memory • Small and Medium Enterprises • Virtual Communities

IGI Global is currently accepting manuscripts for publication within this series. To submit a proposal for a volume in this series, please contact our Acquisition Editors at [email protected] or visit: http://www.igi-global.com/publish/.

The Advances in Knowledge Acquisition, Transfer, and Management (AKATM) Book Series (ISSN 2326-7607) is published by IGI Global, 701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA 17033-1240, USA, www.igi-global.com. This series is composed of titles available for purchase individually; each title is edited to be contextually exclusive from any other title within the series. For pricing and ordering information please visit http://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advancesknowledge-acquisition-transfer-management/37159. Postmaster: Send all address changes to above address. Copyright © 2021 IGI Global. All rights, including translation in other languages reserved by the publisher. No part of this series may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means – graphics, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information and retrieval systems – without written permission from the publisher, except for non commercial, educational use, including classroom teaching purposes. The views expressed in this series are those of the authors, but not necessarily of IGI Global.

Titles in this Series

For a list of additional titles in this series, please visit:

http://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advances-knowledge-acquisition-transfer-management/37159

Practice-Based and Practice-Led Research for Dissertation Dvelopment Robin Throne (Independent Researcher, USA) Information Science Reference • © 2021 • 288pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781799866640) • US $185.00 Optimizing Data and New Methods for Efficient Knowledge Discovery and Information Resources Management Emerging Research and Opportunities Susan Swayze (The George Washington University, USA) Information Science Reference • © 2020 • 198pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781799822356) • US $155.00 Intellectual Property Rights and the Protection of Traditional Knowledge Nisha Dhanraj Dewani (Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, India) and Amulya Gurtu (Austin E. Cofrin School of Business, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, USA) Information Science Reference • © 2020 • 296pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781799818359) • US $195.00 Knowledge Management Practices in the Public Sector Vasileios Ismyrlis (Hellenic Statistical Authority, Greece) Theodore Tarnanidis (University of Macedonia, Greece) and Efstratios Moschidis (University of Macedonia, Greece) Information Science Reference • © 2020 • 263pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781799819400) • US $195.00 Current Issues and Trends in Knowledge Management, Discovery, and Transfer Murray Eugene Jennex (San Diego State University, USA) Information Science Reference • © 2020 • 450pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781799821892) • US $185.00

For an entire list of titles in this series, please visit:

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

http://www.igi-global.com/book-series/advances-knowledge-acquisition-transfer-management/37159

701 East Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, PA 17033, USA Tel: 717-533-8845 x100 • Fax: 717-533-8661 E-Mail: [email protected] • www.igi-global.com

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

To my beloved parents for their enduring selflessness, unwavering support, and unconditional love and in particular for raising me to believe in myself and pursue my dreams… To the Founder Vice-chancellor of Uva Wellassa University of Sri Lanka, Dr Chandra Embuldeniya who believed in my capabilities to be an entrepreneurial academic.Your inspiration and will truly always remain with me. Chamindika ­ To my parents and children, with love for all of time. Adela

Table of Contents

Preface.................................................................................................................viii Chapter 1 Social Innovation: An Introduction.........................................................................1 Chapter 2 Methodological Rationale.....................................................................................25 Chapter 3 Evolution of Social Innovation Research..............................................................43 Chapter 4 Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation...................................66 Chapter 5 Territorial Development Perspective of Social Innovation...................................98 Chapter 6 Transition Management Perspective of Social Innovation..................................118

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Chapter 7 The Design Approach to Social Innovation........................................................147 Chapter 8 Embracing Social Innovation in Creativity Research.........................................170 Chapter 9 A Community Psychological Perspective of Social Innovation.........................194 Chapter 10 Resilience Perspective of Social Innovation.......................................................211



Conclusion......................................................................................................... 230 Related Readings............................................................................................... 237 About the Authors............................................................................................. 263

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Index................................................................................................................... 264

viii

Preface

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

This book focuses on presenting the numerous ways in which social innovation has emerged as a relatively new field within the academic literature. The book illuminates, and consolidates, multiple views of social innovation theory, research and practice which to date, has not been presented in one publication. Social innovation is identified as a mechanism response to burning social challenges and the evolution of hybrid organisations such as social enterprises. As a result, there is an overwhelming growing interest among researchers, policy makers and practitioners to know more about the significant concept of social innovation. Despite this significance, it is often argued that the meaning of social innovation is ambiguous and vague with theory lagging social innovation practice as the field is nascent, emerging and remains underdeveloped. This may impede the research endeavours of conceptualising and establishing its socio-economic underpinnings and the legitimisation of the field. Thus, the book provides an in-depth theoretical and practical understanding coupled with an assessment of the current research in multidisciplinary perspectives complemented by case studies representing each knowledge cluster in social innovation research. In this unique way, this book links theory to practice demonstrating praxis. The book is comprised of eleven chapters which stretch the boundaries of social innovation knowledge through the inclusion of theory, research and practice. The chapter highlights are summarized as follows:

Preface

Chapter 1: Social Innovation – An Introduction This chapter identifies the differences in definitions and impact of social innovation. An author-co-citation network is used to identify differences in definitions and impacts of social innovation. Six knowledge clusters are identified: (1) social enterprise and entrepreneurship; (2) urban studies, territorial innovation and governance; (3) transition management and grassroots innovation; (4) ecological resilience; (5) social policy and network, and; (6) social innovation practice.

Chapter 2: Methodological Rationale A rigorous mixed-method approach employing a sequential research design based on a combination of advanced bibliometric indices and case study analyses is adapted in the development of each chapter in this book. The findings were generated from an advanced bibliometric method of citation, co-citation and bibliometric coupling. This was supported by networks to visualize these relationships which constitute an ontological analysis and subsequently supported by single case study analysis.

Chapter 3: Evolution of Social Innovation Research This chapter traces the evolution of social innovation research. From 1966 to 2019, there are three key periods identified and discussed. These three periods are classified as the growth period between 1966-2002, then the sluggish period 2003-2009 which is followed by an exponential growth period 2009 – 2019.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Chapter 4: Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation This chapter describes the trends in social entrepreneurship research as it relates to social innovation and identifies distinguishing characteristics of social innovations arising from social enterprises. The citation network uncovered the presence of nine research domains within social entrepreneurship, organized along three lines of research focus. These are (1) motives, mission and outcomes of social value creation process; (2) co-creation through ix

Preface

networks and partnership and (3) the effects of institutional actors on the social entrepreneurial process.

Chapter 5: Territorial Development Perspective of Social Innovation This chapter summarizes the patterns of, and links between, social innovation and territorial development research. A clear growth of territorial development research with a social innovation perspective can be seen after 2014. Territorial development research recognizes social innovation as an alternative perspective of development and territorial transformation underpinning social relations to empower communities.

Chapter 6: Transition Management Perspective of Social Innovation This chapter identifies and discusses patterns in transition management research within the social innovation literature. This research has gained prominence, particularly after 2015 with clearly identifiable two main research strands. These are comprised of socio-technical innovation in markets and civil society-led innovation in social institutions and arrangements.

Chapter 7: The Design Approach to Social Innovation

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

This chapter identifies the way in which design thinking is evidenced as trends and patterns in the social innovation literature. The newly emergent concept of design thinking has become more prominent in the social innovation literature since 2010. The inclusive and multidisciplinary state of social innovation research has supported the integration of design thinking elements within its literature thereby resulting in the two literatures co-evolving.

Chapter 8: Embracing Social Innovation in Creativity Research Creativity has garnered the attention of researchers and practitioners developing solutions to address social challenges thus marking a new presence within social innovation research. Social innovation is the generation and implementation of new ideas associated with organizing social interactions. x

Preface

Much of the literature is developed based on the foundational work developed by Mumford, M.D.

Chapter 9: A Community Psychological Perspective of Social Innovation This chapter identifies the patterns of community psychology research and clarifies the application of community psychology principles within the social innovation field. Two main knowledge clusters can be found in the field of community psychology research. The first knowledge cluster focuses on the applications of the ESID model and fidelity adaptation in social programme design and development. The second cluster focuses on phases of the ESID model and its applicability in social policy development.

Chapter 10: Resilience Perspective of Social Innovation

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

This chapter identifies the growth strajectories and key thematic areas of resilience in the social innovation literature and notes the distinguishing characteristics of social innovation in socio-ecological resilience systems. Five main knowledge clusters are recognized. The first being collective resilience and institutional transformation; the second being sustainable urban transformation; the third referring to transformative capacities of agency and social structure; with the fourth being local development policy planning and urban resilience; and followed by the fifth cluster addressing developmental evaluation and citizen involvement in urban management.

xi

1

Chapter 1

Social Innovation: An Introduction

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

ABSTRACT Social innovations are novel solutions to social challenges. The objective of this chapter is to identify the differences in definitions and impact of social innovation. To this end, an author-co-citation network is used to identify differences in definitions and impacts of social innovation. Social innovation research is heavily fragmented due to its multidisciplinary nature. Six knowledge clusters are identified: (1) social enterprise and entrepreneurship; (2) urban studies, territorial innovation, and governance; (3) transition management and grassroots innovation; (4) ecological resilience; (5) social policy and network; and (6) social innovation practice. Social innovations, for example, maybe in the forms of products, services, processes, legislation, social movements, business practices, or social practices emerge through cross-sectoral collaboration, co-creation efforts, or co-design arrangements involving various stakeholders. Social innovations are clearly different from other innovation types on the basis that they are aimed at conferring benefits primarily to society.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-4588-1.ch001 Copyright © 2021, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Social Innovation

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Social innovation is commonly embraced as a mechanism that responds to social challenges, such as income inequality, gender inequality, unemployment and climate change (Avelino et al. 2019; Oeij, van der Torre, Vaas, and Dhondt 2019; Phills, Deiglmeier, and Miller 2008). It is “the invention, development and implementation of new ideas to solve social problems faced by individuals, groups or communities” (Oeij et al. 2019, p. 244). Though there is definitional ambiguity in understanding social innovation, the extant literature uses several reflective dimensions to define the concept. Social innovation offers new solutions (Caulier-Grice, Davies, Patrick, and Norman 2012) to social problems (Sinclair and Baglioni 2014). Social innovations are “developed and diffused through organizations whose primary purposes are social” (Mulgan, Tucker, Ali, and Sanders 2007, p. 9). These novel solutions emerge through cross-sectorial collaboration of information and resource sharing, aiming to empower society to solve complex social challenges and affect social (Adams and Hess 2010) and societal change (Avelino et al. 2019). Societal challenges, such as climate change, urban mobility, poverty, income inequality and violent conflict, require novel, sustainable and socially innovative solutions (van Wijk, Zietsma, Dorado, de Bakker, and Martí 2019). Social innovation is thus also recognized as a mechanism for addressing market and policy failures (Slee 2019). Over the past decade, social innovation has received substantial attention from academics, policy makers, businesses, non-profit organizations and philanthropic institutions (Baptista, Pereira, Moreira, and De Matos 2019; Bolz and de Bruin 2019; Vézina, Selma, and Malo 2019). This has led to the introduction of various programs of social innovation best practice. For instance, the European Union has embraced social innovation as a means of addressing deeply embedded social challenges and rebuilding resilience (Secco et al. 2019). While some researchers have viewed social innovation as a multilevel process (e.g. van Wijk et al. 2019), others see it as a “transformative” (e.g. Avelino et al. 2019) or “co-evolutionary process”. Therefore, it appears that the field of social innovation is characterized by conceptual ambiguity (Oeij et al. 2019). Theory lags behind social innovation practice (Nicholls, Simon, and Gabriel 2015) and the field is nascent, emerging (Krlev, Bund, and Mildenberger 2014; Phillips et al. 2015) and underdeveloped (CajaibaSantana 2014). This impedes the legitimization of the field and associated

2

Social Innovation

research endeavors aiming to conceptualize and establish the socio-economic underpinnings of social innovation (Grimm, Fox, Baines, and Albertson 2013). The chapter structure provides a detailed discussion addressing social innovation definitions. This is followed by an analysis examining an author co-citation network and helping clarify the multi-disciplinary nature of social innovation research. The analysis is presented alongside insights into the developments of social innovation research.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

DEFINITIONS OF SOCIAL INNOVATION Social innovation is the creation of innovative activities and services, as motivated by the goal of meeting social needs (Mulgan, Ali, Halkett, and Sanders 2007). Extending this, Phills et al. (2008, p. 36) define social innovation as “a novel solution to a social problem that is more effective, efficient, sustainable or just than existing solutions and for which the value created accrues primarily to society as a whole rather than private individuals”. This is a definition widely cited in social innovation literature. Similarly, Moulaert, MacCallum, and Hillier (2013, p. 16) define social innovation as “fostering inclusion and wellbeing through improving social relations and empowerment processes: imaging and pursuing a world, a nation, a region, a locality, a community that would grant universal rights and be more socially inclusive”. Therefore, “responding to [social] challenges that are not being addressed through conventional approaches…often requiring new forms of collaboration…[and] including ‘co-creation’ and ‘co-production’ among citizens and institutional actors” (Conrad 2015, p. 1) is the base for social innovation. Given the multidisciplinary nature of social innovation research field, various definitions have proliferated in to the literature. A collection of these selected definitions is presented in Table 1. One of the salient characteristics of these definitions is that most of the literature agrees that the goal of social innovation is to address social problems or challenges. Social goals or needs are generally focused around improving the quality or quantity of life. This common emphasis has often been used to highlight the difference between social innovations and technological innovations. Social innovations are different from technological innovations by the fact that they are not primarily aimed at profit generation and the benefits are generally accumulated by the society (Bhatt and Altinay 2013). Social innovation shares either an economic or social value among the parties involved (Paunescu 2014), and is less concerned with profit than solutions 3

Social Innovation

Table 1. Selective social innovation definitions Source Nordberg, Mariussen, and Virkkala (2020, p. 157)

Definition “new ideas that create collaboration or new social relationships and thus meet local needs”

Leitheiser and Follmann (2020,

“an approach through which citizens generate alternative plans when mainstream state and market-led

p. 900)

solutions do not meet local needs”

Avelino et al. (2019, p. 197)

“changing social relations, involving new ways of doing, organizing, framing and knowing”

Context Community and rural development Urban studies and smart cities Transformative social innovation

“The purposeful (if sometimes experimental) reconfiguration of civil society-led or dominated Slee (2019, p. 157)

formal or informal institutions or networks to create new relationships between civil society and

Social and institutional policy

public or private institutions” ‘the development and delivery of new ideas and solutions (products, services, models, markets, Nicholls and Ziegler (2017, p. 2)

processes) at different socio-structural levels that intentionally seek to change power relations and

Social entrepreneurship

improve human capabilities, as well as the processes via which these solutions are carried out’ Rehfeld, Terstriep, Welschhoff, and Alijani (2015, p. 6)

“novel combinations of ideas and distinct forms of collaboration that transcend established institutional contexts with the effect of empowering and (re-)engaging vulnerable groups either in the “responding to [social] challenges that are not being addressed through conventional approaches…often

Conrad (2015, p. 1)

Social and economic policy

process of social innovation or as a result of it.” requiring new forms of collaboration…[and] including ‘co-creation’ and ‘co-production’ among citizens and institutional actors”

Education and institutional policy

“social innovations are new social practices created from collective, intentional, and goal-oriented Cajaiba-Santana (2014, p. 44)

actions aimed at prompting social change through the reconfiguration of how social goals are

Institutional and structuration

accomplished” “a process of change emerging from the creative re-combination of existing assets (from social capital to Manzini (2014, p. 58)

historical heritage, from traditional craftsmanship to accessible advanced technology) to achieve socially

Design thinking

recognized goals in a new way” Moulaert, MacCallum, and Hillier (2013, p. 16)

“fostering inclusion and wellbeing through improving social relations and empowerment processes: imaging and pursuing a world, a nation, a region, a locality, a community that would grant universal

Territorial development

rights and be more socially inclusive”. “as any changes, whether top-down or bottom-up engineered, output or process related, organizational, legislative, or cultural, that contribute to reveal and/or (better) respond to social needs […], empower

Martinelli (2012, p. 172)

users and/or specific social groups […], and modify social – and power – relations among providers and Social services users, thereby improving governance processes, by e.g. making planning procedures more transparent and decision-making more participatory”

Seyfang and Haxeltine (2012, p. 384) Howaldt and Kopp (2012, p. 47) Caulier-Grice et al. (2012, p. 24) Young (2011, p. 2185) Westley and Antadze (2010, p. 2)

“innovative networks of activists and organizations that lead bottom-up solutions for sustainable development; solutions that respond to the local situation and the interests and values of the communities involved”

Transitions and grassroots innovation

“a new combination and/or new configuration of social practices in certain areas of action or social

Social entrepreneurship &

contexts”

welfare economics

“core elements and common features of social innovations […] new products, new services, new processes, new markets, new platforms, new organizational forms and new business models” “a novel mechanism that increases the welfare of the individuals who adopt it compared with the status quo” “any new program, product, idea, or initiative that profoundly changes the basic routines, and resource and authority flows, or beliefs of any social system”.

Practitioners’ perspectives Social and welfare economics Ecological resilience

‘an innovation is termed a social innovation if the implied new idea has the potential to improve either Pol and Ville (2009, p. 881)

the quality or the quantity of life … innovations conducive to better education, better environmental

Welfare economics

quality and longer life expectancy [being] a few’ “any novel and useful solution to a social need or problem, that is better than existing approaches Phills et al. (2008, p. 36)

(that is, more effective, efficient, sustainable, or just) and for which the value created (benefits) accrues

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

primarily to society as a whole rather than private individuals”

Social entrepreneurship/ social enterprise

Hämäläinen and Heiskala (2007,

“changes in the cultural, normative or regulative structures [or classes] of the society which enhance

p. 74)

its collective power resources and improve its economic and social performance,”

Mulgan (2006, p. 146)

“innovative activities and services that are motivated by the goal of meeting a social need”

Practitioners’ perspective

Leadbeater (2007, p. 244)

“Social innovation is often the product of joint authorship that combines the inputs of many people”

Social policy

Moulaert, Martinelli, Swyngedouw,

“those changes in agendas, agency and institutions that lead to a better inclusion of excluded groups

and Gonzalez (2005, p. 1978)

and individuals in various spheres of society at various spatial scales.”

Mumford (2002, p. 253)

‘the generation and implementation of new ideas about social relationships and social organization’

4

Institutional policy context

Territorial innovations Creativity research

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Social Innovation

to issues such as quality of life, social justice and well-being (Bonifacio 2014). Another key trait of social innovation is that it often results from collaborative arrangements to share information and resources where key actors aim to advance society’s capacity to address social challenges (Adams and Hess 2010). Many authors have widely referred to the ‘social relations (e.g. Avelino et al. 2019; Moulaert, MacCallum, and Hillier 2013; Nordberg, Mariussen, and Virkkala 2020) element of social innovation. These definitions further identify the collaboration (e.g. Cajaiba-Santana 2014; Conrad 2015; Leadbeater 2007; Rehfeld, Terstriep, Welschhoff, and Alijani 2015) and citizen involvement (e.g. Seyfang and Haxeltine 2012; Slee 2019) aspects of social innovation. These reflective dimensions convince that social innovation is a collective endeavor aimed at addressing social problems. Social innovation is based on collective and dynamic interactions among actors who are working together to realize social goals and results (Dawson and Daniel 2010). The reconfiguration of social practices through civic and societal engagement is another important part of social innovation (Slee 2019). This is often supported by government policy (Slee 2019). However, the literature is divided along the basic nature of the output vs. process view of social innovation. For instance, some scholars identify social innovation as discrete outputs (e.g. Mulgan 2006; Nicholls and Ziegler 2017; Phills et al. 2008; Westley and Antadze 2010) whereas others recognize it as a process (e.g. Avelino et al. 2019; Manzini 2014; Martinelli 2012; Moulaert, MacCallum, and Hillier 2013; Rehfeld et al. 2015). Thus, social innovation can be a process or an outcome primarily producing societal advancement through novel ideas, actions or facilities meeting social targets or needs. However, according to Table 1 above, including the highlighted features and the contexts and perspectives those definitions are applied in, social innovation also carries some economic and institutional elements. This provides an indication of the conceptual roots of social innovation. Thus, the key aspects of ‘innovation’ defined by the economist Schumpeter (1934) are resonated within these definitions and perspectives. According to Schumpeter (1934, p. 66), innovation is comprised of novel combinations and such these combinations may arise in five major forms: […] the introduction of a new good [...], the introduction of a new method of production, that is one not yet tested by experience in the branch of manufacture concerned, which need by no means be founded upon a discovery scientifically new, and […], the opening of a new market, that is a market into which the particular branch of manufacture of the country in question 5

Social Innovation

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

has not previously entered, […] the conquest of a new source of supply of raw materials or half-manufactured goods, […] and the carrying out of the new organisation of any industry, like the creation of a monopoly position … or the breaking up of a monopoly position. (Schumpeter 1934, p. 66). The above characteristics related to market-based arrangements are wellemphasized in the social entrepreneurship and practitioner perspectives in Table 1 (see Caulier-Grice et al. 2012; Leitheiser and Follmann 2020; Nicholls and Ziegler 2017). As Schumpeter (1934) mentioned, innovations can either be radical developments or incremental changes to the existing solutions. This feature of innovation is also embraced in the social innovation literature and thus, social innovations are not always entirely new developments. They instead can be unique combinations of existing features or the application of technologies and process-based solutions to social problems (Sinclair and Baglioni 2014). Social innovations may result in varied outcomes of varying levels of effect. The development of new ideas about social organizations or social relationships, for example, might involve the creation of new kinds of social institutions; new ideas about government, or the development of new social movements. On the other end of the spectrum, this may involve the creation of new processes and procedures for structuring collaborative work; new social practices within group/s, or the development of new business practices (Mumford 2002). Therefore, social innovation not only includes the development of new products or services with a clear social aim, but also changes in behaviors, processes, and routines (Howaldt and Schwarz 2011). Social innovation may be occurred at different levels. Individual entrepreneurs may pursue social innovation at the micro level while public/ private partnerships generate messo level social innovations. Innovating on patterns of social interaction and social value creation through institutional reforms, policies and law may take place at the macro level by governments and institutions (Bonifacio 2014). Socially entrepreneurial ventures are recognized as the vehicles that deliver social innovations. They contribute to economic growth and social transformation by mobilizing scarce resources and developing sustainable solutions to social problems (Alvord, Brown, and Letts 2004). This may include, for example, empowering the poor in penurious environments (Bhatt and Altinay 2013). In this perspective, social innovation may also be in the form of “a principle, an idea, a legislation, a social movement, an intervention, or a combination of these” (Phills et al. 2008, p. 39). 6

Social Innovation

Numerous definitions in the literature suggest that this is an emerging and multidisciplinary field (Oeij et al. 2019). To provide clarification, this chapter looks at the definitional components and evidence, as drawn from a variety of literatures, including creativity research (Mumford 2002), urban studies (Moulaert, MacCallum, Mehmood, Hamdouch, and Baturina 2013), entrepreneurship (Nicholls and Murdock 2011; Swedberg 2009), welfare economics (Pol and Ville 2009), social and public policy (Borzaga and Bodini 2014; Neumeier 2012), sociology (Zapf 1991) and sustainable development (Baker and Mehmood 2015). The following section provides a detailed account of social innovation knowledge clusters underpinning social innovation definitions.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

MULTI-DISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES OF SOCIAL INNOVATION To identify insights within this multidisciplinary field, a co-citation network (Figure 1) has been developed. The network was based on references collected from Boolean operations executed on the Scopus database which is one of the largest databases of peer-reviewed works in the form of journals, books and conference proceedings (Kumar, Shivarama, and Choukimath 2015). Search tags included “social innovation*” in keywords, titles and abstracts of the database. The search yielded 1,518 publications. The references were exported to Vosviewer software (van Eck and Waltman 2014) to generate a co-citation network. Work on co-citation networks applies quantitative measures and indicators to bibliographic information (Leeuwen 2005). Such analyses have been commonly used in entrepreneurship research (Schildt, Zahra, and Sillanpää (2006). They consider citations as indicators of historical actions of scientific work (Garfield 2001). In this chapter we use the co-citation network in instances where a third publication cites another two publications at the same time and then the latter two are known to be co-cited. A co-citation analysis is a forward-looking perspective (Garfield 2001). It shows the coherence and changes in literature comprehensibly over time by identifying influential authors/publications and their relationships with other authors/publications (White and McCain 1998). These features are significant in determining the maturity and direction of a research field. The analysis uses a distanced-based approach of visualizing co-citation and co-occurrence of terms networks; the distance between nodes approximately 7

Social Innovation

indicate their relatedness. The smaller the distance between nodes, the higher the relatedness between them (van Eck and Waltman 2014). The multidisciplinary nature of social innovation is indeed well-reflected in the author co-citation network in Figure 1. Figure 1. Author co-citation network for social innovation research

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Authors

Six major knowledge clusters emerged in the co-citation network where “social entrepreneurship” perspective (Cluster 1) is one of the main focuses in social innovation research. This particular literature identifies social innovation as a central element (Defourny and Nyssens 2010) and an intersecting field of social entrepreneurship, championed by social entrepreneurs (Dacin, Dacin, and Tracey 2011). Social entrepreneurship is an entrepreneurial process of combining resources (Mair and Marti 2006), a social mission and resourcefulness - as conceived in traditional entrepreneurship (Seelos and Mair 2005). This combination is then used to exploit opportunities (Mair and Marti 2006). Alternatively, Leadbeater (1997) views social entrepreneurship as an entrepreneurial behavior that uses profits generated by market activities for the betterment of a specific disadvantaged group. Attempting to map the microstructures of institutional legitimization in social entrepreneurship, as per Harvard Business School’s social innovation model, Nicholls (2010)

8

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Social Innovation

views social entrepreneurship as a novel way of delivering public goods and social/environmental services. From a policy perspective, Leadbeater (1997) suggests that social innovation provides effective responses to social problems in instances where the welfare state has failed to address those problems. Leadbeater (1997) also argues that social innovation may be the cure for many social ailments and may improve the quality of social welfare, while reducing its cost. Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum, and Shulman (2009, p. 519) note that “[s]ocial innovation is the core of social entrepreneurship”. This view is supported by several scholars (Dawson and Daniel 2010; Perrini, Vurro, and Costanzo 2010; Phillips et al. 2015). Similarly, the welfare economics view of social innovation by Pol and Ville (2009) sees social innovation as enhancing “macro-quality of life or extending life expectancy” (Pol and Ville 2009, p. 884). Macro-quality of life, in this instance, refers to the availability of options for a group of people to choose from. This definition frames the discussion on the empowerment dimension of social innovation. This perspective is included in Cluster 2 of Figure 1, together with the practice-oriented social innovation scholars. Social innovation is also well-embraced in the transition management (Cluster 4) perspective which considers the importance of sustainable development as a long-term goal, and provides the basis for operational policy models (Loorbach 2010). This perspective offers a reflective governance approach, which coordinates civil society innovators, the business community and government (Di Iacovo, Moruzzo, Rossignoli, and Scarpellini 2014). Therefore, it adopts multi-stakeholder and co-evolutionary approaches to achieve structural changes in the social system in addressing social problems (Rotmans and Loorbach 2009). Innovation dynamics and conditions, their role in transforming social organizations and collective decision-making are key features of social innovation. Furthermore, the ecological resilience perspective (Cluster 3) broadly discusses the relationship between ecosystem management and ecological response to achieve sustainability by way of social transformations (Olsson and Galaz 2012; Walker, Holling, Carpenter, and Kinzig 2004). Accordingly, the ecological resilience perspective views new concepts, strategies, initiatives, products, processes, or organizations which address tenacious social challenges and significantly change basic practices, resources, authority flows or beliefs of the society as social innovations (Moore and Westley 2011; Westley 2008a; Westley and Antadze 2010). Transformative changes in ecosystem management are recognized as processes leading to social innovation (Biggs, Westley, and Carpenter 2010). 9

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Social Innovation

Cluster 4 highlights another important link between social innovation and Grassroots innovation. Grassroot innovations are identified as a type of social innovation, with a sustainable development focus: “networks of activists and organizations generating novel bottom–up solutions for sustainable development; solutions that respond to the local situation and the interests and values of the communities involved” (Seyfang and Smith 2007, p. 585). Accordingly, transition management, the ecological perspective and the grassroot innovation perspective converge on one common theme: sustainable development for societal transformation. The urban governance perspective (Cluster 6) recognizes social innovation as an alternative approach to urban development, through innovative relations in community governance. This perspective emphasizes human needs for satisfaction or empowerment (Moulaert 2000). Framing social innovation in a similar perspective of community and regional development, Moulaert and Nussbaumer (2005) define it as innovation in social relations that include professional, labor, market and governance relationships. Separately, creativity research emphasizes yet another dimension to be considered in discussions about social change. Research on creativity highlights that social innovation generates and implements ideas about how people should organize interpersonal activities or social interactions to meet one or more common goals (Mumford 2002). These goals may involve novel types of social institutions, governance, processes, social practices or procedures for collaborative work. Mumford (2002) also notes that social innovation is a relatively rare event, borne out of unique skills and expertise. The above discussion suggests that some scholars define social innovation as a process (e.g. Dawson and Daniel 2010; Gerometta, Hausermann, and Longo 2005; Hochgerner 2012; Munshi 2010; Young 2011) while others as an outcome (e.g. Grimm et al. 2013; Martinelli 2012; Moulaert, Martinelli, Swyngedouw, and Gonzalez 2005; Mulgan, Tucker, et al. 2007; Neumeier 2012; Phills et al. 2008; Zapf 1991). Adding to the complexity, Caulier-Grice et al. (2012); Nicholls and Murdock (2011); Pol and Ville (2009); Westley (2008b) view social innovation as both an outcome and a process. For example, the urban studies’ perspective on social innovation, as well as the transition management perspective, ecological resilience perspective and grassroot innovation perspective, align more closely with a process-based definition of social innovation. Conversely, the social entrepreneurship and social enterprise perspectives align more closely with an outcome-based definition of social innovation, focusing on business applications. From a practitioner’s point of view (Mulgan, Tucker, et al. (2007), social innovation is defined as innovative 10

Social Innovation

activities and services aimed at meeting social needs and mainly developed and diffused through socially oriented organizations. In addition, social innovation is likely to include new forms of civic involvement, participation and democratization, contributing to the empowerment of disadvantaged groups or the improvement of quality of life (Neumeier 2012).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

SOCIAL INNOVATION IN CONTEXTS Social innovation can emerge from a wide range of sources, including individuals, non-governmental organizations, community groups, charities, governments, business, academia, philanthropy or a combination of these (Alonso‐Martínez, González‐Álvarez, and Nieto 2019; Olsson and Galaz 2012). More recent social innovation literature offers insights into the emergence and development of social innovation in corporate settings. Corporate social innovation, for example, is substantially different to social innovation emerging from social enterprises. Corporate social innovation is “a novel, strategic means for enterprise to establish competitive advantage through collaboration with powerful stakeholders, like governments, where firms are simultaneously able to meet social needs and benefit themselves” (Chin, Yang, Zhang, Yu, and Cao 2019, p. 863). These kinds of social innovations contribute in novel technological, environmental, and social ways, improve quality of life and create sustainable economic benefits (Alonso‐ Martínez et al. 2019). The participation of corporations in social innovation requires the inclusion of corporate social responsibility activities within sustainable innovation processes (Mirvis, Herrera, Googins, and Albareda 2016). Corporate social innovation is a way of using community needs as opportunities for developing business ideas and solving long-standing business problems (Kanter 1999). This type of social innovation emerges out of ongoing interaction between activists, corporate managers, and other influential actors within a broader social innovation system. Conversely, social innovation from social enterprises is more focused on public goods. Activists help to create the conditions for social innovation and then enterprises take the lead and enable the development of innovation (Carberry, Bharati, Levy, and Chaudhury 2019). Thus, social innovation can be stimulated by creating a favourable environment for its emergence whereas cannot be directly planned and produced (Olsson and Galaz 2012). Research on corporate social innovation is gradually consolidating its position as an important domain in the broader social innovation literature. 11

Social Innovation

Although there is scant work in this area, management scholars have focused on the importance of social innovation to organizations. Corporate social innovation, for example, facilitates access to new markets and opens up business opportunities in social and environmental areas (Herrera 2016). More recent work in this area has looked at better understanding the influence of various organizational variables (Alonso‐Martínez et al. 2019) and social movements (Carberry et al. 2019) on corporate social innovation. Recent scholarship has also linked corporate social innovation with competitive advantage (Herrera 2015; Jayakumar 2017), with learning to innovate for social good (Mirvis et al. 2016) and with the effects of co-creation (Chin et al. 2019). This discussion, as such, highlights the emergence and existence of social innovation at different levels and contexts of society, involving various actors and motivators. Furthermore, the institutional environment significantly influences social innovation development and implementation. Negotiations between institutions, for example, or the development of new institutions can be key mechanisms underpinning social innovation processes (van Wijk et al. 2019).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

LEVELS AND TYPES OF SOCIAL INNOVATION There are three social innovation levels (Figure 2), which may be named and interpreted differently depending on the focus of the work within the knowledge clusters shown in Figure 1. Moulaert (2013), for example, sees social innovation as improving social relations at the micro level (between individuals) and the macro level (between classes and social groups). Building on from Moulaert and Nussbaumer (2005), Gerometta et al. (2005) identified three dimensions of social innovation: content (satisfaction of human needs); process (changes in governance relations) and; empowerment (socio-political capability and access to resources). Furthermore, a multi-level perspective on transition management was proposed by Geels and Schot (2007), noting three levels of transition – niche innovations, socio-technical regimes and socio-technical landscapes. These are similar to the social innovation levels identified in urban governance literature. Transitions are processes of structural change in societal systems, while transition management is a governance approach targeting sustainable development (Loorbach 2010). In social entrepreneurship research, Nicholls et al. (2015, p. 4) identified three different levels of social innovation: incremental, institutional and 12

Social Innovation

Figure 2. Levels of social innovation

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Avelino et al. (2014); Mulgan, Tucker, et al. (2007); Gerometta et al. (2005); Martinelli (2012); Nicholls and Murdock (2011)

disruptive. Incremental-level social innovations address market failures with products and services while institutional innovations reconfigure existing market structures and patterns. At the disruptive level, social innovation causes changes in cognitive frames of reference, social systems and structures, through politics. Taken together, these levels closely resemble the micro, messo and macro levels. This characterization of social innovation emphasizes how solutions are embedded in the institutional environment where market, policy and social spaces are exploitable by social entrepreneurs. Social innovations are guided by the instrumental needs of society and legitimized by engagement with policy-makers and use of incumbent and new technologies (Onsongo 2019). Therefore, social innovation is an agentic, relational, situated, and multilevel process to develop, promote, and implement new solutions and substantial changes to institutional contexts and social issues (van Wijk et al. 2019). Extending beyond social innovation, Avelino et al. (2014) identify a broader outcome of social transformation, as a result of an interaction between social innovation, system innovation, game-changers and narratives of change. In this conception, social transformation is an outcome and not a property of social innovation. This conception moves the social innovation discussion towards a “co-evolutionary process” perspective instead of a ‘multi-level perspective’. 13

Social Innovation

CONCLUSION The discussion in this chapter has helped to clarify how social innovation is embraced by researchers as an effective aid in the face of entrenched poverty or challenges in traditional welfare systems (Borzaga and Bodini 2014; Seelos and Mair 2005). Social innovation is also seen as having the potential to foster social inclusion (Gerometta et al. 2005). Accordingly, there is substantial interest in social innovation amongst researchers, academics, policy makers and practitioners. Social innovation, amongst researchers, is a growing field of inquiry. The evolution of research interest in social innovation can be distinctively separated into two periods, the first of which was characterized by slow growth (1966-2008), and the second (from 2009 to today), which has seen exponential growth. The 1966-2008 period was positioned within three identifiable knowledge clusters, including urban politics and development, social psychology and creativity. These have now grown to seven clusters, with an emerging focus on transition management, grassroot innovation, the institutional environment, organizations, the social economy, civil society, social enterprise and institutional entrepreneurship. Scientific and institutional arrangements, as anchored to social policy, were the focal point of social innovation research between 1960 and 2008. Research attention is now shifting to civic engagement-based social innovation. Following these changes, this book will provide an in-depth theoretical and practical understanding of social innovation, coupled with an assessment of current research in the multidisciplinary perspective. This will be further supported with case studies pertaining to each knowledge cluster in social innovation research.

REFERENCES

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Adams, D., & Hess, M. (2010). Social Innovation and Why It Has Policy Significance. Economic and Labour Relations Review, 21(2), 139–156. doi:10.1177/103530461002100209 Alonso‐Martínez, D., González‐Álvarez, N., & Nieto, M. (2019). The Influence of Financial Performance on Corporate Social Innovation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(4), 859–871. doi:10.1002/ csr.1726

14

Social Innovation

Alvord, S. H., Brown, L. D., & Letts, C. W. (2004). Social Entrepreneurship and Societal Transformation: An Exploratory Study. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(3), 260–282. doi:10.1177/0021886304266847 Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J. M., Pel, B., Weaver, P., Dumitru, A., Haxeltine, A., ... Ruijsink, S. (2019). Transformative Social Innovation and (Dis) Empowerment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145(1), 195–206. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.002 Baker, S., & Mehmood, A. (2015). Social Innovation and the Governance of Sustainable Places. Local Environment, 20(3), 321–334. doi:10.1080/13 549839.2013.842964 Baptista, N., Pereira, J., Moreira, A. C., & De Matos, N. (2019). Exploring the Meaning of Social Innovation: A Categorisation Scheme Based on the Level of Policy Intervention, Profit Orientation and Geographical Scale. Innovation, 21(3), 1–19. doi:10.1080/14479338.2019.1585188 Bhatt, P., & Altinay, L. (2013). How Social Capital Is Leveraged in Social Innovations under Resource Constraints? Management Decision, 51(9), 1772–1792. doi:10.1108/MD-01-2013-0041 Biggs, R., Westley, F. R., & Carpenter, S. R. (2010). Navigating the Back Loop: Fostering Social Innovation and Transformation in Ecosystem Management. Ecology and Society, 15(2), 1–28. doi:10.5751/ES-03411-150209 Bolz, K., & de Bruin, A. (2019). Responsible Innovation and Social Innovation: Toward an Integrative Research Framework. International Journal of Social Economics, 46(6), 742–755. doi:10.1108/IJSE-10-2018-0517

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Bonifacio, M. (2014). Social Innovation: A Novel Policy Stream or a Policy Compromise? An Eu Perspective. European Review (Chichester, England), 22(1), 145–169. doi:10.1017/S1062798713000707 Borzaga, C., & Bodini, R. (2014). What to Make of Social Innovation? Towards a Framework for Policy Development. Social Policy and Society, 13(3), 411–421. doi:10.1017/S1474746414000116 Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2014). Social Innovation: Moving the Field Forward. A Conceptual Framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82(1), 42–51. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.05.008

15

Social Innovation

Carberry, E. J., Bharati, P., Levy, D. L., & Chaudhury, A. (2019). Social Movements as Catalysts for Corporate Social Innovation: Environmental Activism and the Adoption of Green Information Systems. Business & Society, 58(5), 1083–1127. doi:10.1177/0007650317701674 Caulier-Grice, J., Davies, A., Patrick, R., & Norman, W. (2012). Defining Social Innovation. A Deliverable of the Project:” the Theoretical, Empirical and Policy Foundations for Building Social Innovation in Europe” (Tepsie). In European Commission–7th Framework Programme. European Commission, DG Research. Chin, T., Yang, Y., Zhang, P., Yu, X., & Cao, L. (2019). Co-Creation of Social Innovation: Corporate Universities as Innovative Strategies for Chinese Firms to Engage with Society. Sustainability, 11(5), 1–13. doi:10.3390u11051438 Conrad, D. (2015). Education and Social Innovation: The Youth Uncensored Project-a Case Study of Youth Participatory Research and Cultural Democracy in Action. Canadian Journal of Education, 38(1), 1–25. Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social Entrepreneurship: A Critique and Future Directions. Organization Science, 22(5), 1203–1213. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0620 Dawson, P., & Daniel, L. (2010). Understanding Social Innovation: A Provisional Framework. International Journal of Technology Management, 51(1), 9–21. doi:10.1504/IJTM.2010.033125

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2010). Conceptions of Social Enterprise and Social Entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and Divergences. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 32–53. doi:10.1080/19420670903442053 Di Iacovo, F., Moruzzo, R., Rossignoli, C., & Scarpellini, P. (2014). Transition Management and Social Innovation in Rural Areas: Lessons from Social Farming. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 20(3), 327–347. doi:10.1080/1389224X.2014.887761 Garfield, E. (2001). From Bibliographic Coupling to Co-Citation Analysis Via Algorithmic Historio-Bibliography: A Citationist’s Tribute to Belver C. Griffith, Lazerow. Drexel University. Retrieved from http://garfield.library. upenn.edu/papers/drexelbelvergriffith92001.pdf

16

Social Innovation

Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of Sociotechnical Transition Pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399–417. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003 Gerometta, J., Hausermann, H. H., & Longo, G. (2005). Social Innovation and Civil Society in Urban Governance: Strategies for an Inclusive City. Urban Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland), 42(11), 2007–2021. doi:10.1080/00420980500279851 Grimm, R., Fox, C., Baines, S., & Albertson, K. (2013). Social Innovation, an Answer to Contemporary Societal Challenges? Locating the Concept in Theory and Practice. Innovation, 26(4), 436–455. Herrera, M. E. B. (2015). Creating Competitive Advantage by Institutionalizing Corporate Social Innovation. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1468–1474. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.036 Herrera, M. E. B. (2016). Innovation for Impact: Business Innovation for Inclusive Growth. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1725–1730. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.045 Hochgerner, J. (2012). New Combinations of Social Practices in the Knowledge Society. In H. W. Franz, J. Hochgerner, & J. Howaldt (Eds.), Challenge Social Innovation: Potentials for Business, Social Entrepreneurship, Welfare and Civil Society (pp. 87–104). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-32879-4_6 Howaldt, J., & Schwarz, M. (2011). Social Innovation–Social Challenges and Future Research Fields Enabling Innovation. Springer. Jayakumar, T. (2017). Corporate Social Innovation: An Indian Moving Company Drives Industry Change. The Journal of Business Strategy, 38(6), 59–68. doi:10.1108/JBS-10-2015-0107

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Kanter, R. M. (1999). From Spare Change to Real Change. The Social Sector as Beta Site for Business Innovation. Harvard Business Review, 77(3), 122–132, 210. Krlev, G., Bund, E., & Mildenberger, G. (2014). Measuring What MattersIndicators of Social Innovativeness on the National Level. Information Systems Management, 31(3), 200–224. doi:10.1080/10580530.2014.923265 Kumar, A., Shivarama, J., & Choukimath, P. A. (2015). Popular Scientometric Analysis, Mapping and Visualisation Softwares: An Overview. Paper presented at the 10th International CALIBER-2015, HP University and IIAS, India. 17

Social Innovation

Leadbeater, C. (1997). The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur. Demos. Leadbeater, C. (2007). Social Enterprise and Social Innovation: Strategies for the Next Ten Years. A social enterprise think piece for the Cabinet Office of the Third Sector. Leeuwen, T. V. (2005). Descriptive Versus Evaluative Bibliometrics. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research (pp. 373–388). Springer. Leitheiser, S., & Follmann, A. (2020). The Social Innovation–(Re) Politicisation Nexus: Unlocking the Political in Actually Existing Smart City Campaigns? The Case of Smartcity Cologne, Germany. Urban Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland), 57(4), 894–915. doi:10.1177/0042098019869820 Loorbach, D. (2010). Transition Management for Sustainable Development: A Prescriptive, Complexity‐Based Governance Framework. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 23(1), 161–183. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009.01471.x Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of Explanation, Prediction, and Delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36–44. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.002 Manzini, E. (2014). Making Things Happen: Social Innovation and Design. Design Issues, 30(1), 57–66. doi:10.1162/DESI_a_00248 Martinelli, F. (2012). Social Innovation or Social Exclusion? Innovating Social Services in the Context of a Retrenching Welfare State. In H. W. Franz, J. Hochgerner, & J. Howaldt (Eds.), Challenge Social Innovation (pp. 169–180). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-32879-4_11

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Mirvis, P., Herrera, M. E. B., Googins, B., & Albareda, L. (2016). Corporate Social Innovation: How Firms Learn to Innovate for the Greater Good. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5014–5021. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.073 Moore, M. L., & Westley, F. (2011). Surmountable Chasms: Networks and Social Innovation for Resilient Systems. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 1–13. doi:10.5751/ES-03812-160105 Moulaert, F. (2000). Globalization and Integrated Area Development in European Cities. Oxford University Press.

18

Social Innovation

Moulaert, F. (2013). The International Handbook on Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research. Edward Elgar Publishing. doi:10.4337/9781849809993 Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D., & Hillier, J. (2013). Social Innovation: Intuition, Precept, Concept, Theory and Practice. In F. Moulaert, D. MacCallum, A. Mehmood, & A. Hamdouch (Eds.), International Handbook on Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research (pp. 13–24). Edward Elgar. doi:10.4337/9781849809993.00011 Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D., Mehmood, A., Hamdouch, A., & Baturina, D. (2013). The International Handbook on Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research. Edward Elgar Publishing. doi:10.4337/9781849809993 Moulaert, F., Martinelli, F., Swyngedouw, E., & Gonzalez, S. (2005). Towards Alternative Model (S) of Local Innovation. Urban Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland), 42(11), 1969–1990. doi:10.1080/00420980500279893 Moulaert, F., & Nussbaumer, J. (2005). The Social Region: Beyond the Territorial Dynamics of the Learning Economy. European Urban and Regional Studies, 12(1), 45–64. doi:10.1177/0969776405048500 Mulgan, G. (2006). The Process of Social Innovation. Tagore LLC. doi:10.1162/itgg.2006.1.2.145

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Mulgan, G., Ali, R., Halkett, R., & Sanders, B. (2007). In and out of Sync: The Challenge of Growing Social Innovations. Retrieved from NESTA, London: https://youngfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/In-andout-of-sync-the-challenge-of-growing-social-innovations-Sept-2007.pdf Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R., & Sanders, B. (2007). Social Innovation: What It Is, Why It Matters and How It Can Be Accelerated. Retrieved from The Young Foundation, London: https://youngfoundation.org/wp-content/ uploads/2012/10/Social-Innovation-what-it-is-why-it-matters-how-it-canbe-accelerated-March-2007.pdf Mumford, M. D. (2002). Social Innovation: Ten Cases from Benjamin Franklin. Creativity Research Journal, 14(2), 253–266. doi:10.1207/ S15326934CRJ1402_11

19

Social Innovation

Munshi, N. V. (2010). Value Creation, Social Innovation, and Entrepreneurship in Global Economies. Journal of Asia-Pacific Business, 11(3), 160–165. do i:10.1080/10599231.2010.500569 Neumeier, S. (2012). Why Do Social Innovations in Rural Development Matter and Should They Be Considered More Seriously in Rural Development Research? - Proposal for a Stronger Focus on Social Innovations in Rural Development Research. Sociologia Ruralis, 52(1), 48–69. doi:10.1111/j.14679523.2011.00553.x Nicholls, A. (2010). The Legitimacy of Social Entrepreneurship: Reflexive Isomorphism in a Pre‐Paradigmatic Field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 611–633. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00397.x Nicholls, A., & Murdock, A. (2011). Social Innovation: Blurring Boundaries to Reconfigure Markets. Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230367098.0006 Nicholls, A., Simon, J., & Gabriel, M. (2015). New Frontiers in Social Innovation Research. Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137506801 Nicholls, A., & Ziegler, R. (2017). An Extended Social Grid Model for the Study of Marginalization Processes and Social Innovation. CRESSI Working Papers. no. 2/2015 (revised 4/2017). Oxford University. Nordberg, K., Mariussen, Å., & Virkkala, S. (2020). Community-Driven Social Innovation and Quadruple Helix Coordination in Rural Development. Case Study on Leader Group Aktion Österbotten. Journal of Rural Studies, 79(1), 157–168. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.08.001 Oeij, P. R., van der Torre, W., Vaas, F., & Dhondt, S. (2019). Understanding Social Innovation as an Innovation Process: Applying the Innovation Journey Model. Journal of Business Research, 101, 243-254.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Olsson, P., & Galaz, V. (2012). Social-Ecological Innovation and Transformation. In A. Nicholls & A. Murdock (Eds.), Social Innovation (pp. 223–247). Palgrave Mcmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230367098_10 Onsongo, E. (2019). Institutional Entrepreneurship and Social Innovation at the Base of the Pyramid: The Case of M-Pesa in Kenya. Industry and Innovation, 26(4), 369–390. doi:10.1080/13662716.2017.1409104 Paunescu, C. (2014). Current Trends in Social Innovation Research: Social Capital, Corporate Social Responsibility, Impact Measurement. Management & Marketing, 9(2), 105–118. 20

Social Innovation

Perrini, F., Vurro, C., & Costanzo, L. A. (2010). A Process-Based View of Social Entrepreneurship: From Opportunity Identification to Scaling-up Social Change in the Case of San Patrignano. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 22(6), 515–534. doi:10.1080/08985626.2010.488402 Phillips, W., Ghobadian, A., Money, K., Hillenbrand, C., Lee, H., O’Regan, N., & James, P. (2015). Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Review. Group & Organization Management, 40(3), 428–461. doi:10.1177/1059601114560063 Phills, J. A., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. (2008). Rediscovering Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(4), 34–43. Pol, E., & Ville, S. (2009). Social Innovation: Buzz Word or Enduring Term? Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(1), 878–885. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2009.02.011 Rehfeld, D., Terstriep, J., Welschhoff, J., & Alijani, S. (2015). Comparative Report on Social Innovation across Europe. Boosting the Impact of SI in Europe through Economic Underpinings. Deliverable D3.2. In European Commission - 7th Framework Programme. Brussels, European Commission. Rotmans, J., & Loorbach, D. (2009). Complexity and Transition Management. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 13(2), 184–196. doi:10.1111/j.15309290.2009.00116.x Schildt, H. A., Zahra, S. A., & Sillanpää, A. (2006). Scholarly Communities in Entrepreneurship Research: A Co‐Citation Analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(3), 399–415. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00126.x

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle (Vol. 55). Transaction publishers. Secco, L., Pisani, E., Da Re, R., Rogelja, T., Burlando, C., Vicentini, K., . . . Nijnjk, M. (2019). Towards a Method of Evaluating Social Innovation in Forest-Dependent Rural Communities: First Suggestions from a ScienceStakeholder Collaboration. Forest Policy and Economics, 104, 9-22. Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2005). Social Entrepreneurship: Creating New Business Models to Serve the Poor. Business Horizons, 48(3), 241–246. doi:10.1016/j. bushor.2004.11.006

21

Social Innovation

Seyfang, G., & Haxeltine, A. (2012). Growing Grassroots Innovations: Exploring the Role of Community-Based Initiatives in Governing Sustainable Energy Transitions. Environment and Planning. C, Government & Policy, 30(3), 381–400. doi:10.1068/c10222 Seyfang, G., & Smith, A. (2007). Grassroots Innovations for Sustainable Development: Towards a New Research and Policy Agenda. Environmental Politics, 16(4), 584–603. doi:10.1080/09644010701419121 Sinclair, S., & Baglioni, S. (2014). Social Innovation and Social Policy Promises and Risks. Social Policy and Society, 13(3), 469–476. doi:10.1017/ S1474746414000086 Slee, B. (2019). An Inductive Classification of Types of Social Innovation. Scottish Affairs, 28(2), 152–176. doi:10.3366cot.2019.0275 Swedberg, R. (2009). Schumpeter’s Full Model of Entrepreneurship: Economic, Non-Economic and Social Entrepreneurship. In R. Ziegler (Ed.), An Introduction to Social Entrepreneurship: Voices, Preconditions, Contexts (pp. 77–106). Edward Elgar. doi:10.4337/9781848446229.00014 van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2014). Visualizing Bibliometric Networks. In Y. Ding, R. Rousseau, & D. Wolfram (Eds.), Measuring Scholarly Impact (pp. 285–320). Springer, Cham. van Wijk, J., Zietsma, C., Dorado, S., de Bakker, F. G., & Martí, I. (2019). Social Innovation: Integrating Micro, Meso, and Macro Level Insights from Institutional Theory. Business & Society, 58(5), 887–918. doi:10.1177/0007650318789104

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Vézina, M., Selma, M. B., & Malo, M. C. (2019). Exploring the Social Innovation Process in a Large Market Based Social Enterprise. Management Decision, 57(6), 1399–1414. doi:10.1108/MD-01-2017-0090 Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability in Social–Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2), 1–9. doi:10.5751/ES-00650-090205 Westley, F. (2008a). Renewal and Resilience: The Role of Social Innovation in Building Institutional Resilience. African Health Sciences, 8(1), S47–S47. Westley, F. (2008b). The Social Innovation Dynamic, Social Innovation Generation. Retrieved from Sigeneration, Canada: http://sig.uwaterloo.ca/ researchpublications 22

Social Innovation

Westley, F., & Antadze, N. (2010). Making a Difference: Strategies for Scaling Social Innovation for Greater Impact. The Innovation Journal, 15(2), 1–19. White, H. D., & McCain, K. W. (1998). Visualizing a Discipline: An Author Co-Citation Analysis of Information Science, 1972-1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4), 327–355. Young, H. P. (2011). The Dynamics of Social Innovation. Paper presented at the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Stanford, Canada. https://www.pnas.org/content/108/Supplement_4/21285.full.pdf Zahra, S. E., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., & Shulman, J. M. (2009). A Typology of Social Entrepreneurs: Motives, Search Processes and Ethical Challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 519–532. doi:10.1016/j. jbusvent.2008.04.007 Zapf, W. (1991). The Role of Innovations in Modernization Theory. International Review of Sociology, 2(3), 83–94. doi:10.1080/03906701.19 91.9971098

ADDITIONAL READING Baglioni, S., & Sinclair, S. (2018). Social innovation and social policy: Theory, policy and practice. Bristol University Press: Policy Press. Mulgan, G. (2006). The process of social innovation. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1(2), 145–162. doi:10.1162/itgg.2006.1.2.145 Mulgan, G. (2012). The theoretical foundations of social innovation. In Social innovation (pp. 33–65). Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230367098_2

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

NESTA. (2019). Social Innovation. Retrieved from https://www.nesta.org. uk/report/social-innovation/ Nicholls, A., & Murdock, A. (2011). Social Innovation: Blurring Boundaries to Reconfigure Markets. Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230367098.0006 Peris-Ortiz, M., Gómez, J. A., & Marquez, P. (2018). Strategies and Best Practices in Social Innovation. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-89857-5 Phills, J. A., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. (2008). Rediscovering Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(4), 34–43. 23

Social Innovation

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Co-Citation Analysis: A bibliometric analysis indicating the connections of dual publications which have been cited together frequently. Co-Occurrence Analysis: A visualization approach used in bibliometric analysis indicating the frequently used and highly connected terms or words found in publications related to a specific field of research. Corporate Social Innovation: The implementation of social innovation practices addressing social problems by corporates integrating them into the organization as a part of the corporate culture. Social Enterprise: Social enterprises are a type of entity pursuing serving for a social purpose through a self-sustaining financial mechanism and applying business-like approach to address a social problem. Social Entrepreneurship: Social entrepreneurship is a social value creation approach by pursuing social opportunities through innovative activities to address social problems. Social Innovation: Social innovations are novel social approaches aiming at extending social well-being of communities in addressing social problems. Transition Management: Transition management is a governance approach involving collective engagement to redefine perspectives, roles, and responsibilities to initiate and implement social change driven activities targeting sustainable development.

24

25

Chapter 2

Methodological Rationale

ABSTRACT

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The fragmented and scattered nature of the conceptualization of social innovation calls for rigorous attempts to understand the core fundamentality of its elements. This book is underpinned by two overarching research questions: ‘How has the conceptualization of social innovation evolved over time?’ and ‘What patterns of core-meanings and characteristics can be found in the social innovation definitions and various social innovation knowledge clusters?’ A rigorous mixed-method approach employing a sequential research design based on a combination of advanced bibliometric indices and case study analyses is adapted in the development of each chapter in this book. The findings were generated from advanced bibliometric methods of citation, co-citation, and bibliometric coupling. This was supported by networks to visualize these relationships which constitute an ontological analysis and subsequently supported by single case study analysis.

INTRODUCTION Social innovation is viewed from multiple perspectives. For example, as new governance approaches involving a wider stakeholder community (Vanderhoven, Steiner, Teasdale, and Calo 2020); innovative actions by notfor-profit sector (Desmarchelier, Djellal, and Gallouj 2020); locally developed DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-4588-1.ch002 Copyright © 2021, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Methodological Rationale

territorialized actions as opposed to novel progressions originated by large organizations and institutions (Klein 2013); and new forms of collaboration (Ayob, Teasdale, and Fagan 2016; Vanderhoven et al. 2020) aimed at addressing wicked socio-economic challenges. Thus, social innovation spans a wide variety of forms (Desmarchelier et al. 2020) such as a piece of legislation, a procedure, service redistribution mechanism, a product or a service and even an organization. Given this significance, public policy has become a main driver of social innovation (Ayob et al. 2016) giving rise to a growing interest among researchers, policy makers and practitioners interested in social innovation outcomes and resulting outputs. Despite this diversity and significance, social innovation is recognized as a contested concept (Vanderhoven et al. 2020) with an ambiguous and vague meaning (Grimm, Fox, Baines, and Albertson 2013) and the absence of clarity around relevance and meaning in social sciences and humanities (Pol and Ville 2009). Application of this concept to an array of varied initiatives and organizations ranging from the third sector to the public sector and to the private sector; the lack of detailed discussion associated with actors and the mechanisms of designing and delivering social innovation have seemingly contributed to the immense ambiguity surrounding the social innovation concept (Borzaga and Bodini 2014). Therefore, it is believed that social innovation theory lags behind practice (Nicholls, Simon, and Gabriel 2015) and as a result contributes to being a nascent, emerging (Krlev, Bund, and Mildenberger 2014) and underdeveloped (Cajaiba-Santana 2014) field of study. This may impede the research endeavors of conceptualizing and establishing its socio-economic underpinnings (Grimm et al. 2013) and the legitimization of the field. This timely book is a response to the call for rigorous attempts to understand the fundamental concept of social innovation given the fragmented nature of its conceptualization and despite the extensive use of social innovation concept by scholars, policy makers and practitioners (Foroudi, Akarsu, Marvi, and Balakrishnan 2020). A substantial number of case studies, conceptual discussions and policy reports reside in social innovation literature providing multiple overviews to its conceptualization (Cajaiba-Santana 2014) which mainly reside within qualitative approaches (Ayob et al. 2016). Yet there is a strong need for a central understanding of the social innovation concept (van Wijk, Zietsma, Dorado, de Bakker, and Martí 2019). In a mixed method research design (Creswell and Clark 2007) presented through a bibliometric analysis, combining qualitative and quantitative analyses this study aims to broaden the understanding of the research field (Chabowski et al. 2018) and 26

Methodological Rationale

reduce bias (McMurray, Pace and Scott, 2004). This is addressed by mapping the field of social innovation to identify the knowledge base of social innovation and its intellectual structure. Specifically, the book aims to provide an indepth theoretical and practical understanding coupled with an assessment of the current research from a multidisciplinary perspective which is then complemented by case studies representing each knowledge cluster in social innovation research. The purpose of employing bibliometric analytical methods is to identify e patterns and to assess the status of social innovation research in major knowledge clusters. These patterns and assessments of the research status of each knowledge cluster are then extended for a deeper discussion to derive key thematic areas, concepts and the relationships discussed in each knowledge cluster to uncover the theoretical underpinnings of each disciplinary area. The case studies will then further explain and exhibit the key practical applications of the theoretical matters uncovered from the bibliometrics-based analysis. What follows is a detailed account of rationalizing the research design and methodological approaches underpinning and guiding the book.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

A MIXED METHOD RESEARCH DESIGN Today sees us at the turning point in research methods history which sees a synergy “marked by multiple voices, contested meanings, pragmatic controversies and new textual forms” (McMurray, Pace, and Scott 2004, p. 302) which ultimately recognizes the value in mixed method research designs. Thus, the overarching research questions guiding this book are twofold: ‘How has the conceptualization of social innovation evolved over time?’ And ‘What patterns of core-meanings and characteristics can be found in the social innovation definitions and various social innovation knowledge clusters?” These research questions with interconnected qualitative and quantitative components or aspects such as ‘‘what and how’’ or ‘‘what and why’’ call for a mixed method research design (Tashakkori and Creswell 2007; Tashakkori and Teddlie 1998). In essence, the ontological position of this book believes in the existence of both single and multiple realities (Creswell and Clark 2007). This ontological position addressing the process of knowing informs the epistemology which defines the nature and the scope of knowledge (Guba and Lincoln 1994). Especially, epistemology answers to basic questions such as ‘how’ the investigator can examine what he/she knows to be known and ‘what’ is the nature of the relationship between the investigator and what can be known. These questions inform the methodological approach and 27

Methodological Rationale

the methods selection of a study. Therefore, the epistemological standpoint of the book believes that the methods of collecting data need to be selected by determining “what works” for the devised research questions (Creswell and Clark 2007, p. 42). Hence, this book employs a mixed method approach where quantitative methods (i.e. bibliometric indices and networks) play a prominent role while qualitative methods (i.e. case studies) provide illustrative examples to explain key concepts and relationships of social innovation in each knowledge perspective. This makes the examination of the reality of the social innovation research objective, simple and fixed (Sarantakos 2005). This ensures a rigorous approach to map the complexity of the social innovation research status and convey multiple perspectives of the conceptualization of social innovation (Creswell and Clark 2007). Overall, this book follows the sequential design (Creswell and Clark 2007) where an initial quantitative analysis of bibliometrics is followed by in-depth case studies of each social innovation knowledge cluster. Case studies are used as a triangulation mechanism (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, and Turner 2007) in the pursuit of data integrity, richness and depth to the research design (McMurray, Pace and Scott, 2004)By a mix of methods, a clearer and more profound understanding of the setting under social innovation research can be obtained (Taylor, Bogdan, and DeVault 2015). Mixed method studies are gaining currency in social innovation research for instance, Chatzichristos and Nagopoulos (2020) uses a sequential exploratory design to examine the relationship between institutional innovation and social economy. In another study Guo and Lai (2019) adapted a mixed methods approach by combining secondary data and interview-based comparative case studies to provide an assessment of the existing status of China’s community foundation movement. Further, Syrjä, Puumalainen, Sjögrén, Soininen, and Durst (2019) followed a sequential mixed method approach to examine the entrepreneurial orientation of social mission-based enterprises in Finland.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Following an epistemological notion, we utilized an ontological analysis (Cameron, Ramaprasad, and Syn 2017; La Paz, Merigó, Powell, Ramaprasad, and Syn 2020) to map and represent the field of social innovation scholarship. An ontology signifies the conceptualization of a knowledge domain (Gruber 2007). Such an analysis assists in the mapping and assessing of current research work in a knowledge domain retrospectively and developing a prospective 28

Methodological Rationale

analysis of future research pathways in the concerned knowledge sphere (La Paz et al. 2020). In this ontological analysis we identify the leading research trends in the social innovation knowledge clusters by systematically mapping, analyzing, and synthesizing the social innovation publications. Utilizing multiple bibliometric indices such as citations, co-citations, bibliometric coupling and co-occurrences provides a holistic vision of the social innovation knowledge. To date, social innovation research has not yet developed a deep bibliometric and ontological overview that integrates quantitative and qualitative perspectives of a systematic description, as presented in this publication. We identify the existence of multiple discourses within social innovation research and thus, an ontological analysis fits well for this book. According to La Paz et al. (2020, p. 435), the overall analytical approach fits in to the category of “theoretical-definitive-ex post-agenda setting/extending research”. The relevance of a research work is defined by its nature of being either a theoretical or empirical study. This book presents a logical construction of multiple perspectives of social innovation knowledge domains based on abstract constructs and concepts uncovering various paradigms and models to explain each scholarly view. In terms of rigor, the purpose of this book is to obtain knowledge on the definitive causal relationships among various constructs and concepts within the social innovation field with an ex post research focus (La Paz et al. 2020). The impact of this extensive theoretical and practical analysis includes both agenda-setting research. Presenting a classic new approach to assessing the social innovation knowledge domain through a combinative approach of bibliometrics and case studies and agenda-extending research generates a deeper analysis of existing paradigms, frameworks, and methods within social innovation research.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Literature Search Method Allowing both the seminal and current social innovation literature in the analysis, a systematic review was conducted to obtain the insights into the evolution and structure of social innovation research. This systematic approach was started by executing Boolean operations of the terms associated with each of the social innovation knowledge clusters. For instance, in chapter 1, our literature search method executed Boolean operations with the term “social innovation*” while in chapter 4 we used the search tags of “social innovation*” and “social entrepreneur*” or “social enterprise*”. Each chapter 29

Methodological Rationale

provides an outline of the literature search method specific to discussing the chapter’s knowledge perspective. The search embraced keywords, titles and abstracts listed in the Scopus database which is one of the largest abstract and citation based databases containing peer-reviewed literature comprised of journals, books and conference proceedings (Kumar, Shivarama, and Choukimath 2015). This search covered the period from 1966-2019. Following van der Have and Rubalcaba (2016) the book’s investigation was restricted to peer-reviewed scholarly work. Thus, references were restricted to the journal papers, conference papers, reviews, books and book chapters in published in the English language. The search captured all the social innovation scholarly work indexed in the Scopus database, subject to above inclusion criteria rather than restricting to a specific time period thereby covering a period of 53 years of social innovation research.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Literature Analysis Method A key stimuli of modern scientific advancements is the evaluation of scientific work (Rosas, Kagan, Schouten, Slack, and Trochim 2011). This evaluation can be performed by using bibliometrics which is the field of science that applies quantitative measures and indicators based on bibliographic information (Leeuwen 2005). It is a quantitative tool used to analyze the level of research activities and occurrence of certain events in the scientific literature in a particular field (Rosas et al. 2011) and provide useful information for experts seeking to evaluate scientific activity (Oliva, Taulet, and Romero 2006). These analyses are founded on the claim that citations can be used as indicators of present and past activities of scientific work (Garfield 2001). Bibliometric analysis has strong traditions in innovation and entrepreneurship research as shown by Schildt, Zahra, and Sillanpää (2006) and Gregoire, Noel, Déry, and Béchard (2006). Social innovation research sees a handful of studies based on bibliometric studies for example, Foroudi et al. (2020); Ayob et al. (2016); van der Have and Rubalcaba (2016); and Pacheco and Santos (2015). While we acknowledge the significant contribution of the handful of previous studies, we find that the research attempting to address social innovation conceptual clarity, differences, convergence, structure and status is often grounded with multiple weaknesses. Based on a citation analysis Ayob et al. (2016) found that there is an apparent conceptual convergence of social innovation research in studies dated after 2009. If conceptual convergence of a field is to occur, it should 30

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Methodological Rationale

exhibit the intellectual maturity characterized by a set of developed theories, models, methods and measures guiding the research of the particular field (Gregoire et al. 2006). Yet, isolated citations often fail to offer the true reflection of such a phenomenon, and instead can only be recognized by a group of references repeatedly cited together - “co-citations” and their relationship network (Gregoire et al. 2006). Moreover, although van der Have and Rubalcaba (2016, p. 1926) used “bibliographic coupling” to assess the background of social innovation research, it is a fixed method based on permanent citing relationships while co-citations analysis is a forward looking method and continuously updates with the changes in field interests and intellectual patterns (Small 1973). Reflecting on a different finding arising from such methodological difference, for instance, while van der Have and Rubalcaba (2016) find that social entrepreneurship has not constituted as an established intellectual cluster in social innovation research, co-citations based on the current analysis in this book uncovers a prominent presence of social enterprise, social entrepreneur and social entrepreneurship based knowledge cluster in social innovation research. In addition, prior studies are restricted in scope and sample size. For instance, Pacheco and Santos (2015)’s study is confined to 228 articles in the field of social science, arts and humanities while Ayob, Teasdale, and Baglioni (2015) covers 25 years from 1989-2013 with only 55 publications analyzed by a h-index. Reviewing 172 publications, van der Have and Rubalcaba (2016) covers the period of 1986-2013 and identified the existence of four main intellectual communities in social innovation research. Therefore, we used a combination of bibliometric indices to generate insights in to the structural evolution of social innovation research. This includes citation analysis, co-citation analysis, co-occurrence analysis and visualization of these through networks. What follows is a brief explanation about each of the bibliometric indices we used in this book. Citation Analysis: Citation analyses are well known in these evaluations as it is believed that citation provides a reliable indication of the specific interaction among researchers and research institutions (Kraus, Filser, O’Dwyer, and Shaw 2014). Citation analysis is a “quantitative oriented bibliographic approach” (Gundolf and Filser 2013, p. 178) which determines the most influential publications of a specific discipline area of concern. It is believed that an often-cited publication is an indication of the quality and influence of the article. Further, citation analysis are considered to be reliable indicators of scientific interactions and conceptual links between scholarly ideas (Small 1973). 31

Methodological Rationale

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Co-Citation Analysis: When a third publication cites another two publications at the same time, the latter two are known to be co-cited. A co-citation analysis is a forward looking perspective (Garfield 2001) and it shows the coherence and changes in literature comprehensibly over time by identifying the influential authors/publications and their relationships with other authors/publications (White and McCain 1998). These features are significant in determining the maturity and the direction of a research field. It provides a holistic view of historical changes in the intellectual structure of the specified research area including paradigm shifts (Foroudi et al. 2020). “Co-citation analysis involves measuring the affinity and proximity of relationships between topics, researchers, and communities” (Klarin 2019, p. 4). Therefore, co-citations are one of the best analytical methods of visualizing knowledge structure of a specific field of study (Maucuer and Renaud 2019, p. 13). Bibliographic Coupling: Bibliographic coupling “consists of the comparative analysis of references (or authors) cited in a corpus of documents” (Maucuer and Renaud 2019). It is believed that when two documents share the cited references they tend to reflect on consistent themes. Differently to co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling focuses on the “current trend of research” rather the “past traditions” (Vogel and Güttel 2013, p. 426). Bibliometric relationships are visualized by way of networks made of nodes and edges. A node may either be an author, a publication, a journal or a keyword. The edges are the connectors of pair of such nodes. This book uses a distanced based approach of visualizing co-citation and co-occurrence of terms networks in which the distance between nodes approximately indicate their relatedness. The smaller the distance between nodes, the higher will be the relatedness of those two (van Eck and Waltman 2014). We use VOSviewer (Van Eck and Waltman 2010) software to generate and visualize the bibliometric networks in this book. “VOSviewer uses an algorithm to track noun phrases and create networks that are divided into clusters according to co-occurrence based on the text data” (Klarin 2019, p. 5).

Triangulation Through Case Studies Mixing of data types to validate the claims arisen from a previous level of analysis is known as triangulation (Olsen 2004). Usage of multiple sources in the triangulation process enables corroborating data from multiple perspectives which subsequently improves the depth of understanding of a 32

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Methodological Rationale

particular theme or a concept (Atkinson and Delamont 2005). Case studies are often used as a mechanism for executing triangulation process. Case studies are powerful examples (Siggelkow 2007) describes the presence of a phenomenon (Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007). Case studies have strong traditions in social innovation research for instance, Léger-Bosch, Houdart, Loudiyi, and Le Bel (2020); and Herrera (2016); Maibom and Smith (2016); and Smith and Woods (2015). To ensure the rigor in case study application in this book, we report on the measures taken following Gibbert, Ruigrok, and Wicki (2008). Internal validity of the case study-based approach utilized in this book is assured by triangulating what was uncovered through the quantitative measures of bibliometrics. In addition, pattern matching is conducted by linking the themes and relationships uncovered in bibliometric analysis with empirical explanations found in case studies (Yin 1994). Construct validity is the extent to which a study investigates what it claims to investigate, that is, to the extent to which a procedure leads to an accurate observation of reality (Denzin 1970). To assure the construct validity, this book first clarifies the rationale of study as a whole, and separately in each chapter, and the approach carried out in arriving at the conclusions at the outset of each chapter (Yin 1994). A systematic literature search is executed for each chapter using relevant search tags which subsequently inform the analysis based on bibliometrics. The indices and the networks then generate the key themes and uncover the associations between them. The preceding bibliometric analysis to case study analysis establishes a strong objective analysis confirming the rigor in terms of construct validity. By so doing we provide clear evidence to the readers to reconstruct our process from establishing initial research questions to making the final conclusions (Gibbert et al. 2008; Yin 1994). This is further enriched by triangulating the data and findings with various bibliometric indices (Gibbert et al. 2008). In triangulating the findings with case studies, we went back and forth between our bibliometric based themes found in the literature and empirics in case studies (Corner and Ho 2010) after identifying the tentative patterns to probe the links between bibliometric findings and case study findings (Johnston and Carrico 1988, p. 38). The existence of these patterns were supported with the explanations in case studies assuring construct validity (Beverland and Lindgreen 2010). Regarding the generalization of research findings, the analytical generalization inherent to the case study approach is assured in this study (Yin 1994). Therefore, generalizations are made from empirical observations to theory (Yin 1994). By disclosing the organizational name or the social innovation’s name instead of maintaining 33

Methodological Rationale

anonymity, we assure the reliability of the study (Gibbert et al. 2008). By doing so, this qualitative approach following the quantitative analysis maintains a strong and precise explanatory edge concerned with the wider explanation than mere measurements with numbers (Mason 2006) and thereby contributes to the quality of the research and knowledge (McMurray et al. 2004).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

LIMITATIONS Although bibliometric analysis provides useful historical information addressing research trends and performance (Huang and Ho 2011), it’s not free from drawbacks. For instance, bibliometric analysis is based on the assumption that new scientific work is built on and cites earlier high quality seminal work and therefore, research is essentially cumulative (Kuhn and Hawkins 1963). Moreover, the database which the bibliometric information is extracted from will influence the strength of the analysis. The period of publication coverage and classification approaches to bibliometric information of databases place restrictions on the accessibility to comprehensive information on the scientific production of a particular field. It is important to note that while much useful work can emerge without citing some previous research, in general most authors build on existing knowledge and references, thus provide a good coherence and accumulation of the historically developed field of knowledge. While some authors (e.g. Foroudi et al. 2020) have found the limitations of using one specific keyword, for example ‘social innovation’, to conduct literature search confines the number of publications available for analysis, our book has used multiple keywords in association with social innovation depending on the perspective discussed in each chapter. A detailed explanation of this process can be found in each chapter separately. This approach has enabled us to retrieve a different number of publications covering a large body of work. However, we use only one database and thus, future researchers can use multiple databases such as Web of Science and EBSCO (Foroudi et al. 2020). While case studies provide a strong research approach, they also have a few limitations. We use single case studies for each knowledge sphere discussed in this book. Single case studies limit the cross-case comparison making it difficult to generalize the findings. There is a possibility of highlighting a few theoretical dimensions while a few others will unintendedly be concealed.

34

Methodological Rationale

CONCLUSION The evolution of social innovation conceptualization and the patterns of core-meanings and characteristics of social innovation in different knowledge clusters were investigated employing a mixed method approach. Triangulation of the findings from bibliometric indices and networks with single case studies enriched the analysis and understanding of theoretical meanings and themes in social innovation literature. This is an extension of current methodologies in social innovation literature as most of the mixed method approaches either follow a combination of surveys and case studies or interviews and case studies. Inherent limitations of bibliometrics were minimized by using a combination of different bibliometric indices to build the ontological analysis of social innovation research. Further, assurance of internal validity, construct validity, analytical generalization and reliability in single case study analysis enhanced the methodological rigor of the book.

REFERENCES Atkinson, P., & Delamont, S. (2005). Qualitative Research Traditions. In C. Calhoun, C. Rojek, & B. S. Turner (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Sociology (pp. 40–60). Sage Publication Ltd. doi:10.4135/9781848608115.n3 Ayob, N., Teasdale, S., & Baglioni, S. (2015). The Apparent Decontestation of Social Innovation and Its Relevance to Social Policy Research Paper presented at the EMES International Research Conference on Social Enterprise, Helsinki.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Ayob, N., Teasdale, S., & Fagan, K. (2016). ‘How Social Innovation ’Came to Be’: Tracing the Evolution of a Contested Concept’. Journal of Social Policy, 45(4), 635–653. doi:10.1017/S004727941600009X Beverland, M., & Lindgreen, A. (2010). What Makes a Good Case Study? A Positivist Review of Qualitative Case Research Published in Industrial Marketing Management, 1971–2006. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 56–63. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.09.005 Borzaga, C., & Bodini, R. (2014). What to Make of Social Innovation? Towards a Framework for Policy Development. Social Policy and Society, 13(3), 411–421. doi:10.1017/S1474746414000116

35

Methodological Rationale

Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2014). Social Innovation: Moving the Field Forward. A Conceptual Framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82(1), 42–51. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.05.008 Cameron, J. D., Ramaprasad, A., & Syn, T. (2017). An Ontology of and Roadmap for Mhealth Research. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 100(1), 16–25. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.01.007 Chabowski, B., Kekec, P., Morgan, N. A., Hult, G. T. M., Walkowiak, T., & Runnalls, B. (2018). An Assessment of the Exporting Literature: Using Theory and Data to Identify Future Research Directions. Journal of International Marketing, 26(1), 118–143. doi:10.1509/jim.16.0129 Chatzichristos, G., & Nagopoulos, N. (2020). Regional Institutional Arenas for Social Innovation: A Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 1–23. doi:10.1080/19420676.2019.1705378 Corner, P. D., & Ho, M. (2010). How Opportunities Develop in Social Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 635–659. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00382.x Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Sage Publications Inc. Denzin, N. (1970). Strategies of Multiple Triangulation. The research act in sociology: A theoretical introduction to sociological method, 297(1), 313. Desmarchelier, B., Djellal, F., & Gallouj, F. (2020). Mapping Social Innovation Networks: Knowledge Intensive Social Services as Systems Builders. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 157(1), 120068. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120068

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and Challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32. doi:10.5465/amj.2007.24160888 Foroudi, P., Akarsu, T. N., Marvi, R., & Balakrishnan, J. (2020). Intellectual Evolution of Social Innovation: A Bibliometric Analysis and Avenues for Future Research Trends. Industrial Marketing Management, 1(1), 1–21. Garfield, E. (2001). From Bibliographic Coupling to Co-Citation Analysis Via Algorithmic Historio-Bibliography: A Citationist’s Tribute to Belver C. Griffith, Lazerow. Drexel University. Retrieved from http://garfield.library. upenn.edu/papers/drexelbelvergriffith92001.pdf 36

Methodological Rationale

Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., & Wicki, B. (2008). What Passes as a Rigorous Case Study? Strategic Management Journal, 29(13), 1465–1474. doi:10.1002mj.722 Gregoire, D. A., Noel, M. X., Déry, R., & Béchard, J. P. (2006). Is There Conceptual Convergence in Entrepreneurship Research? A Co‐ Citation Analysis of Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 1981–2004. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(3), 333–373. doi:10.1111/j.15406520.2006.00124.x Grimm, R., Fox, C., Baines, S., & Albertson, K. (2013). Social Innovation, an Answer to Contemporary Societal Challenges? Locating the Concept in Theory and Practice. Innovation (Abingdon), 26(4), 436–455. doi:10.1080/ 13511610.2013.848163 Gruber, T. (2007). Ontology of Folksonomy: A Mash-up of Apples and Oranges. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems, 3(1), 1–11. doi:10.4018/jswis.2007010101 Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2(1), 163-194. Gundolf, K., & Filser, M. (2013). Management Research and Religion: A Citation Analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(1), 177–185. doi:10.100710551-012-1240-7 Guo, C., & Lai, W. (2019). Community Foundations in China: In Search of Identity? Voluntas, 30(4), 647–663. doi:10.100711266-017-9932-3 Herrera, M. E. B. (2016). Social Innovation for Bridging Societal Divides: Process or Leader? A Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5241–5247. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.119

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Huang, C. J., & Ho, Y. (2011). Historical Research on Corporate Governance: A Bibliometric Analysis. African Journal of Business Management, 5(2), 276–284. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. doi:10.1177/1558689806298224 Johnston, H. R., & Carrico, S. R. (1988). Developing Capabilities to Use Information Strategically. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 12(1), 37–48. doi:10.2307/248801 37

Methodological Rationale

Klarin, A. (2019). Mapping Product and Service Innovation: A Bibliometric Analysis and a Typology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 149(1), 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119776 Klein, J. K. (2013). Introduction: Social Innovation at the Crossroads between Science, Economy and Society. In The International Handbook on Social Innovation, Collective action, Social learning and transdisciplinary research. Edward Elgar Publishing. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139084772.002 Kraus, S., Filser, M., O’Dwyer, M., & Shaw, E. (2014). Social Entrepreneurship: An Exploratory Citation Analysis. Review of Managerial Science, 8(2), 275–292. doi:10.100711846-013-0104-6 Krlev, G., Bund, E., & Mildenberger, G. (2014). Measuring What MattersIndicators of Social Innovativeness on the National Level. Information Systems Management, 31(3), 200–224. doi:10.1080/10580530.2014.923265 Kuhn, T. S., & Hawkins, D. (1963). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. American Journal of Physics, 31(7), 554–555. doi:10.1119/1.1969660 Kumar, A., Shivarama, J., & Choukimath, P. A. (2015). Popular Scientometric Analysis, Mapping and Visualisation Softwares: An Overview. Paper presented at the 10th International CALIBER-2015, HP University and IIAS, India. La Paz, A., Merigó, J. M., Powell, P., Ramaprasad, A., & Syn, T. (2020). Twenty‐Five Years of the Information Systems Journal: A Bibliometric and Ontological Overview. Information Systems Journal, 30(3), 431–457. doi:10.1111/isj.12260

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Leeuwen, T. V. (2005). Descriptive Versus Evaluative Bibliometrics. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research (pp. 373–388). Springer. Léger-Bosch, C., Houdart, M., Loudiyi, S., & Le Bel, P.-M. (2020). Changes in Property-Use Relationships on French Farmland: A Social Innovation Perspective. Land Use Policy, 94(1), 104545. doi:10.1016/j. landusepol.2020.104545 Maibom, C., & Smith, P. (2016). Symbiosis across Institutional Logics in a Social Enterprise. Social Enterprise Journal, 12(3), 260–280. doi:10.1108/ SEJ-02-2016-0002 Mason, J. (2006). Mixing Methods in a Qualitatively Driven Way. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 9–25. doi:10.1177/1468794106058866 38

Methodological Rationale

Maucuer, R., & Renaud, A. (2019). Business Model Research: A Bibliometric Analysis of Origins and Trends. M@ n@ gement, 22(2), 176-215. McMurray, A., Pace, R. W., & Scott, D. (2004). A Commonsense Approach. Thomson Learning. Nicholls, A., Simon, J., & Gabriel, M. (2015). New Frontiers in Social Innovation Research. Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137506801 Oliva, E. J. D., Taulet, A. C., & Romero, C. R. (2006). A Bibliometric Analysis of Models Measuring the Concept of Perceived Quality Inproviding Internet Service. Innovar (Universidad Nacional de Colombia), 16(28), 223–243. Olsen, W. (2004). Triangulation in Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods Can Really Be Mixed. Development and Society, 20(1), 103–118. Pacheco, A. S. V., & Santos, M. J. (2015). Social Innovation: A Bibliometric Research. Paper presented at the 5th CIRIEC International Research Conference on Social Economy, Lisbon. Pol, E., & Ville, S. (2009). Social Innovation: Buzz Word or Enduring Term? Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(1), 878–885. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2009.02.011 Rosas, S. R., Kagan, J. M., Schouten, J. T., Slack, P. A., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2011). Evaluating Research and Impact: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research by the Nih/Niaid Hiv/Aids Clinical Trials Networks. PLoS One, 6(3), e17428. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017428 Sarantakos, S. (2005). Social Research. Palgrave McMillan. doi:10.1007/9780-230-20901-5 Schildt, H. A., Zahra, S. A., & Sillanpää, A. (2006). Scholarly Communities in Entrepreneurship Research: A Co‐Citation Analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(3), 399–415. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00126.x

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with Case Studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20–24. doi:10.5465/amj.2007.24160882 Small, H. (1973). Co‐Citation in the Scientific Literature: A New Measure of the Relationship between Two Documents. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 24(4), 265–269. Smith, L., & Woods, C. (2015). Stakeholder Engagement in the Social Entrepreneurship Process: Identity, Governance and Legitimacy. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 6(2), 186–217. doi:10.1080/19420676.2014.987802 39

Methodological Rationale

Syrjä, P., Puumalainen, K., Sjögrén, H., Soininen, J., & Durst, S. (2019). Entrepreneurial Orientation in Firms with a Social Mission-a Mixed-Methods Approach. Cogent Business & Management, 6(1), 1602016. doi:10.1080/2 3311975.2019.1602016 Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). Editorail: Exploring the Nature of Research Questions in Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 207–211. doi:10.1177/1558689807302814 Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (Vol. 46). Sage Publications. Taylor, S. J., Bogdan, R., & DeVault, M. (2015). Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A Guidebook and Resource. John Wiley & Sons. van der Have, R. P., & Rubalcaba, L. (2016). Social Innovation Research: An Emerging Area of Innovation Studies? Research Policy, 45(9), 1923–1935. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2016.06.010 Van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software Survey: Vosviewer, a Computer Program for Bibliometric Mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. doi:10.100711192-009-0146-3 van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2014). Visualizing Bibliometric Networks. In Y. Ding, R. Rousseau, & D. Wolfram (Eds.), Measuring Scholarly Impact (pp. 285–320). Springer, Cham. van Wijk, J., Zietsma, C., Dorado, S., de Bakker, F. G., & Martí, I. (2019). Social Innovation: Integrating Micro, Meso, and Macro Level Insights from Institutional Theory. Business & Society, 58(5), 887–918. doi:10.1177/0007650318789104

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Vanderhoven, E., Steiner, A., Teasdale, S., & Calo, F. (2020). Can Public Venture Capital Support Sustainability in the Social Economy? Evidence from a Social Innovation Fund. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 13(1), 1–6. Vogel, R., & Güttel, W. H. (2013). The Dynamic Capability View in Strategic Management: A Bibliometric Review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(4), 426–446. White, H. D., & McCain, K. W. (1998). Visualizing a Discipline: An Author Co-Citation Analysis of Information Science, 1972-1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4), 327–355. 40

Methodological Rationale

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications.

ADDITIONAL READING Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications. Edwards-Schachter, M., & Wallace, M. L. (2017). ‘Shaken, but not stirred’: Sixty years of defining social innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 119(1), 64–79. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.012 Foroudi, P., Akarsu, T. N., Marvi, R., & Balakrishnan, J. (2020). Intellectual evolution of social innovation: A bibliometric analysis and avenues for future research trends. Industrial Marketing Management, 1(1), 1–21. Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20. doi:10.1177/1525822X05282260 Jessop, B., Moulaert, F., Hulgård, L., and Hamdouch, A. (2013). Social innovation research: a new stage in innovation analysis. The international handbook on social innovation: Collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research, 110-130.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Bibliometrics: Bibliometrics are a set of quantitative indicators analyzing the impact of publications such as journal articles, books, and book chapters. For instance, these include the statistical measures such as citations, cocitations, and co-occurrences. Citation Threshold: A citation threshold is the minimum number of citations obtained by ranking papers in a research field in descending order by citation count and then selecting the top fraction or percentage of papers. Co-Citation: Co-citation is a bibliometric indicator defining the frequency of citing two publications (e.g. journal article, book, and book chapter) together which subsequently highlight the similarity of the cited two documents. This citing frequency is determined based on the citations received by a publication. 41

Methodological Rationale

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Co-Citation Networks: Co-citation networks are a visualization method of highly co-cited and closely associated publications. Mixed-Method Research: Mixed-method research approach is a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches to collect and analyze data in a research. Ontology: The approach to conceptualize knowledge in a field of study.

42

43

Chapter 3

Evolution of Social Innovation Research

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

ABSTRACT The objective of this chapter is to trace the evolution of social innovation research. From 1966 to 2019, there are three key periods identified and discussed. Social innovation research is seen to be growing exponentially, following two sluggish periods of growth between 1966-2002 and 2003-2009. A total of 2,489 publications produced between 1966 and 2019 indicate exponential growth and this is particularly noticeable after 2010. Most of the publications are in journal articles carried by 159 research journals indicating the multidisciplinary nature of the field. The number of knowledge clusters within the body of research is increasing, with the social entrepreneurship cluster becoming the most popular recently. The initial four knowledge clusters in the field are grounding in experimental social innovation and dissemination (ESID). Since 2009, the discussion around urban governance has become more popular, signifying a substantial change in the literature. A few new thematic areas, including grassroots innovation and creativity research, have now entered the field.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-4588-1.ch003 Copyright © 2021, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Evolution of Social Innovation Research

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Social innovation has been understood in several ways by different scholars and organizations. The earliest references to social innovation are found in the 1960s in relation to experimental research (Young Foundation, 2012). Mumford (2002) observed that this term was used as far back as the 19th century, by Benjamin Franklin. Godin (2012) also notes that the term - social innovation - has been in regular vocabulary use since the 1860s and particularly after the publication of the book on “Social innovators and their schemes” in 1858 by Sargant; the first scholar to develop a complete discourse on social innovation. In 1903, American sociologist L.F. Ward established the first theoretical framework for the discipline, providing the sociological roots for the evolution of social innovation theory. Late 19th century and early 20th century development of social innovation theory incorporated crucial new elements, including technological innovation and social change. Until the 20th century, social innovation was understood in three different ways. Starting in the 1830s in Europe, and France in particular, social innovation was associated with humanism. In the 19th century, social innovation was viewed as “socialism” firstly, and later, as “social reform” through the influence of the French revolution and religion (Godin 2012). In the 19th century, scholars defined social innovation broadly as “anything new or any invention in social matters”. This conception generated interest amongst academics and policy makers in the following centuries. Drucker (1987) posits that social innovation largely became a managerial task in the 20th century, transforming from its original conception as a political act. He provides a few examples, such as “The Research Lab, Eurodollar, commercial paper, mass and mass movements, farm agents and management” as social innovations. These examples highlight the technological and economic underpinnings of social innovation. Generally, however, 20th century scholarship recognizes social innovation as a “social change” mechanism (e.g. Gershuny 1982; Gray and Braddy 1988; Henderson 1993). In the 21st century, academic dialogue about social innovation was further extended to the consideration of social transformation, the long-term process of altering the norms, levels and relationships within the social setting. Most recently, social innovation has become a multidisciplinary concept, as seen through several perspectives, including the multi-level (Moulaert, MacCallum, and Hillier 2013), transformative and co-evolutionary (Avelino et al. 2019) perspectives. Social innovation is now recognized as an effective, efficient, 44

Evolution of Social Innovation Research

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

sustainable and novel method for social problem-solving (Phills, Deiglmeier, and Miller 2008, p. 36); “a novel, strategic means for enterprise to establish competitive advantage through collaboration with powerful stakeholders” (Chin, Yang, Zhang, Yu, and Cao 2019, p. 863) and; as a co-evolutionary, social transformative phenomena (Avelino et al. 2019). Due to the multidisciplinary nature of the field, many definitions have emerged, creating conceptual differences, complexities and ambiguities. Some scholars define social innovation as a process (e.g. Dawson and Daniel 2010; Gerometta, Haussermann, and Longo 2005; Hochgerner 2013; Howaldt and Schwarz 2011) while others view it as an outcome (Grimm, Fox, Baines, and Albertson 2013; Haugh and Kitson 2007; Martinelli 2012; Mulgan, Tucker, Ali, and Sanders 2007). Although the definitions provided by these authors rely on different concepts, they are heavily cognate and within the same conceptual field, characterized by a loosely defined scope (Howaldt and Schwarz 2011). The lack of consensus regarding the meaning of social innovation has contributed to significant fragmentation of the field. To better understand the current state of the literature, the objective of this paper is to provide a coherent and insightful account of the evolution of social innovation research from 1966 to 2019. A systematic literature search of the Scopus database, resulting in 2,489 social innovation references, is the basis for the development of co-citation networks. Analysis of the networks will provide insight into the evolution of social innovation research. To this end, we first posit that the historical development of social innovation research can be distinctively divided into three time periods: 1966-2003, 2004-2009, 2010-present. What follows is a detailed explanation on the methodology supporting the literature search and analysis in the chapter. Subsequently, an analysis of the profile of social innovation literature is provided, as based on the data gathered. Lastly, an advanced analysis of co-citation networks will provide the main discussion and insights on the evolution of social innovation research.

METHODOLOGY A systematic review was conducted to obtain insights into the evolution and structure of social innovation research. This systematic approach started executing Boolean operations of the term “social innovation*” in keywords, titles and abstracts of the Scopus database. The Scopus database is the largest abstract and citation-based database of peer-reviewed literature in the form 45

Evolution of Social Innovation Research

of journals, books and conference proceedings (Kumar, Shivarama, and Choukimath 2015). The search generated 2,581 publications covering a period between 1966 and April of 2019. Following van der Have and Rubalcaba (2016), search was restricted to peer-reviewed scholarly work. Sample references were limited to journal papers, conference papers, reviews, books and book chapters in English language and obtained a corpus of 2,489 social innovation publications suitable for analysis. Further, the search was opened to include all social innovation scholarly work indexed in the Scopus database - subject to above inclusion criteria. The oldest and the latest publications found in the sample were in 1966 and 2019 respectively, covering an analytical period of 52 years. The total of 2,489 social innovation publications were grouped into three distinctive periods: 1966-2003; 2004-2009; 2010-2017, and exported separately to Following Schildt, Zahra, and Sillanpää (2006), this study’s co-citation frequency threshold was adjusted in order to obtain a sufficient number of references for the analysis. Accordingly, 2 citations per publication for the periods of 1966-2003 and 2004-2009 and 5 citations per publication for the period of 2010-2019 were treated as co-citation thresholds. The generated periodic co-citation networks are presented in Figure 3, 4, and 5.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

GROWTH OF SOCIAL INNOVATION RESEARCH Social Innovation literature is growing in scope and the field can be described as phenomenally-based and hypothetically fragmented (Caroli, Fracassi, Maiolini, and Carnini Pulino 2018). The annual growth of social innovation publications from 1960-April 2019 is portrayed in Figure 1. A total of 2,489 publications produced between 1966 and April of 2019 indicates exponential growth, and especially after 2010. This distribution shows three distinctive periods of publication growth: a slow growth period between 1966 and 2003, a medium growth period between 2004 and 2009 and an exponential growth period from 2010 onwards. The period from 1966-2003 accounts for a total of 129 publications, representing 5% of the total number of publications. There were 167 publications between 2004 and 2009, representing nearly 7% of total publication count. A total of 2,193 publications produced between 2010 and April of 2019 represent 88% of the total number of publications in the field. The 2,489 publications comprise journal articles, reviews, conference papers, books, and book chapters (Figure 2). 46

Evolution of Social Innovation Research

Figure 1. The growth of social innovation publications during 1966-2019 Source: Authors

Noted in Figure 2, we see that most of the publications are in the form of journal articles, representing nearly 60% of the total publication output. Interestingly, these 1,478 journal articles are within 159 research journals. The variety in journals indicates the multidisciplinary nature of social innovation research. Among them, the top 10 journals carrying social innovation journal articles are summarized in Table 1.

Figure 2. Composition of social innovation publication types

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Authors

47

Evolution of Social Innovation Research

Table 1. Top 10 journals carrying social innovation publications during 1966-2019 (Source: Authors)

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Journal

Number of articles

Sustainability Switzerland

42

Journal of Social Entrepreneurship

26

Ecology and Society

18

Innovation

18

Voluntas

18

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

14

Journal of Cleaner Production

13

Forest Policy and Economics

11

Futures

11

Journal of Business Research

11

Most of the publications (42) are in the Sustainability Switzerland journal, followed by the Journal of Social Entrepreneurship (26), Ecology and Society (18) Innovation (18) and Voluntas (18) journals. The second largest publication type is conference papers, comprising 17% of the total or 426 publications. The 71 books and 357 book chapters together comprise another 17% of total publications. Few of the most recent books in the social innovation literature include: Strategies and Best Practices in Social Innovation - An Institutional Perspective, by Peris-Ortiz, Gómez, and Marquez (2018); Social Innovation and Social Policy - Theory, Policy and Practice, by Baglioni and Sinclair (2018); Social Innovation and Sustainable Consumption - Research and Action for Societal Transformation, by Backhaus, Genus, Lorek, Vadovics, and Wittmayer (2017); New Frontiers in Social Innovation Research, by Nicholls, Simon, and Gabriel (2015); The Locust and the Bee - Predators and Creators in Capitalism’s Future by Mulgan (2015); Business of Social And Environmental Innovation New Frontiers In Africa, by Bitzer and Hamann (2015). There are many contributing authors in social innovation literature. Among them, the most to least published include: (1) Moulaert, F. (21 publications); (2) Klein, J.L. and Westley, F.R. (11 publications each); (3) Howaldt, J., Manzini, E. and Pelka, B. (10 publications each) and; (4) Moore, M.L., Selloni, D., and Harrisson, D. (9 publications each) In terms of country, the United Kingdom and United States are the top two, with 323 publications each. These are followed by Italy (271), Spain (204) and Germany (183). 48

Evolution of Social Innovation Research

CHRONOLOGICAL EVOLUTION OF SOCIAL INNOVATION KNOWLEDGE BASE The following section provides a detailed examination of the unique patterns of the social innovation knowledge-base. This is looked at chronologically, with three periodic co-citation networks (Figure 3, 4, and 5) enabling us to reflect on the directions and trends of social innovation research work. Our search indicates that the social innovation knowledge base draws from a wide array of disciplines, with cycles of conceptual convergence and divergence. We also acknowledge that “the evolution of research fields – their rise, institutionalization and sometimes demise – forms a central part of social science studies” (Landström, Harirchi, and Åström 2012, p. 1154).

1966-2003: Dominance of Experimental Social Innovation and Dissemination (ESID) While most of the scholarly work on social innovation was published after 2009, the intellectual roots of this research can be traced back to the 1960’s. The oldest publication found in the core sample of the literature is about social innovation studies in scientific communication and psychology, by Garvey and Griffith (1966). Thus, the embryonic stage of social innovation research is based on four main intellectual clusters (Figure 3). Figure 3. Co-citation network for social innovation research during 1966-2003

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Authors

49

Evolution of Social Innovation Research

The salient feature common to all four clusters is that they are grounded in G.W. Fairweather’s action-based research on ESID. As the largest cluster, with five key publications in the network, cluster 1 mainly comprises empirical work on society’s reaction to innovation and ESID application to addressing psychology-related issues in the community. Cluster 2 is about ESID applications in addressing psychology-related issues in the community and is published in the Journal of Community Psychology. Cluster 3 is about ESID-based community program development and evaluation. Cluster 4 encompasses seminal works on ESID (e.g. Fairweather 1964; Fairweather and Tornatzky 1977). The ESID approach is a result of “social engineering” practices of social scientists in 1960’s. Thus, ESID is a methodological approach in social engineering, emphasizing the need to integrate scientific methods into social problem-solving. This multi-step process of introducing change, according to Emshoff et al. (2003), includes the stages of selecting a social problem to target; thoroughly investigating current literature on the topic; developing, implementing and evaluating an innovative alternative; systemically replicating and disseminating. In this way, social science methods are applied to effectively informing public policy and social change (Sullivan 2003). Scholarly work between 1966 and 2003 developed on these initial foundations within journals, including the American Journal of Community Psychology, Futures, Human Relations, Creativity Research Journal and the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

2004-2009: A Focus on Urban Governance Focus on ESID-based research began to decline between 2004 and 2009. Instead, scholarly discussion about social innovation began to focus on urban governance, signifying a substantial change in the literature. Figure 4 exhibits the five main co-cited intellectual clusters during 2004-2009 in social innovation research. Being the largest group with 17 publications, cluster 1 sheds lights on the emerging research area, urban governance. All 17 publications are conceptual, with themes of citizen participation and governance (e.g. Docherty, Goodlad, and Paddison 2001; Raco 2000), civil society and urban governance (e.g. Edwards 2002; Goonewardena and Rankin 2004), governmentality (Foucault 1979; Lemke 2002), urban governance and state (e.g. Le Galès 1995; Rakodi 2003), governance and economics (e.g. Jessop 1995), governance and state 50

Evolution of Social Innovation Research

Figure 4. Co-citation network for social innovation research during 2004-2009

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Authors

(e.g. Mitchell 2001; Peck and Tickell 2002; Rose and Miller 1992) and urban development (e.g. Swyngedouw, Moulaert, and Rodriguez 2002). Furthermore, it is found that planning theory, Hegel’s theory of state, regulation theory, systems theory, rational choice theory, neo-classical equilibrium theory and liberal democratic theory are the theoretical foundations for these scholarly discussions. As a strongly connected group, cluster 2 is largely comprised of books focusing on urban planning and governance (e.g. Fainstein 2000; Hillier 2002; Le Galès 2002), urban movements (Mayer 2000; Pickvance 2003), democratic governance (e.g. Abers 2000; Avritzer 2009; Cohen and Rogers 1992) and institutional approaches to social environment uplifting (e.g. Putnam, Leonardi, and Nanetti 1994). This stream of inquiry focuses on power and authority influences on policies and decisions about public life and social advancement. Nearly 75% of cluster 3 are empirical work that provides insights into two main areas; social cognition (e.g. Berger and Jordan 1992; Hammond 1990) and social governance (e.g. Kooiman 2003). As a sub-theme of social psychology, “social cognition” has a small presence in the literature. This indicates the decline or demise of psychology-based research in social innovation research. Uniquely, Moulaert, Martinelli, González, and Swyngedouw (2007) discuss social innovation in association with social governance, creating noticeable distance from other clusters in the co-citation network. Interestingly, all six publications in cluster 4 have significant focus on social innovation, as associated with political governance (e.g. Swyngedouw 2005), urban development (e.g. González and Healey 2005; Moulaert et al. 2007; Novy and Leubolt 2005), and integrated area development (e.g. Moulaert 2000). The salient feature of this work is that the themes are 51

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Evolution of Social Innovation Research

studied in a European context, with a regional perspective. They discuss methodological approaches to assess capacity to govern (governance capacity) socially innovative actions (e.g. González and Healey 2005), the role of social innovation in urban and regional development (e.g. Moulaert and Nussbaumer 2005; Novy and Leubolt 2005) and innovative governance approaches for inclusive development processes (e.g. Swyngedouw 2005). Cluster 5 is observed in a few scattered areas, including mainly conceptual work in literatures on social capital (e.g. Cameron 2000), innovation determinants (e.g. Damanpour 1991), territorial innovations (e.g. Moulaert and Sekia 2003) and social innovation in creativity research (e.g. Mumford 2002). Again, the influence of urban governance literature can be found, for instance in the work of Moulaert and Sekia (2003) who look at territorial innovation, as built on many theories including location theory, innovation system theory, milieu innovator theory and learning region theory. Social innovation scholarly work between 2004 and 2009 is based on the themes of the foundational work, comprising theoretical, empirical and policy discussion around urban governance. It is published in various publications, including European Urban and Regional Studies, Urban Studies, International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, Journal of Future Studies, and Technovation. The urban governance view recognizes social innovation as an alternative approach to urban development, through innovative relations in community governance. This in-turn emphasizes the human need for satisfaction or empowerment (Moulaert 2000). Framing social innovation in a community and regional development perspective, Moulaert and Nussbaumer (2005) define social innovation as innovation in social relations, including professional, labor, market and governance relationships. Building on Moulaert and Nussbaumer (2005), Gerometta et al. (2005) define social innovation as comprising three dimensions: content (satisfaction of human needs), process (changes in governance relations) and empowerment (socio-political capability and access to resources). The same is differently interpreted by Nicholls et al. (2015, p. 4) as three levels of social innovation; incremental – products-based solutions to effectively address market failures, institutional – reconfiguring current market structures and patterns, and disruptive – changing thoughts, emotions, psycological response, behaviours and environment (cognitive-behavioural frames of reference) to transform social systems and structures through politics. There are some sub-clusters that exist in the same group where the social innovation definition is narrower. González and Healey (2005), for example, confine social innovation to the urban governance perspective and 52

Evolution of Social Innovation Research

consider social innovation as changes in governance institutions aimed at improving quality-of-life and social inclusion. Similarly, Swyngedouw (2005) recognizes political governance as a fifth dimension of social innovation and an approach to fostering socially inclusive development processes.

2010-2019: Emergence of Social Entrepreneurship and Continuation of Urban Governance Dominance Figure 5 offers interesting insights in to the conceptual convergence and divergence cycles in social innovation research throughout 2010-2019. Cluster 1 is a highly connected cluster of an emerging area in social innovation research; social entrepreneurship. Figure 5. Co-citation network for social innovation research during 2010-2019

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Authors

With 14 publications, the whole cluster is predominantly about social entrepreneurship. Five sub-groups of research can be identified within this group: reviews of social entrepreneurship research (e.g. Dacin, Dacin, and Tracey 2011; Mair and Marti 2006; Short, Moss, and Lumpkin 2009), social entrepreneurship definitional reviews (Bacq and Janssen 2011; Martin and Osberg 2007; Peredo and McLean 2006), social venture creation process (e.g. Di Domenico, Haugh, and Tracey 2010; Seelos and Mair 2005), social entrepreneurship theory (e.g. Santos 2012; Shaw and Carter 2007; 53

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Evolution of Social Innovation Research

Weerawardena and Mort 2006) and social entrepreneurs (Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum, and Shulman 2009). Cluster 2 is the largest group with 15 publications. This loosely connected group is based on several thematic areas, including: social innovation conceptual frameworks and research (Cajaiba-Santana 2014; Dawson and Daniel 2010; van der Have and Rubalcaba 2016); social innovation concepts (e.g. Grimm et al. 2013; Mulgan 2006; Phills et al. 2008; Pol and Ville 2009); the learning economy (e.g. Cohen and Levinthal 1990; Moulaert and Nussbaumer 2005); social structure (Granovetter 1985) and grassroot innovations (Seyfang and Smith 2007). Cluster 3, with 11 publications, affirms the recent popularity of the urban governance view, with some presence of the social entrepreneurship viewpoint. The key thematic areas include: urban governance and its links to social innovation (e.g. Moulaert, Martinelli, Swyngedouw, and Gonzalez 2005; Novy and Leubolt 2005); institutional approaches to social innovation in governance (e.g. González and Healey 2005); social enterprise and social economy (Defourny and Nyssens 2010) and; social value creation (Nicholls, 2010 ; Porter and Kramer, 2011). The five publications in cluster 4 mainly focus on institutionalisation aspects of social entrepreneurship (Nicholls, 2010; Mair and Marti, 2009) and growth of social innovation (Pot and Vaas, 2008; Westely, Antadze, 2010). Cluster 5 includes only four publications looking at the application of social innovation (Nuemeier, 2012; Mumford, 2002, Lettice and Parekh, 2010). The smallest knowledge group with only one publication, cluster 6 is about territorial innovation (Moulaert and Sekia, 2003) - another key area of focus in urban studies research. Overall, the co-citation network for the 2010-2019 social innovation literature reveals a strong continuation of urban governance research and the rise of social entrepreneurship and grassroot innovation research. Creativity research (e.g. Mumford 2002), as an application of social innovation, is also slightly present in this co-citation network, although it does not form a strong cluster. Creativity researchers view social innovation as “the generation and implementation of ideas about how people should organize interpersonal activities or social interactions to meet one or more common goals” (Mumford 2002, p. 253). These goals may involve novel types of social institutions, new governance, new processes and procedures for collaborative work or new social practices. Creativity research is thus linked to governance research. Under this view, social innovation is a relatively rare event and requires unique skills and expertise. 54

Evolution of Social Innovation Research

The emerging focus on social entrepreneurship presents a different view on social innovation. This research area identifies social innovation as a central element and intersecting field of social entrepreneurship (Defourny and Nyssens 2010), championed by social entrepreneurs (Dacin et al. 2011). Social entrepreneurship is an entrepreneurial process of combining resources (Mair and Marti 2006), a social mission and resourcefulness to exploit opportunities, as conceived in traditional entrepreneurship (Seelos and Mair 2005). This entrepreneurial approach invests profits generated by market-based activities in supporting the disadvantaged groups (Leadbeater 1997). Therefore, supporting the Harvard Business School’s social innovation model, Nicholls (2010) asserts that social entrepreneurship is a change process delivering public goods and social/environmental services. In addition, social innovation is recognized as a policy mechanism by Leadbeater (1997) by recommending social innovation as an effective response to social problems especially caused by the failure of welfare state. By so doing he further believes that social innovation will be a remedy for many social disorders and a cost-effective way of improving the quality of social welfare. Another insight observed in this period is the tendency of business management and entrepreneurship journals to house social innovation publications. For instance, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Organization Science, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of World Business, Journal of Business Venturing and Stanford Innovation Review are among the key business management and entrepreneurship journals. This indicates an emerging trend, as of 2010, of looking at social innovation phenomena through a business management lens.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION Social innovation research is seen to be growing exponentially, following two periods of slower growth between 1966 and 2002 and 2003 and 2009. There is also an increase in the number of knowledge clusters within social innovation research, from four to six. The social entrepreneurship cluster is presently the most predominant. While urban governance social innovation research continues to grow since 2003, a few new thematic areas have also emerged since 2010, including grassroots innovation and creativity research. The publications of the broader field of social innovation are seen to be supported by a wide variety of journals. The business management and entrepreneurship journals are highly popular in social innovation research currently. 55

Evolution of Social Innovation Research

REFERENCES Abers, R. (2000). Inventing Local Democracy: Grassroots Politics in Brazil. Lynne Rienner Publishers. Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J. M., Pel, B., Weaver, P., Dumitru, A., Haxeltine, A., ... Ruijsink, S. (2019). Transformative Social Innovation and (Dis) Empowerment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145(1), 195–206. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.002 Avritzer, L. (2009). Democracy and the Public Space in Latin America. Princeton University Press. doi:10.1515/9781400825011 Backhaus, J., Genus, A., Lorek, S., Vadovics, E., & Wittmayer, J. M. (2017). Social Innovation and Sustainable Consumption: Research and Action for Societal Transformation. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315201559 Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. (2011). The Multiple Faces of Social Entrepreneurship: A Review of Definitional Issues Based on Geographical and Thematic Criteria. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(5-6), 373–403. doi:10.10 80/08985626.2011.577242 Baglioni, S., & Sinclair, S. (2018). Social Innovation and Social Policy: Theory, Policy and Practice. Policy Press. Berger, C. R., & Jordan, J. M. (1992). Planning Sources, Planning Difficulty and Verbal Fluency. Communication Monographs, 59(2), 130–149. doi:10.1080/03637759209376257 Bitzer, V., & Hamann, R. (2015). The Business of Social and Environmental Innovation. In The Business of Social and Environmental Innovation: New Frontiers in Africa (pp. 3-24). Academic Press.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2014). Social Innovation: Moving the Field Forward. A Conceptual Framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82(1), 42–51. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.05.008 Cameron, J. (2000). Asset-Based Community and Economic Development: Implications for the Social Capital Debate. Paper presented as the Alison Burton Memorial Lecture. Royal Australian Planning Institute.

56

Evolution of Social Innovation Research

Caroli, M. G., Fracassi, E., Maiolini, R., & Carnini Pulino, S. (2018). Exploring Social Innovation Components and Attributes: A Taxonomy Proposal. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 9(2), 94–109. doi:10.1080/1 9420676.2018.1448296 Chin, T., Yang, Y., Zhang, P., Yu, X., & Cao, L. (2019). Co-Creation of Social Innovation: Corporate Universities as Innovative Strategies for Chinese Firms to Engage with Society. Sustainability, 11(5), 1–13. doi:10.3390u11051438 Cohen, J., & Rogers, J. (1992). Secondar y Associations and Democratic Governance. Politics & Society, 20(4), 393–472. doi:10.1177/0032329292020004003 Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152. doi:10.2307/2393553 Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social Entrepreneurship: A Critique and Future Directions. Organization Science, 22(5), 1203–1213. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0620 Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational Innovation: A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Determinants and Moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555–590. Dawson, P., & Daniel, L. (2010). Understanding Social Innovation: A Provisional Framework. International Journal of Technology Management, 51(1), 9–21. doi:10.1504/IJTM.2010.033125

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2010). Conceptions of Social Enterprise and Social Entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and Divergences. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 32–53. doi:10.1080/19420670903442053 Di Domenico, M., Haugh, H., & Tracey, P. (2010). Social Bricolage: Theorizing Social Value Creation in Social Enterprises. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 681–703. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00370.x Docherty, I., Goodlad, R., & Paddison, R. (2001). Civic Culture, Community and Citizen Participation in Contrasting Neighbourhoods. Urban Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland), 38(12), 2225–2250. doi:10.1080/00420980120087144

57

Evolution of Social Innovation Research

Drucker, P. F. (1987). Social Innovation - Managements New Dimension (Reprinted from the Frontiers of Management - Where Tomorrows Decisions Are Being Shaped Today, 1987. Long Range Planning, 20(6), 29–34. doi:10.1016/0024-6301(87)90129-4 Edwards, M. (2002). Herding Cats? Civil Society and Global Governance. New Economy, 9(2), 71–76. doi:10.1111/1468-0041.00245 Emshoff, J., Blakely, C., Gray, D., Jakes, S., Brounstein, P., Coulter, J., & Gardner, S. (2003). An Esid Case Study at the Federal Level. American Journal of Community Psychology, 32(3-4), 345–357. doi:10.1023/ B:AJCP.0000004753.88247.0d Fainstein, S. S. (2000). New Directions in Planning Theory. Urban Affairs Review, 35(4), 451–478. doi:10.1177/107808740003500401 Fairweather, G. W. (1964). Social Psychology in Treating Mental Illness: An Experimental Approach. John Wiley & Sons. Fairweather, G. W., & Tornatzky, L. G. (1977). Experimental Methods for Social Policy Researcg. Pergamon Press. Foucault, M. (1979). Ideology and Consciousness. Governmentality, 6(1), 5–21. Garvey, W. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1966). Studies of Social Innovations in Scientific Communication in Psychology. The American Psychologist, 21(11), 1019–1036. doi:10.1037/h0024053 Gerometta, J., Haussermann, H., & Longo, G. (2005). Social Innovation and Civil Society in Urban Governance: Strategies for an Inclusive City. Urban Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland), 42(11), 2007–2021. doi:10.1080/00420980500279851

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Gershuny, J. I. (1982). Social Innovation - Change in the Mode of Provision of Services. Futures, 14(6), 496–516. doi:10.1016/0016-3287(82)90035-0 Godin, B. (2012). Social Innovation: Utopias of Innovation from C. 1830 to the Present. Extrait de Project on the Intellectual History of Innovation. Working Paper. Working Paper No 11. González, S., & Healey, P. (2005). A Sociological Institutionalist Approach to the Study of Innovation in Governance Capacity. Urban Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland), 42(11), 2055–2069. doi:10.1080/00420980500279778 58

Evolution of Social Innovation Research

Goonewardena, K., & Rankin, K. N. (2004). The Desire Called Civil Society: A Contribution to the Critique of a Bourgeois Category. Planning Theory, 3(2), 117–149. doi:10.1177/1473095204044778 Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510. doi:10.1086/228311 Gray, D. O., & Braddy, B. A. (1988). Experimental Social Innovation and Client-Centered Job-Seeking Programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16(3), 325–343. doi:10.1007/BF00919374 Grimm, R., Fox, C., Baines, S., & Albertson, K. (2013). Social Innovation, an Answer to Contemporary Societal Challenges? Locating the Concept in Theory and Practice. Innovation (Abingdon), 26(4), 436–455. doi:10.1080/ 13511610.2013.848163 Hammond, K. J. (1990). Case-Based Planning: A Framework for Planning from Experience. Cognitive Science, 14(3), 385–443. doi:10.120715516709cog1403_3 Haugh, H., & Kitson, M. (2007). The Third Way and the Third Sector: New Labour’s Economic Policy and the Social Economy. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31(6), 973–994. doi:10.1093/cje/bem027 Henderson, H. (1993). Social Innovation and Citizen Movements. Futures, 25(3), 322–338. doi:10.1016/0016-3287(93)90140-O Hillier, J. (2002). Shadows of Power: An Allegory of Prudence in Land-Use Planning (Vol. 5). Psychology Press.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Hochgerner, J. (2013). Social Innovations and the Advancement of the General Concept of Innovation Social Innovation: New Forms of Organisation in Knowledge-Based Societies. Academic Press. Howaldt, J., & Schwarz, M. (2011). Social Innovation – Social Challenges and Future Research Fields. In S. Jeschke, I. Isenhardt, F. Hees, & S. Trantow (Eds.), Enabling Innovation: Innovative Capability - German and International Views (pp. 203–223). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-64224503-9_22 Jessop, B. (1995). The Regulation Approach, Governance and Post-Fordism: Alternative Perspectives on Economic and Political Change? Economy and Society, 24(3), 307–333. doi:10.1080/03085149500000013 59

Evolution of Social Innovation Research

Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as Governance. Sage. Kumar, A., Shivarama, J., & Choukimath, P. A. (2015). Popular Scientometric Analysis, Mapping and Visualisation Softwares: An Overview. Paper presented at the 10th International CALIBER-2015, HP University and IIAS, India. Landström, H., Harirchi, G., & Åström, F. (2012). Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Knowledge Base. Research Policy, 41(7), 1154–1181. doi:10.1016/j. respol.2012.03.009 Le Galès, P. (1995). Du Gouvernement Local à La Gouvernace Urbaine. Revue Française de Science Politique, 45(1), 57–95. doi:10.3406/rfsp.1995.403502 Le Galès, P. (2002). European Cities: Social Conflicts and Governance. OUP Oxford. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199243570.001.0001 Leadbeater, C. (1997). The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur. Demos. Lemke, T. (2002). Foucault, Governmentality, and Critique. Rethinking Marxism, 14(3), 49–64. doi:10.1080/089356902101242288 Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of Explanation, Prediction, and Delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36–44. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.002 Martin, R. J., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for a Definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 1(1), 29–39. Martinelli, F. (2012). Social Innovation or Social Exclusion? Innovating Social Services in the Context of a Retrenching Welfare State. In H. W. Franz, J. Hochgerner, & J. Howaldt (Eds.), Challenge Social Innovation (pp. 169–180). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-32879-4_11

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Mayer, M. (2000). Social Movements in European Cities: Transitions from the 1970s to the 1990s. In A. Bagnasco & P. Le Galès (Eds.), Cities in Contemporary Europe (pp. 131–152). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511558733.008 Mitchell, K. (2001). Transnationalism, Neo-Liberalism, and the Rise of the Shadow State. Economy and Society, 30(2), 165–189. doi:10.1080/03085140120042262 Moulaert, F. (2000). Globalization and Integrated Area Development in European Cities. Oxford University Press. 60

Evolution of Social Innovation Research

Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D., & Hillier, J. (2013). Social Innovation: Intuition, Precept, Concept, Theory and Practice. In F. Moulaert, D. MacCallum, A. Mehmood, & A. Hamdouch (Eds.), International Handbook on Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research (pp. 13–24). Edward Elgar. doi:10.4337/9781849809993.00011 Moulaert, F., Martinelli, F., González, S., & Swyngedouw, E. (2007). Introduction: Social Innovation and Governance in European Cities Urban Development between Path Dependency and Radical Innovation. European Urban and Regional Studies, 14(3), 195–209. doi:10.1177/0969776407077737 Moulaert, F., Martinelli, F., Swyngedouw, E., & Gonzalez, S. (2005). Towards Alternative Model (S) of Local Innovation. Urban Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland), 42(11), 1969–1990. doi:10.1080/00420980500279893 Moulaert, F., & Nussbaumer, J. (2005). The Social Region: Beyond the Territorial Dynamics of the Learning Economy. European Urban and Regional Studies, 12(1), 45–64. doi:10.1177/0969776405048500 Moulaert, F., & Sekia, F. (2003). Territorial Innovation Models: A Critical Survey. Regional Studies, 37(3), 289–302. doi:10.1080/0034340032000065442 Mulgan, G. (2006). The Process of Social Innovation. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1(2), 145–162. doi:10.1162/itgg.2006.1.2.145 Mulgan, G. (2015). The Locust and the Bee: Predators and Creators in Capitalism’s Future-Updated Edition. Princeton University Press.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R., & Sanders, B. (2007). Social Innovation: What It Is, Why It Matters and How It Can Be Accelerated. Retrieved from The Young Foundation, London: https://youngfoundation.org/wp-content/ uploads/2012/10/Social-Innovation-what-it-is-why-it-matters-how-it-canbe-accelerated-March-2007.pdf Mumford, M. D. (2002). Social Innovation: Ten Cases from Benjamin Franklin. Creativity Research Journal, 14(2), 253–266. doi:10.1207/ S15326934CRJ1402_11 Nicholls, A., Simon, J., & Gabriel, M. (2015). New Frontiers in Social Innovation Research. Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137506801

61

Evolution of Social Innovation Research

Novy, A., & Leubolt, B. (2005). Participatory Budgeting in Porto Alegre: Social Innovation and the Dialectical Relationship of State and Civil Society. Urban Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland), 42(11), 2023–2036. doi:10.1080/00420980500279828 Peck, J., & Tickell, A. (2002). Neoliberalizing Space. Antipode, 34(3), 380–404. doi:10.1111/1467-8330.00247 Peredo, A. M., & McLean, M. (2006). Social Entrepreneurship: A Critical Review of the Concept. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 56–65. doi:10.1016/j. jwb.2005.10.007 Peris-Ortiz, M., Gómez, J. A., & Marquez, P. (2018). Strategies and Best Practices in Social Innovation. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-89857-5 Phills, J. A., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. (2008). Rediscovering Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(4), 34–43. Pickvance, C. (2003). From Urban Social Movements to Urban Movements: A Review and Introduction to a Symposium on Urban Movements. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(1), 102–109. doi:10.1111/14682427.00434 Pol, E., & Ville, S. (2009). Social Innovation: Buzz Word or Enduring Term? Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(6), 878–885. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2009.02.011 Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. Y. (1994). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton university press.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Raco, M. (2000). Assessing Community Participation in Local Economic Development—Lessons for the New Urban Policy. Political Geography, 19(5), 573–599. doi:10.1016/S0962-6298(00)00004-4 Rakodi, C. (2003). Politics and Performance: The Implications of Emerging Governance Arrangements for Urban Management Approaches and Information Systems. Habitat International, 27(4), 523–547. doi:10.1016/ S0197-3975(03)00004-3 Rose, N., & Miller, P. (1992). Political Power Beyond the State: Problematics of Government. The British Journal of Sociology, 43(2), 173–205. doi:10.2307/591464 Santos, F. M. (2012). A Positive Theory of Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 335–351. doi:10.100710551-012-1413-4 62

Evolution of Social Innovation Research

Schildt, H. A., Zahra, S. A., & Sillanpää, A. (2006). Scholarly Communities in Entrepreneurship Research: A Co‐Citation Analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(3), 399–415. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00126.x Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2005). Social Entrepreneurship: Creating New Business Models to Serve the Poor. Business Horizons, 48(3), 241–246. doi:10.1016/j. bushor.2004.11.006 Seyfang, G., & Smith, A. (2007). Grassroots Innovations for Sustainable Development: Towards a New Research and Policy Agenda. Environmental Politics, 16(4), 584–603. doi:10.1080/09644010701419121 Shaw, E., & Carter, S. (2007). Social Entrepreneurship: Theoretical Antecedents and Empirical Analysis of Entrepreneurial Processes and Outcomes. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(3), 418–434. doi:10.1108/14626000710773529 Short, J. C., Moss, T. W., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2009). Research in Social Entrepreneurship: Past Contributions and Future Opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(2), 161–194. doi:10.1002ej.69 Sullivan, C. M. (2003). Using the Esid Model to Reduce Intimate Male Violence against Women. American Journal of Community Psychology, 32(3-4), 295–303. doi:10.1023/B:AJCP.0000004749.87629.a3 Swyngedouw, E. (2005). Governance Innovation and the Citizen: The Janus Face of Governance-Beyond-the-State. Urban Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland), 42(11), 1991–2006. doi:10.1080/00420980500279869 Swyngedouw, E., Moulaert, F., & Rodriguez, A. (2002). Neoliberal Urbanization in Europe: Large-Scale Urban Development Projects and the New Urban Policy. Antipode, 34(3), 542–577. doi:10.1111/1467-8330.00254

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

van der Have, R. P., & Rubalcaba, L. (2016). Social Innovation Research: An Emerging Area of Innovation Studies? Research Policy, 45(9), 1923–1935. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2016.06.010 Weerawardena, J., & Mort, G. S. (2006). Investigating Social Entrepreneurship: A Multidimensional Model. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 21–35. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.001

63

Evolution of Social Innovation Research

Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., & Shulman, J. M. (2009). A Typology of Social Entrepreneurs: Motives, Search Processes and Ethical Challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 519–532. doi:10.1016/j. jbusvent.2008.04.007

ADDITIONAL READING Ayob, N., Teasdale, S., & Fagan, K. (2016). How social innovation ‘came to be’: Tracing the evolution of a contested concept. Journal of Social Policy, 45(4), 635–653. doi:10.1017/S004727941600009X Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2014). Social innovation: Moving the field forward. A conceptual framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82(1), 42–51. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.05.008 Jessop, B., Moulaert, F., Hulgard, L., and Hamdouch, A. (2013). Social innovation research: a new stage in innovation analysis. The international handbook on social innovation: Collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research, 110-130. McGowan, K., & Westley, F. (2015). At the root of change: The history of social innovation. In New frontiers in social innovation research (pp. 52–68). Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137506801_3 Nicholls, A., & Murdock, A. (2012). The nature of social innovation. In Social innovation (pp. 1–30). Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230367098_1

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

van der Have, R. P., & Rubalcaba, L. (2016). Social innovation research: An emerging area of innovation studies? Research Policy, 45(9), 1923–1935. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2016.06.010 Westley, F., & McGowan, K. (Eds.). (2017). The evolution of social innovation: building resilfience through transitions. Edward Elgar Publishing. doi:10.4337/9781786431158

64

Evolution of Social Innovation Research

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Bibliometrics: Bibliometrics are a set of quantitative indicators analyzing the impact of publications such as journal articles, books, and book chapters. For instance, these include the statistical measures such as citations, cocitations, and co-occurrences. Co-Citation: Co-citation is a bibliometric indicator defining the frequency of citing two publications (e.g., journal article, book, and book chapter) together which subsequently highlight the similarity of the cited two documents. This citing frequency is determined based on the citations received by a publication. Co-Citation Networks: Co-citation networks are a visualization method of highly co-cited and closely associated publications. Experimental Social Innovation Dissemination: This is a community psychology-based approach of addressing social problems through scientific methodology following the stages of selecting and defining a social problem, developing innovative alternative solutions, systematic replication, and dissemination. Social Transformation: Social transformation is the long-term change processes occurred in social norms, levels, and relationships of social structure. Systematic Literature Review: A critical evaluation of literature aiming to provide a detailed evidence and understanding of current research work associated with a specific area of interest by using orderly designed data collection and analytical methods. Technological Innovation: Commercialization of a technical idea through productive design, development and implementation of a technology-based product, service or a process making significant technological changes to address customer needs, wants or a problem in the market is known as technological innovation.

65

66

Chapter 4

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

ABSTRACT Social entrepreneurship is often practised in the context of social enterprises which are recognized as vehicles of social innovation. The objectives of this chapter are to describe the trends in social entrepreneurship research as it relates to social innovation and to identify distinguishing characteristics of social innovations arising from social enterprises. To this end, social entrepreneurship research is observed to be consolidating its position as a prominent knowledge cluster within social innovation research, particularly after 2010. The citation network uncovered the presence of nine research domains within social entrepreneurship, organized along three lines of research focus. These are motives, mission, and outcomes of social value creation process; co-creation through networks and partnership; and the effects of institutional actors on the social entrepreneurial process. Social innovation from the social entrepreneurship perspective has been understood as contributing to capacity building among people and communities in resource-constrained environments.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-4588-1.ch004 Copyright © 2021, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Social entrepreneurship engages in social value creation (Dwivedi and Weerawardena 2018) by identifying innovative and self-sustainable solutions to social problems (Fernandes and Catalão-Lopes 2019). Social entrepreneurship discourse is often concerned with social value delivery approaches, social missions and enterprises, the development of solutions to long-standing problems, and the improvement of communities’ living conditions (Macke, Sarate, Domeneghini, and da Silva 2018). Research on social value creation through social entrepreneurship is growing exponentially (Dwivedi and Weerawardena 2018) and positioning itself well within social innovation literature. Indeed, social entrepreneurship and social innovation share many similarities. For example, both can be viewed as a process of identifying and implementing solutions to social issues and needs (Phillips et al. 2015). In general, scholars agree that they are closely linked (Ridley-Duff and Bull 2019) although this is not always be the case (Petrella and Richez-Battesti 2014). Social entrepreneurship is defined in numerous ways. “[Social Entrepreneurship] combines the passion of a social mission with an image of business-like discipline, innovation and determination […]” (Dees 1998b, p. 1). Social entrepreneurship is a dynamic process of social value creation in the market and community pursued by an individual or a team bearing an entrepreneurial mindset and a desire for achievement to address a social challenge (Perrini, Vurro, and Costanzo 2010). Social entrepreneurship is a process of pursuing opportunities through entrepreneurial activities which does not necessarily involve the creation of a new venture (Bacq and Janssen 2011). Social innovation, by contrast, is the collective pursuit of a social goal, involving dynamic interplay between actors whose intentions are to create significant change in systems or institutions. The social entrepreneurship knowledge cluster comprises of two key lines of research inquiry. The first focuses on the social entrepreneur and social change (e.g. Bornstein 2007; Leadbeater 1997; Martin and Osberg 2007) and the second investigates social innovation within diverse business models. The latter, in particular, offers insights into open innovation and social enterprises as business models (e.g. Chesbrough 2006), social innovation in companies (e.g. Dawson and Daniel 2010), and social innovation as corporate social responsibility (e.g. Fernando 2007). These domains of research inquiry continue to attract academic attention and generate considerable variation

67

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

in the conceptualisation of social innovation and social entrepreneurship, and in their application. Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum, and Shulman (2009, p. 519), for example, argue that “[s]ocial innovation is the core of social entrepreneurship” - a statement which is supported by a number of other scholars (Dawson and Daniel 2010; Perrini et al. 2010; Phillips et al. 2015; Shaw and de Bruin 2013). For some others social entrepreneurship is a way of creating funding mechanism for not-for-profit organizations (Boschee and McClurg 2003). While Seelos and Mair (2005) interpret creation of businesses to support the poor and disadvantaged people as social entrepreneurship, Martin and Osberg (2007) define social entrepreneurship as bringing about social change to address social challenges through social innovation. The motivation of social entrepreneurs and social innovators is to create social value by designing value-added solutions to pressing social issues. In this sense, there is clear overlap between the two (Bornstein 2007). To consider this more closely, this chapter describes the findings of a bibliometric analysis, looking at the various research avenues within the social entrepreneurship literature and its relation to social innovation. A case study is also presented to help elucidate differences between social entrepreneurship and social innovation.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP RESEARCH IN SOCIAL INNOVATION LITERATURE A literature search with Boolean operations (with search tags of “social innovation*” and “social entrepreneur*” or “social enterprise*”) in keywords, abstracts and titles of the Scopus database generated 283 publications initially. The sample was further reduced to work written in English. Editorials, an erratum and a note were also excluded, resulting in the final sample of 228 publications. Results in Figure 1 show that social entrepreneurship research in the social innovation field of study is growing, with a rapidly growing trend noticed in three distinctive periods: 1989-2009, 2010-2015 and 2016-April 2019. Only 3% of the publications were produced throughout 1989 and 2009. Up to 40% or 93 publications were produced between 2010 and 2015. A staggering 57% (129) of publications were produced in only the three years between 2016 and April of 2019. The publications comprised of 142 journal articles, 37 book chapters and 12 books.

68

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

Figure 1. Growth of social entrepreneurship research on social innovation from 1989-2019

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Authors

Figure 2 shows a citation network illustrating the sub-knowledge clusters focused on social innovation within social entrepreneurship literature. The sub-knowledge clusters are formed by highly cited and connected journal papers based on the references of the 228 publications. Ten citations per publication were used as the citation threshold. There were 49 publications that met this threshold and only 26 publications were well-connected, forming 9 clusters of research focus (see Figure 2). Cluster 1 appearing in Figure 2 is represented by four publications including Dacin, Dacin, and Tracey (2011); Desa and Koch (2014), Chell, Spence, Perrini, and Harris (2016), and Tracey and Stott (2017). Except for Desa and Koch (2014) which is an empirical case study-based investigation, all other publications provide critiques about social entrepreneurship and social innovation literature and present research agendas mainly calling for research related to social entrepreneurship process. Social value creation is a necessary condition (Chell et al. 2016) and the central goal of social entrepreneurship (Dacin et al. 2011). However, Tracey and Stott (2017) identify social entrepreneurship as one of the three key processes of social innovation typology with two other processes: social intrapreneurship and social extrapreneurship. While arguing for social value creation as the most 69

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

Figure 2. Citation network for social entrepreneurship research on social innovation

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Author

promising way to define social entrepreneurship Dacin et al. (2011) call for research on five key areas including, identity and image, culture, networks, institutions and social movements and cognition linking to the processes of social entrepreneurship. Reflecting on this call for research, Desa and Koch (2014) examine the processes of scaling up social enterprise impact in emerging economies and find scaling up of social ventures as an effective response to government and market failures. They further found that networking as a key mechanism of optimizing social ventures’ resource mobilization processes (Desa and Koch 2014) which is an area suggested for further research on the scalability of social ventures by Dacin et al. (2011). In an editorial to the Journal of Business Ethics, Chell et al. (2016) question the potential for ethical challenges emerge through ‘impure’ social missions given the centrality ascribed to social mission in social entrepreneurship as the differentiating factor. Therefore, they further emphasize the need for different conceptual views and methodological approaches to social entrepreneurship research in future. Cluster 2 includes three conceptual works from Westley and Antadze (2010), Chalmers (2012) and Maclean, Harvey, and Gordon (2013) and focuses on a few of the recent phenomena of interest in entrepreneurship and innovation such as institutional entrepreneurship, open innovation and resilience. 70

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

Exploring dynamics of social innovation in complex social-ecological systems, Westley and Antadze (2010) suggest the need for market models of resilience with three key approaches to scale up social innovation: market models, institutional change and institutional entrepreneurship. Chalmers (2012) proposes organizational openness to overcome the obstacles of social innovation adoption and scaling up. Both Westley and Antadze (2010) and Chalmers (2012) touch upon the institutional impacts and relevance including the importance of institutional entrepreneurs. The ‘open innovation’ model by Chalmers (2012) rejects the heroic individual approach to social innovation but instead accentuates the need for joint efforts and organizational structures to systematically address social challenges. Westley and Antadze (2010) argue that if social innovation creates broader social impact or not depends on the interaction between socio-cultural, political, and economic factors which result in creating synergies to support the growth of innovations. Therefore, an open innovation model with permeable organizational structure, dedicated investments to develop absorptive capacity, multiple stakeholder involvement and wider knowledge sourcing activities helps organizations lowering the risk of innovation and increase the likelihood of disruptive innovation (Chalmers 2012). Residing in entrepreneurial philanthropy with a regional and community perspective, Maclean et al. (2013) accentuate the importance of local embeddedness and the sociocultural contexts within the process of grassroots-level social innovation. Cluster 3 comprises three conceptual works and the first of which is an exploration by Novkovic (2008) as to how fundamentals of co-operative business model reflect on market power, market externalities, and social entrepreneurship. Ziegler (2010) carries out an analysis of social entrepreneurs as agents of social change while Phillips et al. (2015) conduct a systematic review to discuss the nexus between social entrepreneurship and social innovation. Both Novkovic (2008) and Ziegler (2010) base their arguments on Schumpeter’s explanations on entrepreneurship and argue that social entrepreneurship creates social value through innovation (Novkovic 2008), drives economic development and sustains the evolution of social change (Ziegler 2010). Social innovation emerges within the social system where social entrepreneur and social enterprise are also situated in and hence, it is a result of multiple actor interaction in the social system and collective learning (Phillips et al. 2015). Social innovation carries out new combinations of capabilities based on the capacity of social entrepreneurs to imagine and carry out such novel combinations (Ziegler 2010) to deliver social goals (Novkovic 2008). This process is supported by the actor-networks and systems 71

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

developed within the social system who provide the opportunities for accessing the resources and capabilities needed to exploit a social opportunity (Phillips et al. 2015). Therefore, social innovation can be attributed to innovation in teams given the process reflecting much on the co-operative principles such as team-based knowledge and joint efforts to organizational advancement (Novkovic 2008). Social interaction among the different actors of social innovation develops new norms, values, and rules challenging the status quo (Phillips et al. 2015) and hence, the co-operative organizational form to upbringing social entrepreneurship and innovation culture (Novkovic 2008). Cluster 4 is mainly about innovation and its impact. The oldest publication in cluster 4 focuses on social transitions perspective in social entrepreneurship and social innovation (Witkamp, Royakkers, and Raven 2011). They recognize social entrepreneurship as a radical innovation given the simultaneous achievement of business and social goals. They frame social entrepreneurship as ‘social transition management’ approach to applying technology-based strategic niche management principles. Weerawardena and Mort (2012) examine the role of innovation in achieving social impact by Not-for-profit organizations (NPOs) based on qualitative case studies. While Witkamp et al. (2011) argue that strategic niche management is a radical innovation process of niche development surrounding ];.[the dominant regime(s), Weerawardena and Mort (2012) find that socially entrepreneurial NPOs undertake radical innovations which involve risk of market failure. They had further seen that there are system changing oriented radical innovations from NPOs given the turbulent situations where incremental innovations are not adequate. A review of social innovation literature is carried by van der Have and Rubalcaba (2016) and find that social innovation literature recognizes social innovation as innovative solutions to social challenges while also clearly linking social entrepreneurship and social innovation. They find Weerawardena and Mort (2012) and Witkamp et al.’s (2011) work as bridges connecting social challenge perspective to creativity and local development research. They further find that strategic niche management is a major concept in the sustainability theme related to social and societal challenges. Presenting a multi-agent framework Windrum, Schartinger, Rubalcaba, Gallouj, and Toivonen (2016) link service innovation with social innovation and find that social innovation co-creates new services/products shaped by the stakeholder interactions. The three publications in Cluster 5 are slightly distanced in the network but generally focus on contextual effects on social innovation, social entrepreneurship and social enterprise. Shaw and de Bruin (2013) present an editorial for a special issue looking at contextual effects on social enterprises 72

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

and social innovation published in International Journal of Small Business. They advance the literature by providing insights into a few key areas: the role of risk in social enterprise context; the mediating role of not-for-profit organizations in the social innovation process; the importance of local embeddedness and socio-cultural context; and social entrepreneurship in turbulent environments. Extending the discussion in Shaw and de Bruin (2013), Newth and Woods (2014) examine the way context, particularly ‘resistance’ shapes social innovation. Shaw and de Bruin (2013) and Newth and Woods (2014) build their arguments and discussions on Schumpeterian understandings of entrepreneurship to explain the social enterprise, social entrepreneurship and social innovation behaviour. Particularly, Shaw and de Bruin (2013) have framed the discussion around how capitalistic approaches to wealth creation is adopted in social enterprise and social entrepreneurship setting through neo-liberal beliefs while also being the ‘third sector’ in an economy to link private and public sectors addressing social challenges. Together with Newth and Woods’s (2014) exploration of Schumpeter’s ‘resistance’ notion in entrepreneurship, these two publications discuss the factors which inhibit, constrain, or restrict the social entrepreneurial processes as an important element to explicate many of its differences to commercial entrepreneurship. Four types of contextual factors affect social entrepreneurial process: organizational factors, market resistance, formal and informal institutional forces (Newth and Woods 2014). Resistance is positive as it helps social entrepreneurial ventures ensuring financial sustainability, the suitability of a legal organizational form and business model, and the alignment between socio-cultural values and social mission (Newth and Woods 2014). Similarly, De Bruin and Lewis (2015) investigate how context affect and be affected by the social entrepreneurship processes. They present a typological framework with four situations related to context and social entrepreneurship enactment nexus: context dominant, context bounded, context neutral and context localised. Cluster 6 comprises three publications examining various aspects of the social entrepreneurial process. Exploring the social entrepreneurial process in a process-view, Perrini et al. (2010) identify five phases: opportunity identification, opportunity evaluation, opportunity formalization, opportunity exploitation, and opportunity scaling-up. They also find that individual dimensions such as individual commitment and sensitivity to the problem; networking ability, and visioning ability and contextual dimensions such as the presence of role models, institutional voids, and entrepreneurial tradition; pre-existing networks and resource availability affect various stages of 73

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

the entrepreneurial process. Bhatt and Altinay (2013), firstly, explore the deployment of social capital in social innovation processes to overcome resource limitations as a response to call for research on leveraging social capital for social entrepreneurship by Perrini et al. (2010). They find that social capital helps social entrepreneurial ventures mobilizing other forms of capital and facilitating trust and co-operation. Sandeep and Ravishankar (2015) investigate individual-level motivators of emerging social innovation in outsourcing, impact sourcing entrepreneurship which is the practice of bringing digitally-enabled outsourcing jobs to marginalized communities. They have found that while impact sourcing innovation emerged from bottom-up processes, impact sourcing entrepreneurs are motivated by spiritual-religious experiences and sympathy for disadvantaged communities. Cluster 7 has two journal articles which propose conceptual models related to social innovation. Based on a complex systems perspective, Moore, Westley, and Nicholls (2012) propose a conceptual framework to bridge social innovation theory and social finance practice by identifying conditions necessary for social finance and innovation success. This model helps researchers understanding how entrepreneurial agents navigate the social structures in developing social innovations especially transforming the resource flows, authority flows, and norms and beliefs associated with a social challenge. Building on this work Westley, Antadze, Riddell, Robinson, and Geobey (2014), argue that scaling up of social innovation requires system change with a tailored strategy. Thus, in their contextual model, Westley et al. (2014) suggest five different configurational pathways are proposed for non-profit organizations. The first pathway is “volcano” configuration, where organizational members’ experience becomes the impetus for system change. System change instigated by frustrations of the leader/founder is known as “beanstalk” configuration. The third pathway is known as “umbrella” configuration, where system-level goals were introduced and funded from the beginning. The fourth configuration is known as “LEGO” where implications from prior initiatives set the beginning for system change. System change driven initiatives can emerge as a result of outside invitations to involve in larger endeavors and that is known as “gemstone” configuration. The two articles in Cluster 8 are from Munshi (2010) and Nandan, London, and Bent-Goodley (2015). Both publications mainly involve discussions on social innovation and social entrepreneurship but applying in two different levels of analysis: global economic level and human service organization level, respectively. However, Munshi (2010) is an introductory article for a special issue focusing on the role of social innovation in new social 74

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

value creation while Nandan et al. (2015) explore social innovation, social intrapreneurship and entrepreneurship in the context of social workers in human service organizations. Munshi (2010) clarifies the link between social innovation, social value creation and social entrepreneurship in a global economic perspective. Meeting social needs is the goal of social innovation (Munshi, 2010) while the implementation and diffusion (Munshi 2010; Nandan et al. 2015) of social innovation happen through new organizations (the practice of social entrepreneurship) or existing organizations (the practice of intrapreneurship) (Munshi, 2010). Cluster 9 comprises a journal article from Dawson and Daniel (2010) and a book by Bitzer and Hamann (2015). Dawson and Daniel (2010) investigate the relationship between social, business and technical dimensions of social innovation, providing a provisional framework to help make sense out of social innovation. They argue that while social innovation overlaps with social entrepreneurship, social innovations are a response to concern with people and communities instead of commercial gains. Therefore, Dawson and Daniel (2010) define social innovation as a “the process of collective idea generation, selection and implementation by people who participate collaboratively to meet social challenges” (p.16). Including this processbased social innovation definition, Bitzer and Hamann (2015) examine social and environmental innovation in the African context across four domains: process and outcome nature of social innovation; mapping and scaling-up innovations; social purpose and profit generation tension and; institutional and socio-economic contexts. The specific themes noted in the above are summarized in Table1. The themes and the focus areas noted in Table 1 in chapter 3 and reflect on three major research areas in social entrepreneurship and social innovation literature: (1) studies examining motives, mission, resource mobilization approaches and outcomes of social value creation in social entrepreneurial process (Cluster 1, 6, 7 & 9); (2) co-creation through networking and partnerships to multiple stakeholder engagement in social entrepreneurship and social innovation process (3 & 4); and (3) effects of institutional actors and contexts on social entrepreneurship and innovation (2, 3 & 5). Scholars tend to largely apply the commercial entrepreneurship concepts and theories in the context of social entrepreneurship and innovation. For instance, in cluster 6, Perrini et al. (2010) build on the established theoretical discussion related to ‘process of emergence’ (Davidsson, Low, and Wright 2001) while in cluster 5, Shaw and de Bruin (2013) and Newth and Woods (2014) base their arguments on Schumpeterian views of entrepreneurship, particularly 75

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

the notion of ‘resistance’ and capitalism. Further, social entrepreneurship research has well-embraced the recent conceptual developments and arguments in conventional entrepreneurship and innovation, for instance, in cluster 2, Table 1. Specific themes of social entrepreneurship research (Source: Author)

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Cluster

Focus/Themes investigated

Cluster 1

Social value creation, link between social entrepreneurship, social innovation, scaling up of social enterprise and ethics of social entrepreneurship

Cluster 2

Social innovation in the complex social system, impacts of institutional actors on social entrepreneurs (institutional entrepreneurs/entrepreneurship) and open social innovation

Cluster 3

Social entrepreneur as a change agent, multiple actor involvement in social entrepreneurial and innovation process (capability perspective) and co-operative principles supporting social innovation

Cluster 4

Social innovation as radical innovations, social transition innovations and co-creation of service innovation

Cluster 5

Contextual factors affecting social innovation process (Schumpeterian views on entrepreneurship, capitalism and resistance)

Cluster 6

Social entrepreneurial process, motivations and resource mobilization

Cluster 7

Navigation approaches to social entrepreneurial process by social entrepreneurs (social finance, contextual approaches)

Cluster 8

Social value creation through social entrepreneurship and social innovation in global and organizational contexts

Cluster 9

Link between social entrepreneurship and social innovation in terms of social and technical dimensions (process and outcome perspectives)

institutional entrepreneurship (e.g. Chalmers 2012; Westley and Antadze 2010) and open innovation model (e.g. Chalmers 2012). Further, adoption of established concepts such as intrapreneurship and extrapreneurship in the social entrepreneurship context by Tracey and Stott (2017) in cluster 1 and introductions of sector-specific novel concepts such as ‘impact sourcing entrepreneurship’ by Sandeep and Ravishankar (2015) in cluster 6 are among the main developments in the social entrepreneurship literature. In addition, concepts from other disciplines such as transitional management also applied in social entrepreneurship and innovation literature. For instance, Witkamp et al. (2011) links social innovation to social entrepreneurship building on strategic niche management concept in transition management. These developments in the literature indicate a broadening and multidisciplinary approach to the study of social innovation. Link between social entrepreneur, social enterprise, social entrepreneurship 76

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

and social innovation is one of the heavily discussed themes across the nine clusters. The following section, therefore, explores the association between these concepts.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

SOCIAL INNOVATION, SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP, SOCIAL ENTERPRISE AND THE SOCIAL ENTREPRENEUR Social entrepreneurship is defined in numerous ways. Figure 3 summarizes key reflective features of social entrepreneurship based on major definitions found in the literature. “Social entrepreneurship combines the passion of a social mission with an image of business-like discipline, innovation and determination […]” (Dees 1998b, p. 1). It is a dynamic process pursued by an individual or a group bearing an entrepreneurial mind-set and a desire for achievement to create novel social value addressing failures in the market and community (Perrini et al. 2010). Witkamp et al. (2011, p. 283) defines social entrepreneurship as “a new business model that combines a social goal with a business mentality and is in a transitional phase from a rough cowboy market to a more established market niche”. For Bacq and Janssen (2011) social entrepreneurship is a process of pursuing opportunities through entrepreneurial activities which does not necessarily involve the creation of a new venture. Germak and Robinson (2014) recognize social entrepreneurship as a popular practice of applying business solutions to social challenges. In contrast, Santos (2012) frames social entrepreneurship as the development of appropriate, effective and long-lasting institutional solutions. Some scholars define social entrepreneurship as a process, while others identify it as an outcome of venture creation. In many cases, these themes do not vary but use different words and terminologies to explain the same phenomenon. However, Kerlin (2006) notes that differences in social entrepreneurship result from contrasting forces shaping and reinforcing the social entrepreneurship concept in various regions – an aspect commonly referred to as the North Atlantic divide. In contrast, Bacq and Janssen (2011) maintain that there is an absence of an explicit transatlantic divide and consider that different conceptions coexist even within the US. In examining these definitions it is clear that there is a little consensus (Choi and Majumdar 2014) reflecting a loose (Lyon and Fernandez 2012) and poorly constructed concept (Petrella and Richez-Battesti 2014). Nevertheless, there is some consensus that social entrepreneurship is driven by a mission to 77

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

Figure 3. Key characteristics of social entrepreneurship

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Authors

improve on social issues. It is also clear that social entrepreneurship examines organizing processes and social entrepreneurs as the people who start social ventures (Cunha, Benneworth, and Oliveira 2015; Phills, Deiglmeier, and Miller 2008). Social enterprise research, on the other hand, focuses one of the operational and organizational aspects of this process (Phills et al. 2008). Europe, in this context, is shown to be a matured context for social enterprise, and particularly the UK, where social enterprises are well-supported by the welfare economy of the country. With this background, Borzaga and Bodini (2014) link social innovation to social enterprises. They argue that compared to other types of organizations, the structural characteristics of social enterprises make them vehicles of pure social innovation and provide a better institutional environment to implement, reproduce and extend social innovations once they are developed. Based on the European model of social enterprise, they define social enterprise as a private, self-directed, collective organization - established with a social aim and capable of providing goods and services in a sustainable way. Addressing the role of innovation in maximizing social impact, Weerawardena and Mort (2012) find that amidst market turbulence, it is central to competitive strategy in not-for-profit organizations. Mulgan, Tucker, Ali, and Sanders (2006) further clarify that although social entrepreneurship involves innovations, a limited number of 78

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

implementable innovations are being developed by social entrepreneurs governments and larger businesses are frequently involved in this process. Other scholars look at the link between social entrepreneurship and social innovation differently. For instance, Schmitz and Scheuerle (2012) perceive that social innovation is implemented through social entrepreneurial initiatives. In this view, social entrepreneurs are the experts in value creation and social innovation (Witkamp et al. 2011), while social innovation “is the core of social entrepreneurship” (Zahra et al. (2009, p. 519). This view is supported by several scholars (Dawson and Daniel 2010; Perrini et al. 2010; Phillips et al. 2015; Phills et al. 2008; Shaw and de Bruin 2013). For example, the Schwab Foundation (located in Switzerland) and the Skoll Foundation (based in the US) both emphasize that social innovation is central to social entrepreneurship. The motivation for social entrepreneurship and social innovation to create social value may be rooted in the need to address pressing social issues. Despite the overlap between these concepts (Bornstein 2007) it is clear that social innovation is a collective pursuit of a social goal, and shaped and developed through the dynamic interplay between actors with an intention to create significant change in systems or institutions. Although social change is commonly discussed, social entrepreneurship theory has yet to explain the mechanism of social change. Phills et al. (2008), for example, assert that social innovation is the most appropriate construct for understanding and producing long-lasting social change. Similarly, others have proposed that social innovation is a construct that examines or explains the system-changing mechanisms of social change (Cunha et al. 2015; Phills et al. 2008; Schoning 2013). With relation to social enterprise, however, social innovation can indeed be a part of social enterprise, but it is not equivalent to it (Sharra and Nyssens 2010) or entirely necessary (Dees and Anderson 2006). A practitioner’s point of view, by contrast, sees social innovation as emerging from social enterprises and social entrepreneurship Mulgan et al. (2006), despite that it may occur in many other contexts. Indeed, social innovation is a broader concept than social entrepreneurship and social enterprise. Social entrepreneurship and social enterprise are embedded in social innovation, which operates at the inter-organizational and system level (Brackertz 2011). Nevertheless, social innovations of social entrepreneurship mainly come through social enterprises. Given the relevance of social enterprise to social innovation, the below section discusses key characteristics of social enterprises.

79

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

SOCIAL ENTERPRISE Social enterprises are hybrid businesses based on a dual mission logic of accomplishing social aims and ensuring financial sustainability (Doherty, Haugh, and Lyon 2014). A social enterprise engages in economic and trading activities to fulfil its mission (Lorenz and Kay 2010), and often relies on volunteers to serve key functions (Austin, Stevenson, and Wei-Skillern 2006) . Surplus revenue is reinvested into the enterprise for social purposes (Dees 1998b; Lorenz and Kay 2010). Social enterprises may operate in any part of the economy but they are mainly driven by a social value and wealth creation motive (Chell 2007). For Peredo and McLean (2006), social enterprise is an earned income strategy–based activity of non-profit organizations. In an earned income strategy, a social enterprise will be set up as a revenue generation mechanism to complement the work of the non-profit organization. With a broader lens, Defourny (2001) looks at social enterprises as novel types of entities with a process and enterprise spirit aiming to refashion older experiences. In recent years, the growth of the social enterprise phenomenon has attracted significant attention from researchers, practitioners and policy makers (Doherty et al. 2014). This is due to several reasons, such as changes in philanthropic giving (Dees 1998b); public service delivery models creating new market opportunities (Chell 2007); interest in alternative economic systems that divert resources to new forms of business and; responses from policy-makers and practitioners to rising inequalities and deficiencies in economic justice (Dees and Anderson 2006). Social mission - One of the important features of social enterprises is their primary motive of achieving social mission or a social purpose. These may include: social and labor integration; provision of support services to marginalized groups; growing human or social capital within communities and; the provision of goods, services and advocacy (Burcea 2014). The assets and wealth of these entities are used to create community benefits and the achievement of their mission is partially supported by trading in a marketplace (Thompson and Doherty 2006). As a result, social enterprises tend to have a dual mission (Doherty et al. 2014) that can lead to integral paradoxical tensions (Teasdale 2012) which shape opportunity recognition and exploitation processes (Doherty et al. 2014). Types, Legal Structure and Governance of Social Enterprises - The numerous interpretations of social enterprise imply that it is a “contested 80

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

concept whose meaning is politically, culturally, historically and geographically variable” (Teasdale et al., 2013). According to Kerlin (2006, p. 248), in the US “social enterprise is understood to include those organizations that fall along a continuum from profit-oriented businesses engaged in socially beneficial activities (corporate philanthropies or corporate social responsibility) to dualpurpose businesses that mediate profit goals with social objectives (hybrids) to non-profit organizations engaged in mission-supporting commercial activity (social purpose organizations)”. The EMES research network in Europe provide their own insight, as one of the main schools of thought in social enterprise. Their ideal form of social enterprise has the following features: “a continuous activity - producing goods and/or selling services; a high degree of autonomy; a significant level of economic risk; a minimum amount of paid work; an explicit aim to benefit the community; an initiative launched by a group of citizens; a decision-making power not based on capital ownership; a participatory nature, which involves the persons affected by the activity and; limited profit distribution” (Defourny 2001, pp. 16-18). One of the most highly established social enterprise sectors in the UK, provides additional insight. Operating in the “social economy”, as opposed to the US-based market economy (Kerlin 2006), the UK Department of Trade and Industry defines social enterprises as “businesses with primarily social objectives whose surpluses are principally reinvested for that purpose in the business or the community, rather than being driven by the need to maximize profits for shareholders and owners” (DTI 2002). Social Enterprise UK (2012) also mentions that “[s]ocial enterprises should: [h]ave a clear social and/ or environmental mission set out in their governing documents, [g]enerate the majority of their income through trade, [r]einvest the majority of their profits, [b]e autonomous of state, [b]e majority controlled in the interests of the social mission, and [b]e accountable and transparent”. Although not legally defined in many countries, social enterprises are discussed at national levels with different terms such as “social economic enterprises” in Austria, “socially-aimed enterprises” in Belgium, “cooperatives with social aims” in Spain, and “social co-operatives” in Italy and Portugal (Borzaga and Defourny 2003). Work integrated social enterprises (WISE) are another, more specific form of social enterprise in the UK. Their main purposes include workforce development and/or job creation for needy populations (Spear and Bidet, 2005) and addressing social exclusion (Teasdale, 2010, 2012) by providing a product or service needed by society (Ferguson, 2012). These are examples of hybrid organizational forms (Pache and Santos 2013). They bridge institutional fields by crossing the boundaries of private, 81

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

public and non-profit sectors (Tracey et al. 2011) and navigating conflicting institutional logics (Pache and Santos 2013). There are also national differences in the incorporation and legal structure of social enterprises, depending on socio-political and economic grounds specific to countries and regions in the world. In France and Belgium, for example, social enterprises are set up mainly as associations. They are similar to a quasi-enterprise which are allowed minimum to produce and sell goods and services as a medium to realize their social mission (Borzaga and Defourny 2003). In relation to the governance aspect of social enterprises, Thompson and Doherty (2006) identify three main characteristics: profits and surpluses are not distributed to shareholders; “members” or employees have some role in decision-making and/or governance and; the enterprise is seen as accountable to both its members and a wider community. There is either a double- or triple-bottom line. The Asian literature on social enterprise is equally unique. Social enterprises are recognized as entities involved in “the development of a business or livelihood which enhance the lives of those involved” (Bradley, Chakravarti, and Rowan 2013, p. 88). These social enterprises or the commercial companies dedicated for helping the poor (Sodhi and Tang 2011). Following Defourny (2001), Peredo and McLean (2006), and Kerlin (2006), this literature frames social enterprises under an entrepreneurial market approach (e.g. Mackintosh, Chaudhuri, and Mujinja 2011). Heeks and Arun (2010) identify “Kudumbashree”1 initiative as a social enterprise with three key characteristics based on Social Enterprise London’s (SEL) definition: “orientation towards enterprising; pursuing both social and business aims (e.g. encouraging savings, alleviating poverty and addressing female unemployment); and socially owned by women from poor communities” (SEL 2001, p. 1). Asian literature recognizes the hybrid nature of social enterprises and acknowledges that semi-commercial operations offer sustainability by developing workable supply chains and customer focused business models, instead of the centralized distribution arrangements and continuing financial support (e.g. Shrimali, Slaski, Thurber, and Zerriffi 2011). The tendency of Asian literature to frame social enterprises as organizations with both business and social missions is clearly visible in the definitions, they used to recognize various study settings. For instance, Goyal, Sergi, and Kapoor (2014, pp. 30-31) defined a social enterprise sample based on three attributes: set-up as a private limited company in India; targeting the needs of Bottom of the Pyramid (BOP)2 segment and pursuing a social mission. Similarly, Urpelainen and Yoon (2015) recognize “Boond Engineering and 82

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

Development”3 which provides solar products to poor communities, as a forprofit social enterprise. These examples demonstrate that in some cases the social enterprise sector has extended to the for-profit sector. However, there appears to be a relative delay in popularizing the social enterprise concept in Asia as compared to other regions in the world. It is also interesting to note that “the operational definition of social enterprise in the context of developing countries, more especially in Bangladesh, comprises criteria such as: being run by non-governmental organizations following an integrated/hybrid approach; being reassembled with its organizational mission, vision, and value; addressing society’s and its clients’ (employees’) needs; achieving financial returns while fulfilling social, environmental, and/or other developmental goals, mainly poverty alleviation and; working in conditions where formal institutions, governments, or markets have failed to ensure social justice” (Cho and Sultana 2015, p. 296). In some occasions, Asian literature also refers to non-governmental organizations as social enterprises. This is observed in Alur & Schoormas’s (2011) explanation about the role of social enterprises - “without significant government investment, social enterprises (commonly called non-governmental organizations or NGOs) operate in BOP markets to fill deficient government service provision”. To conclude, the above discussion highlights that the pursuit of a social mission is a common characteristic among social enterprises across the world. However, legal definitions and structures of social enterprise tend to vary within regions and across the world. Hence, broader differences can be expected in terms of use, understanding and policy approaches to social enterprises between countries.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CASE STUDY: 40K PLUS 40K PLUS4 is an Australian social enterprise providing “quality learning to restricted environments anywhere on the planet” (40K PLUS 2017). During a holiday to India in 2005, Australians Clary Castrission and Karyn Avery witnessed the devastating impact of extreme poverty affecting Indian village children. They believed that education would open opportunities to change these children’s lives. Noticing the widespread emergence of entrepreneurial approaches to addressing social challenges (Cunha et al. 2015), they were inspired. They found that only $40,000 was needed to build a school for a community outside Bangalore. After five years, the Banyan School was 83

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

opened to these children, with the support of a project partner - the Lovedale Foundation. The formal launch of the enterprise was in October 2010. Six years later, 40K PLUS was the 2016 Social Enterprise Innovation winner at the Annual Social Enterprise Awards of Social Traders (2017). After a series of initiatives taken to improve the model, today 40K PLUS is a successful social enterprise (Phills et al. 2008) where children’s parents pay around AUD2–4 for children to attend class. This case study offers evidence for the view of Bacq and Janssen (2011): social entrepreneurship is a process of pursuing opportunities through entrepreneurial activities. This social enterprise in this case study is now a combination of three organizational entities: 40K PLUS Foundation; 40K PLUS Pods and; 40K Globe. The 40K PLUS Foundation is a social business foundation which incubates 40K PLUS Pods and facilitates additional funding mechanisms. 40K PLUS Pods are social enterprises focusing on the main education mission. 40K Globe is a program that creates opportunities for young Australians to undergo field training in a social enterprise context - mainly in India where 40K PLUS Pods are operating. Goldstein, Hazy, and Silberstang (2010) argue that social innovation constitutes the core of social enterprise in achieving the expected social impact. This is well reflected in the core principles of 40K Plus’s service provision. Ensuring significant social impact 40K PLUS Pods is now serving a mass market of children who would otherwise have no education opportunities due to extreme poverty in the Asian context (in India). The “gamified 40K PLUS App” contributes by combining world-standard learning content with educational tools and technology. In addition, the learning content is culturally sensitive and tailored to the local populations. Underprivileged children can also use the Android application in offline mode, providing a solution for limited wi-fi availability. This internationally sourced content with offline accessibility is an innovative design choice. This is provided through a facilitator who is hired from a local village. It is offered at an appropriate and an affordable price. This program design aims to maximize learning outcomes for a multi-age, multi-pace and multi-level environment. 40K Plus enables village children to conveniently access 40K PLUS Pods after school for 75-minute sessions. Each afternoon, there are two sessions, of which one can accommodate 25 children, enabling both sessions to reach 50 children per day in each village. This kind of solution closely resembles what Weerawardena and Mort (2012) refer to as social innovation: a process of solving social problems manifested 84

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

at either the product or process level or the social system level by generating and implementing new social service ideas. Social impact of social innovation can be maximized by ensuring a replicable and scalable business model (Borzaga and Bodini 2014). Reflecting on this theoretical principle and going beyond the traditional thinking of non-profit organizations, 40K PLUS charges for the service they provide. This enables the organizational model to remain sustainable and to continue maximizing impact. Exhibiting the key features of the social entrepreneurship approach to social innovation - through earned income (Hartigan 2006) and venture creation (Germak and Robinson 2014) - the CEO and co-Founder explains the self-funding logic behind the value creation model:

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

We discovered that selling the service was more valuable to the villagers than giving it away ever was. Firstly, as soon as we started charging for education services, I noted that our relationship with the villagers changed in favour of the villager: they went from beneficiary to customer. This completely changed the power dynamic … (Castrission 2017) This offers an explanation as to why some social enterprises may choose to adopt business-like features rather than becoming pure non-profit organizations where services may be offered for free. This reflects the arguments of Germak and Singh (2010) and Dees (1998a). This is also well captured in the opinion by Chalmers (2012) - social innovation’s locus has been shifted from state led approaches to tailored solutions by civil society-based organizations addressing niche social challenges. Social enterprises often work across sectoral boundaries and embed within penurious environments. They also adopt entrepreneurial, often market-based and sustainable approaches to address these challenges. The underlying lesson is that social enterprises can offer sustainable innovative solutions when sensitive to market behaviour. The market focus of 40K PLUS offers another important lesson: when social enterprises couple their social service with market mechanisms (e.g. charging a fee for the service) the mentality of the service receiver is changed from “beneficiary” to “customer”. This allows the service receiver to call for a customised service from the social enterprise (power dynamic). This process of changing from beneficiary to customer itself is innovative. Their value proposition is composed of elements such as newness in the service they offer, with a customization to the serving community, supportive design at an affordable price, accessibility and usability. The customer relationship is 85

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

basically - dedicated personal assistance - coupled with features of co-creation with the targeted customer group. Social entrepreneurship is a dynamic pursuit by an individual or a team with an entrepreneurial mind-set and a desire for exploiting social innovation with the aim of creating new social value in the market and community (Perrini et al. 2010). Such learning and development are deeply rooted in 40K PLUS and this was well confirmed by the emphasis given to novel entrepreneurial culture on their website as follows. Given that one of our values is ’strive for a better way,’ we look at data that allows our development team to make improvements to the way the program works …(40K PLUS 2017) Exhibiting the qualities of ‘open social innovation’ introduced by Chalmers (2012), 40K PLUS also track the development of the children through technology and use of two baseline tests administered every year to assess overall progress. In addition, operational developments such as attendance, enrolments, number of pods opened and number of schools opened, are all tracked, enabling targeted strategic initiatives to be developed through a “Monitoring and Evaluation Report” (40K PLUS 2016). These activities indicate organizational transparency, commitment to develop absorptive capacity, multiple stakeholders engagement including users, and a methodical approach to reducing risk associated with innovation through knowledge acquisition activities (Chalmers 2012). Furthermore, 40K PLUS specifically pays attention to mistakes they make throughout their journey, always learning from them. In their own words:

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

At 40K, we never say that we have all the answers, but we’re committed to asking the right questions [...] We are also committed to true innovation, and pushing ourselves as hard as we can ... In so doing, we’ve made a lot of mistakes over the years … This motivation for learning and development has continuously helped 40K PLUS to improve on their technological solutions. As a result, for example, they have been able to outsource content materials rather than develop these by themselves. They have also been able to contract the technological platform of the educational application rather than building it themselves. This approach has reduced cost and enabled them to more quickly provide their services at new locations and with greater flexibility. As Chalmers (2012) 86

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

explained, the social innovation approach of 40K PLUS is a systematic, business-based approach (Dees 1998a) to social innovation, rather than the traditional “heroic” image pursuing social innovation. Such activities empower society by improving its capacity to act in addition to meeting their social needs and creating novel social relationships. CEO and co-founder Clary Castrission interpret this philosophy of “give a man a fish, teach a man to fish”. Even further, the idea is to “sell the man the fishing rod” (40K PLUS 2017). Thus, as Dacin et al. (2011) explained, Clary is social entrepreneur who championed a social innovation to create social change. By so doing 40K Plus engages in social transformation (Alvord, Brown, and Letts 2004) and sustainable social value creation (Austin et al. 2006).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION Social entrepreneurship discourse gains currency in social innovation literature. van der Have and Rubalcaba (2016) find that social innovation has provoked growing attention among social entrepreneurship scholars as of 2010. Therefore, it has been able to construct a very visible or distinct community within the social innovation research. This was well-confirmed by its presence as a prominent cluster in the co-citation network noted in Chapter 1 of this book. Social innovation and social entrepreneurship tend to share similar characteristics, while remaining unique and distinct. Therefore, both social enterprise and social entrepreneurship are included in the scope of social innovation, being essentially a broader concept, social innovation emphasizes social transformation, taking place at messo and macro levels of society. Social entrepreneurship, however, is a micro level social innovation, delivering social value by addressing social challenges through business approaches. Social entrepreneurship, as such, is largely centred on entrepreneurial business methods and their application to the creation of social value - with significant social impact. Yet neither social entrepreneurship, nor social innovation, are necessarily driven by social enterprise. They can also emerge through non-governmental organizations, government, other private organizations or a combination of these. Social entrepreneurship literature knowledge clusters confirmed that there are three main research strands: motives, mission and processes of social value creation; co-creation through networks and partnerships; and effects of institutional actors on social entrepreneurial processes. The developments within the literature has widely embraced the traditional theoretical concepts 87

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

and frameworks in commercial entrepreneurship, for instance Schumpeterian explanations of entrepreneurship. Further, new discussions such as institutional entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship and extrapreneurship also underpin the current discussion of social innovation in social entrepreneurship perspective. Expanding the boundaries of the social entrepreneurship scholarship, cross-fertilization of disciplinary thinking was evidenced, for instance the applications of transition management concepts in social entrepreneurial context.

REFERENCES Alur, S., & Schoormans, J. P. (2011). Sustainable Rural Healthcare and Social Franchisee Selection - an India Study. Journal of Medical Marketing, 11(3), 230–236. doi:10.1177/1745790411411264 Alvord, S. H., Brown, L. D., & Letts, C. W. (2004). Social Entrepreneurship and Societal Transformation: An Exploratory Study. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(3), 260–282. doi:10.1177/0021886304266847 Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1–22. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00107.x Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. (2011). The Multiple Faces of Social Entrepreneurship: A Review of Definitional Issues Based on Geographical and Thematic Criteria. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(5-6), 373–403. doi:10.10 80/08985626.2011.577242

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Bhatt, P., & Altinay, L. (2013). How Social Capital Is Leveraged in Social Innovations under Resource Constraints? Management Decision, 51(9), 1772–1792. doi:10.1108/MD-01-2013-0041 Bitzer, V., & Hamann, R. (2015). The Business of Social and Environmental Innovation. In The Business of Social and Environmental Innovation: New Frontiers in Africa (pp. 3-24). Academic Press. Bornstein, D. (2007). How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas. Oxford University Press.

88

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

Borzaga, C., & Bodini, R. (2014). What to Make of Social Innovation? Towards a Framework for Policy Development. Social Policy and Society, 13(3), 411–421. doi:10.1017/S1474746414000116 Borzaga, C., & Defourny, J. (2003). Social Enterprises in Europe: A Diversity of Initiatives and Prospects. In C. Borzaga & J. Defourny (Eds.), The Emergence of Social Enterprise (p. 350). Routledge. Boschee, J., & McClurg, J. (2003). Toward a Better Understanding of Social Entrepreneurship: Some Important Distinctions. Retrieved from http://www. caledonia.org.uk/ Brackertz, N. (2011). Topic Guide: Social Innovation. Retrieved from https:// apo.org.au/node/27387 Bradley, T., Chakravarti, A., & Rowan, J. (2013). What Happened When the Corporates Met the Artists of Rural West Bengal? A Critical Analysis into Art as Social Enterprise in India. Journal of South Asian Development, 8(1), 85–104. doi:10.1177/0973174113477011 Burcea, S. G. (2014). The Social Enterprise-Viable Mechanism of Social Integration for Romanian Vulnerable Groups. Revista de Management Comparat International, 15(5), 613. Castrission, C. (2017). Why Non-Profits Should Consider Selling Their Services Instead of Giving Them Away for Free. Business Insider Australia. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-non-profits-shouldconsider-selling-their-services-instead-of-giving-them-away-for-free-2017-3

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Chalmers, D. (2012). Social Innovation: An Exploration of the Barriers Faced by Innovating Organizations in the Social Economy. Local Economy: The Journal of the Local Economy Policy Unit, 28(1), 17–34. doi:10.1177/0269094212463677 Chell, E. (2007). Social Enterprise and Entrepreneurship: Towards a Convergent Theory of the Entrepreneurial Process. International Small Business Journal, 25(1), 5–26. doi:10.1177/0266242607071779 Chell, E., Spence, L. J., Perrini, F., & Harris, J. D. (2016). Social Entrepreneurship and Business Ethics: Does Social Equal Ethical? Journal of Business Ethics, 133(4), 619–625. doi:10.100710551-014-2439-6 Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business Press. 89

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

Cho, S., & Sultana, R. (2015). Journey from Ngo to Sustainable Social Enterprise: Acceleratory Organizational Factors of Brac. Asian Social Work and Policy Review, 9(3), 293–306. doi:10.1111/aswp.12069 Choi, N., & Majumdar, S. (2014). Social Entrepreneurship as an Essentially Contested Concept: Opening a New Avenue for Systematic Future Research. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(3), 363–376. doi:10.1016/j. jbusvent.2013.05.001 Cunha, J., Benneworth, P., & Oliveira, P. (2015). Social Entrepreneurship and Social Innovation: A Conceptual Distinction. In L. M. C. Farinha, J. J. M. Ferreira, H. L. Smith, & S. Bagchi-Sen (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Global Competitive Advantage through Innovation and Entrepreneurship (pp. 1–22). doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8348-8.ch033 Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social Entrepreneurship: A Critique and Future Directions. Organization Science, 22(5), 1203–1213. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0620 Davidsson, P., Low, M. B., & Wright, M. (2001). Editor’s Introduction: Low and Macmillan Ten Years On: Achievements and Future Directions for Entrepreneurship Research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 5–15. doi:10.1177/104225870102500401 Dawson, P., & Daniel, L. (2010). Understanding Social Innovation: A Provisional Framework. International Journal of Technology Management, 51(1), 9–21. doi:10.1504/IJTM.2010.033125 De Bruin, A., & Lewis, K. V. (2015). Traversing the Terrain of Context in Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 6(2), 127–136. doi:10.1080/19420676.2015.1038005

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Dees, J. (1998a). The Meaning of “Social Entrepreneurship”. Duke University. Dees, J. G. (1998b). The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship. Retrieved from http://www.partnerships.org.au/Library/the_meaning_of_social_ entrepreneurship.html Dees, J. G., and Anderson, B. B. (2006). Framing a Theory of Social Entrepreneurship: Building on Two Schools of Practice and Thought. Research on social entrepreneurship: Understanding and contributing to an emerging field, 1(3), 39-66.

90

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

Defourny, J. (2001). Introduction: From Third Sector to Social Enterprise. In J. Defourny & C. Borzaga (Eds.), From Third Sector to Social Enterprise (pp. 1–18). Routledge. Desa, G., & Koch, J. L. (2014). Scaling Social Impact: Building Sustainable Social Ventures at the Base-of-the-Pyramid. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 146–174. doi:10.1080/19420676.2013.871325 Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations: A Review and Research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 417–436. doi:10.1111/ijmr.12028 DTI. (2002). Social Enterprise: A Strategy for Success. Department of Trade and Industry. Dwivedi, A., & Weerawardena, J. (2018). Conceptualizing and Operationalizing the Social Entrepreneurship Construct. Journal of Business Research, 86(1), 32–40. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.053 Fernandes, T. I., & Catalão-Lopes, M. (2019). Improving the Mentoring Process for Social Entrepreneurship in Portugal: A Qualitative Study. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 10(3), 367–379. doi:10.1080/19420676.2018.1 561497 Fernando, M. (2007). Corporate Social Responsibility in the Wake of the Asian Tsunami: A Comparative Case Study of Two Sri Lankan Companies. European Management Journal, 25(1), 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2006.12.001 Germak, A. J., & Robinson, J. A. (2014). Exploring the Motivation of Nascent Social Entrepreneurs. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 5–21. doi:1 0.1080/19420676.2013.820781

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Germak, A. J., & Singh, K. K. (2010). Social Entrepreneurship: Changing the Way Social Workers Do Business. Administration in Social Work, 34(1), 79–95. doi:10.1080/03643100903432974 Goldstein, J., Hazy, J. K., & Silberstang, J. (2010). A Complexity Science Model of Social Innovation in Social Enterprise. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 101–125. doi:10.1080/19420671003629763 Goyal, S., Sergi, B. S., & Kapoor, A. (2014). Understanding the Key Characteristics of an Embedded Business Model for the Base of the Pyramid Markets. Economia e Sociologia, 7(4), 26–40. doi:10.14254/2071789X.2014/7-4/2 91

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

Hartigan, P. (2006). It’s About People, Not Profits. Business Strategy Review, 17(4), 42–45. doi:10.1111/j.0955-6419.2006.00433.x Heeks, R., & Arun, S. (2010). Social Outsourcing as a Development Tool: The Impact of Outsourcing It Services to Women’s Social Enterprises in Kerala. Journal of International Development, 22(4), 441–454. Kerlin, J. A. (2006). Social Enterprise in the United States and Europe: Understanding and Learning from the Differences. Voluntas, 17(3), 246–262. doi:10.100711266-006-9016-2 Leadbeater, C. (1997). The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur. Demos. Lorenz, G., & Kay, A. (2010). Social Accounting and Auditing: Assessing the Contribution of Social Capital to Social Enterprise and the Social Economy. In Social Accounting and Public Management: Accountability for the Common Good (pp. 231-244). Academic Press. Lyon, F., & Fernandez, H. (2012). Scaling up Social Enterprise: Strategies Taken from Early Years Providers. Third Sector Research Centre Working Paper 79. Middlesex University. Macke, J., Sarate, J. A. R., Domeneghini, J., & da Silva, K. A. (2018). Where Do We Go from Now? Research Framework for Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Cleaner Production, 183(1), 677–685. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.017 Mackintosh, M., Chaudhuri, S., & Mujinja, P. G. M. (2011). Can Ngos Regulate Medicines Markets? Social Enterprise in Wholesaling, and Access to Essential Medicines. Globalization and Health, 7(4), 1–13. doi:10.1186/1744-8603-7-4

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Maclean, M., Harvey, C., & Gordon, J. (2013). Social Innovation, Social Entrepreneurship and the Practice of Contemporary Entrepreneurial Philanthropy. International Small Business Journal, 31(7), 747–763. doi:10.1177/0266242612443376 Martin, R. J., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for a Definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 1(1), 29–39. Moore, M. L., Westley, F. R., & Nicholls, A. (2012). The Social Finance and Social Innovation Nexus 1. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 3(2), 115–132. doi:10.1080/19420676.2012.725824

92

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R., & Sanders, B. (2006). Social Innovation: What It Is, Why It Matters and How It Can Be Accelerated. Skoll Center for Social Entrepreneurship: Working Paper. Working Paper. Oxford Said Business School. Munshi, N. V. (2010). Value Creation, Social Innovation, and Entrepreneurship in Global Economies. Journal of Asia-Pacific Business, 11(3), 160–165. do i:10.1080/10599231.2010.500569 Nandan, M., London, M., & Bent-Goodley, T. (2015). Social Workers as Social Change Agents: Social Innovation, Social Intrapreneurship, and Social Entrepreneurship. Human Service Organizations, Management, Leadership & Governance, 39(1), 38–56. doi:10.1080/23303131.2014.955236 Newth, J., & Woods, C. (2014). Resistance to Social Entrepreneurship: How Context Shapes Innovation. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 192–213. doi:10.1080/19420676.2014.889739 Novkovic, S. (2008). Defining the Co-Operative Difference. Journal of SocioEconomics, 37(6), 2168–2177. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2008.02.009 Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the Hybrid Organization: Selective Coupling as a Response to Competing Institutional Logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0405 Peredo, A. M., & McLean, M. (2006). Social Entrepreneurship: A Critical Review of the Concept. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 56–65. doi:10.1016/j. jwb.2005.10.007

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Perrini, F., Vurro, C., & Costanzo, L. A. (2010). A Process-Based View of Social Entrepreneurship: From Opportunity Identification to Scaling-up Social Change in the Case of San Patrignano. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 22(6), 515–534. doi:10.1080/08985626.2010.488402 Petrella, F., & Richez-Battesti, N. (2014). Social Entrepreneur, Social Entrepreneurship and Social Enterprise: Semantics and Controversies. Journal of Innovation Economics & Management, 14(2), 143–156. doi:10.3917/ jie.014.0143 Phillips, W., Ghobadian, A., Money, K., Hillenbrand, C., Lee, H., O’Regan, N., & James, P. (2015). Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Review. Group & Organization Management, 40(3), 428–461. doi:10.1177/1059601114560063 93

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

Phills, J., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. (2008). Rediscovering Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(4), 34–43. 40KPLUS. (2016). Monitoring and Evaluation Report (2015-2016). Retrieved from https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/8f5045_7af75e1092e64b398f31107d0 8c922b2.pdf 40KPLUS. (2017). About 40k Plus. Retrieved from https://www.40kplus. com/about-40k-1 Ridley-Duff, R., & Bull, M. (2019). Understanding Social Enterprise: Theory and Practice. Sage Publications Limited. Sandeep, M., & Ravishankar, M. (2015). Social Innovations in Outsourcing: An Empirical Investigation of Impact Sourcing Companies in India. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 24(4), 270–288. doi:10.1016/j. jsis.2015.09.002 Santos, F. M. (2012). A Positive Theory of Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 335–351. doi:10.100710551-012-1413-4 Schmitz, B., & Scheuerle, T. (2012). Founding or Transforming? Social Intrapreneurship in Three German Christian-Based Npos. ACRN Journal of Entrepreneurship Perspectives, 1(1), 13–36. Schoning, M. (2013). Social Entrepreneurs as Main Drivers of Social Innovation. In Social Innovation, Csr, Sustainability, Ethics and Governance. Springer-Verlag Berlin. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36540-9_10 Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2005). Social Entrepreneurship: Creating New Business Models to Serve the Poor. Business Horizons, 48(3), 241–246. doi:10.1016/j. bushor.2004.11.006 SEL. (2001). Understanding Social Enterprise. SEL.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Sharra, R., & Nyssens, M. (2010). Social Innovation: An Interdisciplinary and Critical Review of the Concept. Academic Press. Shaw, E., & de Bruin, A. (2013). Reconsidering Capitalism: The Promise of Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship? International Small Business Journal, 31(7), 737–746. doi:10.1177/0266242613497494 Shrimali, G., Slaski, X., Thurber, M. C., & Zerriffi, H. (2011). Improved Stoves in India: A Study of Sustainable Business Models. Energy Policy, 39(12), 7543–7556. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.07.031 94

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

Social Enterprise UK. (2012). What Makes a Social Enterprise a Social Enterprise? Social Enterprise UK. Sodhi, M. S., & Tang, C. S. (2011). Social Enterprises as Supply-Chain Enablers for the Poor. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 45(4), 146–153. doi:10.1016/j.seps.2011.04.001 Teasdale, S. (2012). Negotiating Tensions: How Do Social Enterprises in the Homelessness Field Balance Social and Commercial Considerations? Housing Studies, 27(4), 514–532. doi:10.1080/02673037.2012.677015 Thompson, J., & Doherty, B. (2006). The Diverse World of Social Enterprise. International Journal of Social Economics, 33(5/6), 361–375. doi:10.1108/03068290610660643 Tracey, P., & Stott, N. (2017). Social Innovation: A Window on Alternative Ways of Organizing and Innovating. Innovation (North Sydney, N.S.W.), 19(1), 51–60. doi:10.1080/14479338.2016.1268924 Urpelainen, J., & Yoon, S. (2015). Solar Products for Poor Rural Communities as a Business: Lessons from a Successful Project in Uttar Pradesh, India. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 18(2), 617–626. doi:10.100710098015-1028-4 van der Have, R. P., & Rubalcaba, L. (2016). Social Innovation Research: An Emerging Area of Innovation Studies? Research Policy, 45(9), 1923–1935. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2016.06.010 Weerawardena, J., & Mort, G. S. (2012). Competitive Strategy in Socially Entrepreneurial Nonprofit Organizations: Innovation and Differentiation. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31(1), 91–101. doi:10.1509/jppm.11.034

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Westley, F., & Antadze, N. (2010). Making a Difference: Strategies for Scaling Social Innovation for Greater Impact. The Innovation Journal, 15(2), 1–19. Westley, F., Antadze, N., Riddell, D. J., Robinson, K., & Geobey, S. (2014). Five Configurations for Scaling up Social Innovation: Case Examples of Nonprofit Organizations from Canada. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(3), 234–260. doi:10.1177/0021886314532945 Windrum, P., Schartinger, D., Rubalcaba, L., Gallouj, F., & Toivonen, M. (2016). The Co-Creation of Multi-Agent Social Innovations a Bridge between Service and Social Innovation Research. European Journal of Innovation Management, 19(2), 150–166. doi:10.1108/EJIM-05-2015-0033 95

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

Witkamp, M. J., Royakkers, L. M., & Raven, R. M. (2011). From Cowboys to Diplomats: Challenges for Social Entrepreneurship in the Netherlands. Voluntas, 22(2), 283–310. doi:10.100711266-010-9146-4 Zahra, S. E., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., & Shulman, J. M. (2009). A Typology of Social Entrepreneurs: Motives, Search Processes and Ethical Challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 519–532. doi:10.1016/j. jbusvent.2008.04.007 Ziegler, R. (2010). Innovations in Doing and Being: Capability Innovations at the Intersection of Schumpeterian Political Economy and Human Development. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(2), 255–272. doi:10.1080/19420676 .2010.511818

ADDITIONAL READING Agrawal, A., & Kumar, P. (Eds.). (2018). Social Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Business Models: The Case of India. Springer. doi:10.1007/9783-319-74488-9 Kraus, S., Filser, M., O’Dwyer, M., & Shaw, E. (2014). Social entrepreneurship: An exploratory citation analysis. Review of Managerial Science, 8(2), 275–292. doi:10.100711846-013-0104-6 Muñoz, P., & Kimmitt, J. (2019). Social mission as competitive advantage: A configurational analysis of the strategic conditions of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 101, 854–861. doi:10.1016/j. jbusres.2018.11.044

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Ridley-Duff, R., & Bull, M. (2011). Understanding social enterprise: Theory and practice. Sage. Weerakoon, C., Gales, B., & McMurray, A. J. (2019). Embracing entrepreneurial action through effectuation in social enterprise. Social Enterprise Journal, 15(2), 195–214. doi:10.1108/SEJ-08-2018-0053 Ziegler, R. (2011). An introduction to social entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar Publishing.

96

Social Entrepreneurship Perspective of Social Innovation

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Citation Threshold: A citation threshold is the minimum number of citations obtained by ranking papers in a research field in descending order by citation count and then selecting the top fraction or percentage of papers. Social Enterprise: A dual mission-based entity established primarily to address a social challenge and complemented by a self-funding mechanism. Social Entrepreneur: A person who develops and implements businesses or programs mainly to address social challenges through business fundamentals. Social Entrepreneurship: A process of applying business methods, approaches and models to create social value in addressing social challenges. Social Extrapreneurship: Leveraging resources by building partnerships beyond the organizational context in the process of social value creation to address social challenges. Social Mission: The main purpose of being for an organization or a program in terms of doing social good

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

ENDNOTES 1



2



3



4



Kudumbashree is an initiative of women empowerment and poverty eradication by the State Poverty Eradication Mission of the Government of Kerala, India. Bottom of the pyramid is the poorest socio-economic group in the world. Sometimes, base of the pyramid, bottom of the wealth pyramid and bottom of the income pyramid are also used to refer to bottom of the pyramid. A private company operates as a social enterprise in renewable energy industry in New Delhi, India. They provide access to affordable clean energy through solar home light systems, rainproof solar light bulbs, biomass gas cookstoves, etc. (http://www.boond.net/) https://www.40kplus.com/

97

98

Chapter 5

Territorial Development Perspective of Social Innovation

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

ABSTRACT The objective of this chapter is to summarize the patterns of, and links between, social innovation and territorial development research. A clear growth of territorial development research with a social innovation perspective can be seen after 2014. Territorial development research recognizes social innovation as an alternative perspective of development and territorial transformation underpinning social relations to empower communities. Social innovation in the territorial development context satisfies human needs, empowers social actors and their involvement in governance, and modifies power relations within spatial levels and contexts. The integrated area development model pioneered by Moulaert and Seika has gained significant attention in both research and practice as a consistent approach to neo-endogenous development and growth strategies going beyond the traditional innovation models such as innovation milieus and industrial districts. Such social innovation approaches can either be bottom-up or top-down, are path-dependent, process-oriented, and contextual.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-4588-1.ch005 Copyright © 2021, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Territorial Development Perspective of Social Innovation

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Social innovation is necessary for territorial development (Estensoro 2015) and it lays the foundations for new paradigm shifts in regional and territorial development through diverse forms of actions co-producing urban services and public goods to interven in the resolution of social needs (Massari 2018). Specifically, social innovation addresses local area development challenges including skills and capability dispersion to support urban and local development policy; lack of integration among national, regional and local spatial levels; and the needs of disadvantaged groups in the urban cohort (Moulaert 2000). This association with social and territorial issues places social innovation in the context of place related organizational forms connected to governance (Massari 2018). Territorial innovation research builds on social economy and social relations perspectives to define social innovation. Hence, social innovation satisfies human needs by transforming social relations in to improved governance systems guiding and regulating the allocation of goods and services by establishing novel governance mechanisms such as discussion forums, political decision-making systems, organizations, interfaces and allocation systems (Moulaert 2009). Further, social innovation may take the forms of novel ideas for products or services satisfying social needs and establishing new social partnerships (Grisolia and Farragina 2015). Thus, social innovation is considered as a driver of urban transformation (e.g. Galvan and Hamdouch 2019). Territorial, economic and social cohesion are main European regional policy focuses which have placed a strong emphasis on innovation focused models as change agents of regional development and economic growth (Pires, Polido, Teles, Silva, and Rodrigues 2019). As a result, territorial innovation models and integrated area development (IAD) have become key concepts within territorial development research in recent years. Territorial innovation models are regional industrial agglomerations (Moulaert and Sekia 2003) which are crucial in explaining the development trajectories followed by sub-national levels territories (Doloreux et al. 2019). IAD is a mechanism to address and organize social innovation (Moulaert 2009) and an innovative alternative to extend local community development (Moulaert and Sekia 2003). However, in their recent bibliometric analysis and review Doloreux et al. (2019) recognize the presence of social innovation discussions in the territorial innovation literature with little theoretical content thereby concluding that territorial

99

Territorial Development Perspective of Social Innovation

innovation model research is superficial and unorganized. In contrast, Pires et al. (2019) recommend investigations and implementations of social innovation activities by third sector organizations to promote the innovation landscape for territorial development in less developed regions in Europe which can subsequently broaden the participatory community processes. What follows is an analysis of the growth of territorial development research addressing social innovation, a discussion on the link between social innovation and territorial innovation and a case study to explain the key characteristics of territorial development focused social innovation.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

SOCIAL INNOVATION RESEARCH IN THE TERRITORIAL DEVELOPMENT LITERATURE Territorial development research, particularly the territorial innovation models have gained currency in the literature during the last decade consequently resulting in various models and approaches characterizing sub-national level innovations (Doloreux et al. 2019). Therefore, in order to explore the focus of territorial innovation research emphasizing the social innovation perspective, a citation network was generated by using references found on the Scopus database. Boolean operations were executed with the search tags of “social innovation*” AND “territorial innovation*” OR “territorial development*” OR “local development*”. This search generated 67 publications. After limiting the references to articles, conference papers, books, book chapters and reviews written in English, there were only 41 references. The growth of these publications can be visualised as follows (Figure 1). Figure 1 indicates that there are two clearly visible growth patterns in these publications. A slow growth period can be seen during 2003-2014, including two spurts in 2012 and 2013, with a total of 13 publications occurring during this period. During 2015-2019, there were 28 publications which is nearly 68% of the total publications being published in this sample. The total of 41 publications included in this sample comprised articles, books, book chapters and conference papers as shown in Figure 2. Nearly 65% of the publications are in the form of journal papers. European Planning Studies (2), European Urban And Regional Studies (2), Agriculture And Human Values (1), Finisterra (1) and Innovation (1) were among the major journals carrying these publications.

100

Territorial Development Perspective of Social Innovation

Figure 1. Growth of territorial development research focusing social innovation Source: Authors

However, these 28 journal papers sourced from 24 journals. There were 2 major books among these 41 publications from Pisani, Franceschetti, Secco, and Christoforou (2017) and MacCallum, Moulaert, Hillier, and Vicari Figure 2. Composition of document types in territorial development research

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Authors

Haddock (2009)1. Nearly 14% and 12% of the total publications made from book chapters and conference papers, respectively. In order to better understand the knowledge structure in territorial development research focusing social innovation, a citation network was developed using VOSViewer (Figure 3). When the citation threshold was set at 2, there were only 20 such references within the total sample. Among

101

Territorial Development Perspective of Social Innovation

Figure 3. Bibliographic coupling network for territorial development research

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Authors

them, this citation network includes 14 highly cited and connected references forming three main clusters. Cluster 1 is the largest cluster with seven publications including Martinelli (2012); Moulaert, MacCallum, and Hillier (2013); Cunha, Benneworth, and Oliveira (2015); Lee and Restrepo (2015); Estensoro (2015); Dax, Strahl, Kirwan, and Maye (2016); Carvalho (2017). This cluster mainly sits on the broad theme of value creation in social relations to empower people by satisfying unmet social needs. There are two sub-themes organized around this main theme: (1) contribution of social innovation and social entrepreneurship to social value creation in regions and (2) territorial rural development strategy and the effects of institutional embeddedness on social innovation. Martinelli (2012) highlights the need of an active role of state to ensure the social inclusion and sustainability through social services rather considering social innovation as the cure for all social ills. Relationship between social policy, social innovation and social sustainability is discussed from a planner’s point of view. Thus, he defines social innovation, in the context of social services, as any change developed through top-down or bottom-up approaches; related to outputs or processes, originated in organizational, legislative, or cultural contexts; which addresses social needs, empowers users and modifies social power relations. In addition, assurance of equal access and upscaling and institutionalizing innovation are also proposed as qualifying criteria for social service-based social innovations. Progressive solutions aiming to uplift and develop people victimized by social problems such as exclusion, deprivation, alienation, lack 102

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Territorial Development Perspective of Social Innovation

of wellbeing are considered as social innovation by Moulaert, MacCallum, and Hillier (2013). According to them inclusion and well-being are achieved through improved social relations and empowerment approaches. They note that such social innovations are path dependent, contextual, process-oriented in making changes, and associated with dynamic social power relations. Lee and Restrepo (2015) and Estensoro (2015) mainly address how social innovation can be facilitated. Especially, in a regional and economic development perspective, Lee and Restrepo (2015) examine the role of institutional embeddedness in facilitating the scaling up of collaboration and social innovation by using Hess’s (2004) embeddedness framework. They have found that scaling up of organizational collaboration is influenced by territorial, network and societal embeddedness of the organizational actors. Estensoro (2015) builds on Moulaert, MacCallum, and Hillier (2013) and recognizes three main roles of social innovation with regard to territorial development: satisfaction of basic stakeholder needs; empowering local actors within social transformation processes; and appropriate transformation of social and power relationships and governance modes among community actors which subsequently results in adding value to collective endeavor. He recommends an understanding of the nature of social dynamics which builds alternative and suitable social relationships, aspirations and governance practices. Such social relationships-based involvement confirms the process nature of social innovation. These social innovation processes comprise the actor mobilization and participation which consequently create novel collective skills and capabilities and a learning process to facilitate social transformation (Moulaert, MacCallum, and Hillier 2013). Territorial development is supported by these social relationships which require critical conditioning elements including adequate resources, appropriate political support and trust, recognition of the need for social innovation, and actor trust and motivation. Further, facilitators need to possess appropriate disciplinary field and process knowledge and continuous contribution to create a social environment through democratic and inclusive dialog (Estensoro 2015). Carvalho (2017) and Cunha et al. (2015) are two reviews of multiple concepts such as innovation, social entrepreneurship, sustainability and business models associated with above themes and attempt to clarify the distinctiveness and connection among them. Carvalho (2017) asserts that social innovation contributes to human, social and territorial development by sharing and co-creating value and multiple value creation. While noting the growing interest on the concepts of social innovation and social entrepreneurship and the development of a large body of theoretical work in the fields of innovation, 103

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Territorial Development Perspective of Social Innovation

territorial development and governance, Cunha et al. (2015) highlight the contribution of social innovation processes to socio-territorial cohesion, urban regeneration, and neighborhood development as social value addition for regions. In such a context, market-oriented social innovation supports the development of social entrepreneurship (Carvalho 2017). In their handbook, Moulaert, MacCallum, and Hillier (2013) broadly argues for the contributions of social innovation to human development. They recognize social innovation as innovation in social relations occurred within micro and macro levels of the society and aimed at meeting human needs and wants. While Estensoro (2015) explores networking processes as a way to support innovative social relationships, Lee and Restrepo (2015) investigate the role of institutional embeddedness in facilitating scaling up of social innovation. Lee and Restrepo (2015) assert that territorial disembeddedness may be the precondition for the expansion of networks and thus, collaboration may constitute an important component for the scaling-up of social innovation. Dax et al. (2016) focus on rural development strategy broadly and note the tendency for focusing on neo-endogenous strategies2 in territorial rural development strategy. They reflect on the need for developing appropriate organizational structures and institutional capacity enabling the development of innovative ideas, and new approaches of devising rural policy at the local level which can subsequently result in positive social changes within communities. Moulaert, MacCallum, and Hillier (2013) highlight empowerment dynamics of social innovation indicating a political dimension to social movements and bottom-up governance initiatives as a foundational mechanism for a fairer, more democratic society for everyone. However, while noting the limited understanding of social aspect of social innovation, Martinelli (2012) argued that innovation in social services may bring about new dimensions of social and territorial exclusion such as greater territorial differentiation in the level and quality of social service delivery, levels of national regulation and funding, and local endowment of social and financial resources. Therefore, Martinelli (2012) suggests encouraging social innovation to improve efficiency and efficacy of public supply while maintaining the state power in governance. Cluster 2 of the network comprises only two publications of which the first author is Moulaert, F and broadly focuses on alternative development options. This cluster mainly focuses on alternative local development perspectives. Moulaert, Haddock, MacCallum, and Hillier (2012) explores how social innovation can affect life, society and economy, especially within local communities. As a provocative response to the predominant 104

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Territorial Development Perspective of Social Innovation

neoliberal economic vision (form of liberalism which supports free-market capitalism) of spatial, economic and social change, they consider social innovation as an alternative perspective on development and territorial transformation where the central focus is on innovation in social relations. They frame social innovation as a process and a strategy to nourish human development through solidarity, co-operation, cultural-artistic endeavor and diversity. He recognizes Integrated Area Development approach (IAD) as an alternative approach to local development. IAD approach links various sectors of social development and the roles of the key players by organizing them around social innovation fundamentals to satisfy unmet human needs through innovative governance approaches based on social relations. Thus, in a territorial perspective Moulaert (2009, p. 12) defines social innovation as “the transformation of social relations in space, the reproduction of placebound and spatially exchanged identities and culture, and the establishment of place-based and scale-related governance structures”. Cluster 3 is formed by three publications: Klein, Fontan, Harrisson, and Lévesque (2012); Moulaert and Nussbaumer (2005) and Moulaert and Sekia (2003). This cluster sits broadly on the theme of the role of IAD in local and regional development. The review by Moulaert and Sekia (2003) uses the term territorial innovation model to accommodate various regional innovation models including industrial districts, innovation milieu, new industrial spaces, and local production systems. Within this perspective, they recognize IAD model as an innovative alternative and an extension to local community development. Moulaert and Sekia (2003) further note the significant role played by institutional dynamics in shaping the regional innovation models. Thus, IAD is an extension to other territorial innovation models because it recognizes the key role of institutional dynamics in innovation and territorial development in a similar way to other such models while also rejects the restrictive market logic for improving market competitiveness of a territory. Therefore, IAD situates within a multi-dimensional view of innovation, economic dynamics and community governance. Building on this perspective Moulaert and Nussbaumer (2005) debate on the role of innovation in local and regional development and suggest social innovation-based community development as a substitute to market-led territorial development. Hence, social innovation in one hand concerns the satisfaction of basic human needs (reflects on social economy and alternative development) and on the other hand refers to innovation in social relations between individuals and groups of humans in communities. Building on the latter, Klein et al. (2012) show that social innovation is triggered by rationales and strategies to establish links 105

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Territorial Development Perspective of Social Innovation

between individuals and communities and amongst communities. Quebec model of social innovation case used by Klein et al. (2012) confirms that social innovation brings about social transformation through joint efforts and common understanding between a diversity of actors and economic logics. The above discussion mainly resides in the broader regional development context and tends to follow a common definition on social innovation outlining its role. Thus, social innovation is characterized by a capacity to address social needs neglected by traditional policy mechanisms; an aim and a process for empowering individuals and groups; and finally, a desire for changing social relationships. It is important to note that within various spatial levels such as localities, neighborhood, communities, cities and regions, social relations include a wide array of levels and contexts. For instance, relationships among different ethnic groups, firms and their employees, professionals, and constituency and local authorities. Within this territorial development research, territorial innovation models are a key discussion topic. The discussion on innovation models (i.e. Territorial Innovation Models) was first started by Moulaert and Sekia (2003) which includes various regional industrial agglomerations such as milieux innovateur, industrial districts, regional innovation systems, new industrial spaces, local production systems and learning regions. These regional innovation models explain the significant role played by local institutional dynamics in developing innovations to address social needs (Moulaert and Nussbaumer 2005). Particularly, these innovation models clarify how each region develops mechanisms to ensure the necessary conditions to support innovation addressing dynamism and innovativeness (Doloreux et al. 2019). Therefore, territorial innovation models contribute to improve market competitiveness of firms which leverage technical, organizational and managerial innovations (Moulaert and Nussbaumer 2005). Research into territorial innovations aims to understand the link between economic, social and spatial forms of organization and has significant impact on innovation studies in the fields such as political economy, geography, sociology, political and economic science (Crevoisier 2014). However, Moulaert and Sekia (2003) note that there are significant debates around theorization of territorial innovation models given the semantic uniformity and lack of concern about innovation dynamics in interpretations and introduce the IAD as a comprehensive innovation model which makes the analysis of territorial development more useful. Within this sphere of discussion, IAD has been identified as an extension to traditional territorial innovation models such as industrial districts and innovation milieus. Nussbaumer and Moulaert (2004) recognize IAD as social innovations 106

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Territorial Development Perspective of Social Innovation

given that IAD is about innovations in social relations and satisfying the needs of socially disadvantaged groups. The organization of needy groups; setting up communication channels linking needy and privileged people in urban settings; and ensuring grassroots democracy at small communities, neighborhoods and groups affected by unemployment and homelessness are examples for innovations in social relations. Further, supporting the disadvantaged people to earn a living at least to meet minimum income and housing, creating opportunities to access quality education and information sources are socially innovative (Moulaert and Sekia 2003; Nussbaumer and Moulaert 2004). Thus, while IAD model considers innovation dynamics in the broader ecosystem and indicates the characteristics of social innovations. Thus, IAD can be recognized as neo-endogenous development strategies for growth which consider not only the endogenous factors such as human capital, innovation, and knowledge but also external factors influence economic growth. If so, effective realization of IAD outcomes require implementors to understand the social innovation processes (Dax et al. 2016). The above discussion concludes a few important elements associated with social innovation in territorial development context. Mainly, social innovation addresses social needs, empowers users and modifies social power relations (Martinelli 2012). Satisfaction of basic stakeholder needs; empowering local actors within social transformation processes through effective alteration of social and power relationships and governance modes among community actors add value to collective endeavor (Estensoro 2015; Moulaert, MacCallum, and Hillier 2013). This civic-based collective action builds assets in the form of social capital for future enabling capability development in the society (Neumeier 2017; Pesch, Spekkink, and Quist 2019). Social capital is a resource available to someone based on their location in the social structure (Adler and Kwon 2002; Gabby and Leenders 1999) particularly within social relations (Zheng 2010) in the form of networks, trust, reciprocity and norms (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998). Thus, in social capital theory, Coleman (1988) and Putnam (1993) postulate that having greater stocks of social capital helps societies and communities in addressing collective problems. Institutional learning supported by interactive exchange processes are facilitated by social capital and thus, enables communities to be innovative and adapt efficiently to turbulent environments (Guth 2005). “Social capital can work as a glue for society, creating social cohesion, and it helps to establish the interconnection between members of civil society and formal institutions in the domains of politics and economics, nurturing trust in these institutions” (Pesch et al. 2019, p. 305). On the other hand, the territorial development literature recognizes 107

Territorial Development Perspective of Social Innovation

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

social innovation as a “dialectical process between exclusion conditions [...] and collective processes and practices deployed to overcome them” (Moulaert, Swyngedouw, Martinelli, and Gonzalez 2010, p. 2) and hence, the absence of resources such as social capital stimulates social innovation at community level (Moulaert et al. 2010). Therefore, social innovations emerged through these social processes are progressive solutions to support and develop the lives of people affected by social challenges such as exclusion, deprivation, alienation, lack of wellbeing (Moulaert, MacCallum, and Hillier 2013). Hence, social innovation brings human, social and territorial development broadly (Carvalho 2017). In particular, increased social capital facilitates enhancing human capabilities which is one of the three main achievements of social innovation (Martinelli, Moulaert, Swyngedouw, and Ailenei 2003). Social inclusion and well-being (Moulaert, MacCallum, and Hillier 2013), socio-territorial cohesion, urban regeneration, and neighborhood development are among the specific social value additions for regions (Cunha et al. 2015) resulted from territorialbased social innovations. Sharing and value co-creation (Carvalho 2017) and improved social relations and empowerment approaches (Moulaert, MacCallum, and Hillier 2013) become effective means of driving the social innovation processes in regions. The underpinning rationale behind these means is that social innovation establishes links between individuals and communities and subsequently amongst the communities (Klein et al. 2012). Therefore, social innovation in territorial development perspective becomes an alternative perspective to development and territorial transformation (Moulaert et al. 2012) particularly, IAD is an extension to local community development (Moulaert and Sekia 2003). In that way, territorial social innovation is an alternative to market-led territorial development (Moulaert and Nussbaumer 2005). Below is a case study which further elaborates on the key concepts, characteristics and approaches of social innovation in territorial development context.

CASE STUDY: DISTRICT MANAGEMENT IN MARZAHN NORTHWEST (GERMANY) Marzhan Northwest is a neighborhood management (Quartiers management) area situated in Berlin’s Northeastern boarder of the Brandenburg state. Neighborhood management is considered as a key and effective method 108

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Territorial Development Perspective of Social Innovation

of addressing spatial disparities related to quality of life and disparate living opportunities in urban communities. Thus, in Germany, the “socially integrative city” is a quartiers management mechanism of translating an innovative governmental concept for integrative urban renewal policies in to practice (Droste 2005). This program executes a provisional and localized intervention strategy in individual neighborhoods strengthening and promoting infrastructural and socio-cultural development where the participation of local residents and the orientation to the local conditions play a primary role (Quartiersoffice Marzahn NorthWest 2019c). German Federal government launched this program in 1999 as a response to growing socio-spatial disintegration in German cities (Droste 2005). Socially disadvantaged areas were affected by significant level of negligence in relation to social infrastructural deficits, public areas, green spaces, roads, and squares. Thus, Berlin Neighborhood Management was introduced by the Berlin Senate as an intervention strategy to curb this challenge and it is considered as the heart of the new strategy (Senate Department for Urban Development Communication 2010). “Socially Integrative City“ has been able to stabilize and develop the areas suffered from social discrimination since its inception (Senate Department for Urban Development Communication 2010). Such social innovation responds to crisis situations or institutional failures by finding promising solutions to existing challenges or to entirely new situations (Klein et al. 2012). Specifically, in Marzahn NordWest, neighborhood management develops socio-integrative and investing projects in the areas including living environment and public space, education, work and the economy, together with citizens and actors from the district (Quartiersoffice Marzahn NorthWest 2019c). This innovative concept in governance a new perception of policy and administration and it aims on sustainable development of deprived communities (Droste 2005). This approach resembles a socially innovative mechanism and confirms the assertion made by Klein et al. (2012) who recognize social innovation as the implementation of novel social and institutional arrangements, social mechanisms encouraging autonomy and empowerment of localities and resource mobilization approaches to currently inadequate and failed solutions. This innovative governance mechanism is based on five fundamentals: empowerment, social inclusion targeted funding, barrier free access to the central office, networking, and advocacy (Quartiersoffice Marzahn NorthWest 2019b). These principles follow the social innovation processes in territorial development where transformation of social assumptions and dynamics built 109

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Territorial Development Perspective of Social Innovation

on learning, networking, community culture and governance in a specific territory are taken place (Estensoro 2015; Moulaert and Nussbaumer 2005). To empower inhabitants of the district Marzahn NordWest in actively shaping their communities, residents’ direct involvement in its proceedings is ensured by holding district meetings, activating surveys and elections to the various participation committees at regular intervals. Funds are provided for socio-inclusive and investment projects through various funding sources. Decisions related to selecting projects to be promoted and content designs of the projects are made by the residents involved in the district council or the awarding jury. A barrier-free environment has been set-up by locating a centrally located, open-day policy driven and daily opened on-site office in the district. In order to strengthen the local carriers of projects networking arrangements have been in place which bundles resources of the district and links them with high-level structures (Quartiersoffice Marzahn NorthWest 2019b). This principle indicates the fundamentals of IAD approach which brings together the different social development spheres and principle actors by organizing them around the principle of social innovation (Moulaert and Sekia 2003). Partnering organizations, local businesses, trade people, neighborhood centers, and housing societies are playing a key role in networking space (Senate Department for Urban Development Communication 2010). These bottom-up processes allow social actors to engage in collective learning where reflective action develops the capabilities of the network members (Estensoro 2015). Hence, social innovation does not merely reside within the spatial context but changes the nature of specific spatial relationships (Moulaert, MacCallum, Mehmood, and Hamdouch 2013) confirming the necessity of social innovation for territorial development (Estensoro 2015). This participatory and interdisciplinary approach promotes social and ethical integration and strengthens social cohesiveness (Klein et al. 2012). Ensuring that the local feedback about the program is heard at the higher levels of district management process and considered in future policy realignments, actions are taken to represent the diverse interests within the district procedure at national and nationwide events. Thus, social relations-based innovation improves communication among individuals and groups and decision-making procedures are democratized which essentially confirm the social innovation in governance (Martinelli 2012; Nussbaumer and Moulaert 2004). Thus, Social City program is not permanent and district procedure in Marzahn Northwest comes to an end by 31.12.2020. With this formal termination of quartiers management procedure, citizen participation will further be encouraged, and a novel set of opportunities are opened up for 110

Territorial Development Perspective of Social Innovation

citizens (Quartiersoffice Marzahn NorthWest 2019c). This is because the termination of quartiers management procedure establishes a new procedure run by district structures and the inhabitants which consequently redundant the presence of district council and award jury whereas the need for citizen participation and civic engagement in Marzahn Northwest are becoming more important (Quartiersoffice Marzahn NorthWest 2019a). Stable communities can be developed by creating ownership in the community by the involvement of community members into improvement and development process on an ongoing basis (Senate Department for Urban Development Communication 2010). These bottom‐up structures for participation, decision‐making and production are grounded on the social innovation principles of social relationsbased innovation and the satisfaction of human needs (Moulaert and Sekia 2003; Nussbaumer and Moulaert 2004). Further, these innovative governance mechanisms empower community actors’ participation in political decisionmaking within the governance structures, improve socio-political capacity and provide the access to the necessary resources meeting satisfaction of human needs (Moulaert, Martinelli, González, and Swyngedouw 2007). However, Dax et al. (2016) find that such bottom-up approaches and support for social innovations and local actions are often being challenged and threatened in the absence of a clear target by multi-level governance structures. They recommend reinvigoration of social innovation notion and principles and concentration on local and regional resource delivery in order to realize positive impacts and ensure the sustainability.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION Territorial development research focusing social innovation indicates a unified understanding in terms of the role of social innovation in territorial and regional development. This was mainly visible through researchers’ common adoption of the definition provided by Moulaert (2009) to define social innovation in territorial development reserach. Accordingly, social innovation is a strategy nourishing human development by satisfying unfulfilled human needs, enhancing social groups’ capabilities to act and finally, improving the social and power relations among social actors. While social innovation in territorial context largely supports the social inclusion, some scholars have identified the potential for widening social exclusion due to increased differentiation in the level and quality of social service delivery. 111

Territorial Development Perspective of Social Innovation

REFERENCES Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. (2002). Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40. doi:10.5465/ amr.2002.5922314 Carvalho, J. M. (2017). Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship: The Case of Porto Region Entrepreneurship: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. IGI Global. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120. doi:10.1086/228943 Crevoisier, O. (2014). Beyond Territorial Innovation Models: The Pertinence of the Territorial Approach. Regional Studies, 48(3), 551–561. doi:10.1080 /00343404.2011.602629 Cunha, J., Benneworth, P., & Oliveira, P. (2015). Social Entrepreneurship and Social Innovation: A Conceptual Distinction. In L. M. C. Farinha, J. J. M. Ferreira, H. L. Smith, & S. Bagchi-Sen (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Global Competitive Advantage through Innovation and Entrepreneurship (pp. 1–22). doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8348-8.ch033 Dax, T., Strahl, W., Kirwan, J., & Maye, D. (2016). The Leader Programme 2007–2013: Enabling or Disabling Social Innovation and Neo-Endogenous Development? Insights from Austria and Ireland. European Urban and Regional Studies, 23(1), 56–68. doi:10.1177/0969776413490425

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Doloreux, D., Gaviria de la Puerta, J., Pastor-López, I., Porto Gómez, I., Sanz, B., & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2019). Territorial Innovation Models: To Be or Not to Be, That’s the Question. Scientometrics, 120(3), 1163–1191. doi:10.100711192-019-03181-1 Droste, C. (2005). Germany: Berlin Marzhan North/West: “From State to Market” “from Wohnkomplex to Neighbourhood. In D. Ciaffi (Ed.), Neighbourhood Housing Debate (pp. 131–146). FrancoAngeli. Estensoro, M. (2015). How Can Social Innovation Be Facilitated? Experiences from an Action Research Process in a Local Network. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 28(6), 527–545. doi:10.100711213-015-9347-2 Gabby, S. M., & Leenders, T. A. J. (1999). Corporate Social Capital and Liability. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 112

Territorial Development Perspective of Social Innovation

Galvan, A., & Hamdouch, A. (2019). Social Innovation as a Driver of Urban Transformation?: The Case of Planning Approaches in the Dominican Republic. Urban Planning, 4(1), 31–43. doi:10.17645/up.v4i1.1740 Grisolia, F., & Farragina, E. (2015). Social Innovation on the Rise: Yet Another Buzzword in a Time of Austerity? Salute e Societa, 1(1), 71–84. doi:10.3280/SES2015-001013EN Guth, M. (2005). Innovation, Social Inclusion and Coherent Regional Development: A New Diamond for a Socially Inclusive Innovation Policy in Regions. European Planning Studies, 13(2), 333–349. doi:10.1080/0965431042000321866 Klein, J. L., Fontan, J. M., Harrisson, D., & Lévesque, B. (2012). The Quebec System of Socia L Innovatio N. A Focused Analysis on the Local Development Field. Finisterra, 47(94), 9–28. Lee, E. W., & Restrepo, J. M. (2015). Institutional Embeddedness and the Scaling-up of Collaboration and Social Innovation: The Case of a Hong Kong-Based International Ngo. Policy and Politics, 43(3), 459–471. doi:10 .1332/030557315X14352255139713 MacCallum, D., Moulaert, F., Hillier, J., & Vicari Haddock, S. (2009). Social Innovation and Territorial Development. Ashgate Publishing Limited. Martinelli, F. (2012). Social Innovation or Social Exclusion? Innovating Social Services in the Context of a Retrenching Welfare State. In H. W. Franz, J. Hochgerner, & J. Howaldt (Eds.), Challenge Social Innovation (pp. 169–180). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-32879-4_11 Martinelli, F., Moulaert, F., Swyngedouw, E., & Ailenei, O. (2003). Social Innovation, Governance and Community Building–Singocom. Report April.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Massari, M. (2018). The Transformative Power of Social Innovation for New Development Models. Paper presented at the International Symposium on New Metropolitan Perspectives, Reggio Calabria, Italy. Moulaert, F. (2000). Globalization and Integrated Area Development in European Cities. Oxford University Press. Moulaert, F. (2009). Social Innovation: Institutionally Embedded, Territorially (Re)Produced. In D. MacCallum, F. Moulaert, J. Hillier, & S. V. Haddock (Eds.), Social Innovation and Territorial Development (pp. 11–23). Ashgate Publishing Limited. 113

Territorial Development Perspective of Social Innovation

Moulaert, F., Haddock, S. V., MacCallum, D., & Hillier, J. (2012). Social Innovation and Territorial Development. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D., & Hillier, J. (2013). Social Innovation: Intuition, Precept, Concept, Theory and Practice. In F. Moulaert, D. MacCallum, A. Mehmood, & A. Hamdouch (Eds.), International Handbook on Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research (pp. 13–24). Edward Elgar. doi:10.4337/9781849809993.00011 Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D., Mehmood, A., & Hamdouch, A. (2013). General Introduction: The Return of Social Innovation as a Scientific Concept and a Social Practice. In F. Moulaert, D. MacCallum, A. Mehmood, & A. Hamdouch (Eds.), International Handbook on Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research (Vol. 1, pp. 1–6). Edward Elgar Publishing. doi:10.4337/9781849809993.00008 Moulaert, F., Martinelli, F., González, S., & Swyngedouw, E. (2007). Introduction: Social Innovation and Governance in European Cities: Urban Development between Path Dependency and Radical Innovation. Sage Publications. Moulaert, F., & Nussbaumer, J. (2005). The Social Region: Beyond the Territorial Dynamics of the Learning Economy. European Urban and Regional Studies, 12(1), 45–64. doi:10.1177/0969776405048500 Moulaert, F., & Sekia, F. (2003). Territorial Innovation Models: A Critical Survey. Regional Studies, 37(3), 289–302. doi:10.1080/0034340032000065442 Moulaert, F., Swyngedouw, E., Martinelli, F., & Gonzalez, S. (2010). Can Neighbourhoods Save the City? Community Development and Social Innovation. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203849132

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266. doi:10.5465/amr.1998.533225 Neumeier, S. (2017). Social Innovation in Rural Development: Identifying the Key Factors of Success. The Geographical Journal, 183(1), 34–46. doi:10.1111/geoj.12180 Nussbaumer, J., & Moulaert, F. (2004). Integrated Area Development and Social Innovation in European Cities: A Cultural Focus. City, 8(2), 249–257. doi:10.1080/1360481042000242201 114

Territorial Development Perspective of Social Innovation

Pesch, U., Spekkink, W., & Quist, J. (2019). Local Sustainability Initiatives: Innovation and Civic Engagement in Societal Experiments. European Planning Studies, 27(2), 300–317. doi:10.1080/09654313.2018.1464549 Pires, S. M., Polido, A., Teles, F., Silva, P., & Rodrigues, C. (2019). Territorial Innovation Models in Less Developed Regions in Europe: The Quest for a New Research Agenda? European Planning Studies, 1(1), 1–28. doi:10.10 80/09654313.2019.1697211 Pisani, E., Franceschetti, G., Secco, L., & Christoforou, A. (2017). Social Capital and Local Development: From Theory to Empirics. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-54277-5 Putnam, R. D. (1993). The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life. The American Prospect, 13(35), 35–42. Quartiersoffice Marzahn NorthWest. (2019a). Citizen Participation and Civic Engagement. Retrieved from https://qm-marzahnnordwest.de/beteiligung/ b%C3%BCrgerinnenbeteiligung-b%C3%BCrgerschaftliches-engagement Quartiersoffice Marzahn NorthWest. (2019b). Our Concept. Retrieved from https://qm-marzahnnordwest.de/quartiersmanagement/unser-konzept Quartiersoffice Marzahn NorthWest. (2019c). What Is District Management? Retrieved from https://qm-marzahnnordwest.de/quartiersmanagement/wasist-quartiersmanagement Senate Department for Urban Development Communication. (2010). Neighborhood Management in Berlin: Information on the Program “Socially Integrative City”. https://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/wohnen/ quartiersmanagement/download/qm_broschuere_en.pdf

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Zheng, W. (2010). A Social Capital Perspective of Innovation from Individuals to Nations: Where Is Empirical Literature Directing Us? International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(2), 151–183. doi:10.1111/j.14682370.2008.00247.x

115

Territorial Development Perspective of Social Innovation

ADDITIONAL READING Doloreux, D., de la Puerta, J. G., Pastor-López, I., Gómez, I. P., Sanz, B., & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2019). Territorial innovation models: To be or not to be, that’s the question. Scientometrics, 120(3), 1163–1191. doi:10.100711192-019-03181-1 MacCallum, D., Moulaert, F., Hillier, J., and Vicari Haddock, S. (2009). Social Innovation and Territorial Development. Moulaert, F. (2000). Globalization and integrated area development in European cities. OUP Oxford. Moulaert, F., and Delvainquière, J. C. (2002). Regional and sub‐regional trajectories in Europe: the role of socio‐cultural innovation. Culture: Building Stone for Europe. Nussbaumer, J., & Moulaert, F. (2004). Integrated area development and social innovation in European cities: A cultural focus. City, 8(2), 249–257. doi:10.1080/1360481042000242201 Pires, S. M., Polido, A., Teles, F., Silva, P., & Rodrigues, C. (2019). Territorial innovation models in less developed regions in Europe: The quest for a new research agenda? European Planning Studies, 1–28. doi:10.1080/0965431 3.2019.1697211

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Innovation Milieu: Successful new industrial regions, where the presence of district economies and of wide synergies among local actors gives rise to fast innovation processes. Integrated Area Development: This alternative approach to local development believes in the fact that local development should consider the associated historical developments and satisfaction of basic needs is achieved by a combination of a few processes including needs by grassroots movements and through institutional dynamics. Neighborhood Management: The local organization, delivery, and coordination of core civic and community services within a small, recognizable, built-up area.

116

Territorial Development Perspective of Social Innovation

Neo-Endogenous Strategies: The development strategies which are developed considering both internal factors such as human capital, innovation and knowledge and external factors in the broader ecosystem such as resources provided by state and non-governmental organizations. Territorial Embeddedness: The anchorage of the actors in a specific place such as a city or region.

ENDNOTE

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

1



This includes a second edition of MacCallum et al. (2009).

117

118

Chapter 6

Transition Management Perspective of Social Innovation

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

ABSTRACT The objective of this chapter is to identify and discuss patterns in transition management research within the social innovation literature. This research has gained prominence, particularly after 2015 with clearly identifiable two main research strands. These are comprised of socio-technical innovation in markets and civil society-led innovation in social institutions and arrangements. Sustainability transitions in the form of grassroots innovations are an important type of social innovation and have been a key focus. In this perspective, societal transformation is achieved through a multi-level approach, moving from niches and regimes to landscapes. The research primarily focuses on niche level innovations and their management. Community movements such as transition towns embrace key sites for developing place-based niche innovations leading to sustainable transitions. The co-evolutionary perspective of transformative social innovation comprises four elements of social innovation and are gaining currency within this research sphere.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-4588-1.ch006 Copyright © 2021, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Transition Management Perspective of Social Innovation

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Transition management is a type of governance experimentation in the empowerment of individuals and communities (Hölscher, Wittmayer, Avelino, and Giezen 2019). It aims for accelerated change directed towards sustainability ambitions (Kemp, Loorbach, and Rotmans 2007; Loorbach and Rotmans 2006). The inability of governments to address ecological, economic or social crises and the replacement of welfare economies by market logics require innovative governance approaches. In addition, the challenges of sustainable development demand system-wide transformations in socio-technical systems (see key terms and definitions) (Seyfang and Haxeltine 2012) which consists of technology, regulations, cultural practices, markets, resource usage practices, network of relationships and infrastructure of a society (Geels 2006). For example, complex social problems such as climate change call for major revisions, in the form of innovative governance approaches, to the organization of economic structures and social and behavioral practices (Scott-Cato and Hillier 2010). Such approaches change the centralized organization of service provision processes in socio-technical systems (Loorbach and Rotmans 2010). This has led to the rapid emergence and development of transition management research (Hartman, Parra, and de Roo 2019). Furthermore, local communities have begun to encourage social innovation to help marshaling appropriate resources to meet local public needs and thereby to create economic value (Di Iacovo, Moruzzo, Rossignoli, and Scarpellini 2014). These applications and integrated sustainability problems are key aspects of transition management research (Loorbach and Rotmans 2010), largely. Transition management research is evolving in to a broader scientific and interdisciplinary field of study where innovation studies, history, ecology and modelling combine with sociology, politics, psychology and governance (Loorbach and Rotmans 2010). Transition management is a design intervention to encourage and enhance novel social relations, clarify the roles and motives of key players and encourage sustainability transitions (Hölscher et al. 2019). Sustainable transitions, grassroots innovation and niche innovation have received substantial attention in this literature. Grassroots innovations are niche innovative approaches which support broader, system-level changes in sustainability transitions. Radical system-level changes may be enabled by cities, which may be key drivers for creating sustainable futures (Hodson, Geels, and McMeekin 2017; Wolfram and Frantzeskaki 2016). Seyfang and

119

Transition Management Perspective of Social Innovation

Longhurst (2013) find that current theories of transition management do not completely capture the complexity and nuance of the role of grassroot innovations in the niche building process. This may be due to significant diversity in research focus and fragmentation of research work. Furthermore, Martiskainen, Heiskanen, and Speciale (2018) find that previous research has largely focused on conceptualizing such initiatives and analyzing their potential for replication and diffusion, with less attention to the involvement of politics. The objective of this chapter is to identify and discuss patterns of transition management research in social innovation literature. First, we define transitions and transition management to identify key underlying characteristics. Second, a detailed account is provided of the bases of transition management research in social innovation literature based on a citation network. Lastly, the application of transition management practice in social innovation is discussed based on a case study of a Swedish grassroots-level initiative known as Fryshuset.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

WHAT ARE TRANSITIONS? “Transitions are transformation processes in which society changes in a fundamental way over a generation or more” (Rotmans, Kemp, and Van Asselt 2001, p. 15). They are the irretrievable changes to the culture, structure and practices of a society. The challenges of sustainable development call for system-wide transformations in socio-technical systems (Seyfang and Haxeltine 2012) composed of technology, regulations, cultural practices, markets, resource usage practices, network of relationships and infrastructure (Geels 2006). Solving enduring social problems with sustainable solutions may require both linear (sometimes referred as one-directional social change) and non-linear processes of social change (sometimes referred as curvilinear and cyclic social change) by which structural transformations or transitions occur in the societal system (Loorbach and Rotmans 2006). In a non-linear social change process, the changes make to the elements of social system (e.g. culture, practices, and structures) are not directly proportional to the influences from other aspects of the society whereas in a linear social change process, the changes made to the elements of social systems create proportionate influences on other elements of the system. These “political, socioeconomic, and cultural shifts resulting from attempts to address the socioecological crisis” (Brand and Wissen 2017, p. 1) are collectively known as a process of socio-ecological transformation, takes place in three distinctive phases: 120

Transition Management Perspective of Social Innovation

preparation for change, driving the transition and resilience building of the new development path (Olsson, Folke, and Hughes 2008). During this process, two main set of elements undergo changes (Moore et al. 2014). The first set of elements, in a social system, undergoing social change includes, norms, values, beliefs, rules, practices, and the distribution and flow of power, authority and resources. Ecological components such as ecosystem processes, functions and species will be the second group of social-system elements subject to the change. There are two types of transitions depending on the way goals and outcomes are realized: evolutionary transitions and goal-oriented transitions. Significantly planned outcomes cannot be seen in an evolutionary transition. As the name implies, in goal-oriented transitions, public actors are guided by end-state’s vision or goals which in turn affect the strategic decisions of private players. Hence, system innovations developed through the involvement of different participants who essentially change both the structure of the system and the relationships among the participants are requirements for transitions. These systemic innovations are effective grounds for individual-level innovations such as product, process and project innovations to occur (Weaver et al, 2000). There are two perspectives in transition management to explain how transition occurs: the multi-phase perspective (Loorbach and Rotmans 2006) and; the multi-level perspective (Geels and Schot 2007; Kemp et al. 2007). According to the multi-phase perspective of transitions, there are four stages through which non-linear transitions take place (Loorbach and Rotmans 2006) as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Multi-phase perspective of transitions

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Authors

The pre-development phase is where the greatest extent of experimentation takes place at individual levels. These changes and implications will not yet be visible at the system level. During the take-off phase, change processes start to build and the system begins to change. This occurs as a result of diverse and reinforcing innovative activities. Structural changes come to visibility 121

Transition Management Perspective of Social Innovation

through gathering and enactment of socio-cultural, economic, ecological and institutional changes during the acceleration phase. Finally, at the stabilization phase, the speed of societal change declines as it approaches a new dynamic equilibrium (Loorbach and Rotmans 2006). The multi-level perspective, on the other hand, posits that socio-technical transitions come about through three analytical levels: niches, regimes and a socio-technical landscape. These occur at three scale levels of interaction: micro, messo and macro (Figure 2). Figure 2. Multi-level perspective of transitions

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Authors

More protected spaces such as subsidized technologies, business incubators, or ecovillages are recognized as socio-technical niches where innovative and experimental projects can be developed with the support of networks and without the pressure of other mainstream systems (Seyfang and Longhurst 2013). Socio-technical regimes are mutually aligned and established use patterns, technological objects, regulations, institutional contexts, and infrastructures that prevail for delivering a specific service (Truffer, Voß, and Konrad 2008). The incumbent socio-technical system includes actor networks and social groups, rules that run the main system and associated technical and material elements. These are referred to as regimes. Larger trends and issues, including demographic and macro-economic trends, political developments, wars, crises, deep cultural and societal values and climate change, all belong under the level of the socio-technical landscape (Kemp et al. 2007). This landscape, in particular, comprises infrastructure and other physical aspects such as houses and cities, systems of governance, political associations, 122

Transition Management Perspective of Social Innovation

regulations, societal values, beliefs, societal concerns, the media, prices, incomes and social security (Kemp et al. 2007; Truffer et al. 2008). Moving from niches to the socio-technical landscapes involves, firstly, novelties which initially emerge in niches but in the form of novel practices, an innovative technology or special government intervention. The novelties are then involved in the niche-regime interaction process where the niches compete with well-developed alternatives within the regimes. Thus, only a progressive change can be seen in regimes and a complete transformation or a reconfiguration rarely happens. Changes in the landscape can bring opportunities for the initial niche and regime levels. Yet in the short-term, landscapes cannot be changed. Transitions cannot be usually controlled or commanded but can be managed through subtle influences and adjustments (Loorbach and Rotmans 2006). Accordingly, transition management builds on multi-level governance and adaptive management (Rotmans et al. 2001) with the aim to organize and coordinate transition processes and move towards a sustainable direction (Loorbach and Rotmans 2006). The following section provides a more detailed account of transition management.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

TRANSITION MANAGEMENT As an innovative form of governance adopted in welfare states, transition management addresses changing relationships between civil society and government actors (Hölscher et al. 2019). Transition management sees the creation of a societal movement through new coalitions, partnerships and networks as an effective way to build up continuous pressure on political and market arenas and to preserve the long-term orientation and goals of the transition process (Kemp et al. 2007; Loorbach and Rotmans 2006). In this process, transition management engages actors in a collective process to develop a common perspective on change and redefine roles and responsibilities in implementing change (Hölscher et al. 2019). Therefore, transition management is a deliberative process to influence governance activities and lead accelerated change towards sustainability ambitions (Kemp et al. 2007; Loorbach and Rotmans 2006). Emphasis on transition management has encouraged community-level efforts to develop transition policies in areas such as energy (e.g. Britton 2017), water management (e.g. Pahl-Wostl 2007), building and mobility sectors (e.g.Scuttari, Volgger, and Pechlaner 2016). More recent literature applies this concept and practice in various contexts such as destination management 123

Transition Management Perspective of Social Innovation

(e.g. Hartman et al. 2019), urban sustainability (e.g. Bulkeley et al. 2019); medicine and rehabilitation (Miller, Lin, and Neville 2019), finance (e.g. Elliott and Zhang 2019) and design studies (e.g. Hyysalo, Marttila, Perikangas, and Auvinen 2019). It is seen that there are community-level policy experiments which are developed in parallel to conceptual developments in governance. Transition management, as such, is a combination of two approaches: (1) an orientation focused on the long-term vision of ‘sustainable development’ and; (2) short-term experimental learning that seeks alternative pathways to realize the vision (Voß, Smith, and Grin 2009). This approach can be depicted in the transition management model (Figure 3) which exhibits the evolutionary processes of transition approaches (Kemp et al., 2007). The transition arena is a platform for interaction among social actors associated with an identified social problem. The arena facilitates interaction and discussion by enabling creative thinking and knowledge exchange. Here, actors attempt to redefine their problem based on the knowledge gathered through interactions with other actors in the arena. This improves understanding and framing of an identified social problem (Kemp et al. 2007). Figure 3. Transition management model

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Authors

124

Transition Management Perspective of Social Innovation

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Vision development, long-term goal formulation and strategic discussions are a few examples of activities taking place at this level. This is known as the strategic level (Loorbach and Rotmans 2010). In the second stage of the model we observe the translation of general goals into specific visions, measures and supportive mechanisms to address an identified social problem. Outcomes and goals can be visualized through visions in the form of socio-technical scenarios. These targeted images need to be ‘appealing and imaginative’ to be supported by a wide range of different actors. However, the extent of success in visualizing prospective outcomes depends on the knowledge, insights and learning gathered through the interaction among actors. This process thus evolves over time. The aim of these activities is to generate alternative transition paths that address an enduring social challenge at the subsystem level (Kemp et al. 2007). They involve building up and breaking down system structures and making structural changes within institutions, regulations and physical infrastructures. These activities are observed the tactical level of governance (Loorbach and Rotmans 2010). Processes of agenda building, negotiating, networking and coalition building are some of the key tasks at this level. Practical experiments need to be conducted to explore transition paths. These learning-oriented experiments are expected to inform visions and pathways, as well as wider policies that help create structural conditions for transitions. These operational level activities aim to either recreate system structures or restructure or change them. Experimentation, project-building and implementation are few example activities at this level. The overall processes and specific experiments are continuously monitored, evaluated and revised. These are known as reflexive activities and their practical application is seen in debates, structured evaluations, assessments and research of societal issues. Revisions to current plans in this context, become the beginnings of the next round of experiments (Voß et al. 2009). The following section identifies and describes the patterns of transition management research in social innovation literature.

TRANSITION MANAGEMENT RESEARCH IN SOCIAL INNOVATION LITERATURE Boolean operations were carried out with the search tags: “transition management*” OR “transition*” AND “social innovation*” in titles, 125

Transition Management Perspective of Social Innovation

keywords and abstracts on the Scopus database. The initial search generated 161 publications. After limiting the search to journal articles, conference papers, books, book chapters and reviews written in English, there were 150 publications. Social innovation research in transition management exhibits three periods of growth: 1975-2009, 2010-2014 and 2015-2020 (Figure 4). Figure 4. Growth of social innovation focused research in transition management

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Authors

Nearly 5% of total publications were made during the initial slow growth period from 1975 to 2009. The earliest publication found during this period is Eisenberg (1975), emphasizing the need for social innovations in the context of transitions occurring within family roles. During the second phase of growth between 2010 and 2014, approximately 21% of publications were authored by transition management scholars. The period from 2010 to 2015 is seen to be the high growth stage, with 150 publications. This represents around 73% of total publications. These include five types of publications: (1) journal articles; (2) conference papers; (3) book chapters; (4) books and; (5) reviews. Around 72% of the publications are in the form of journal articles. Conference papers and book chapters are second and third most common (Figure 5). Sustainability Switzerland, Journal of Cleaner Production, Ecology and Society, Energy Research and Social Science, and European Planning Studies are the journals housing the most journal articles in this sample. For a deeper understanding of transition management research in social innovation literature, a citation network was generated using VOSviewer. 126

Transition Management Perspective of Social Innovation

Figure 5. Publication type of social innovation research in transition management

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Authors

The results show that there were 18 highly cited and connected references within the network when the citation threshold was set to 5 per publication. The citation network (Figure 6) reveals the presence of six common research areas or clusters. Cluster 1 includes three journal articles published in Ecology and Society, including: Moore et al. (2014); Prasad (2016); and Avelino, Wittmayer, Kemp, and Haxeltine (2017) and another article (Avelino et al. 2019), published in Technological Forecasting and Social Change journal. This cluster mainly includes research on transformation and transformative social innovation which are relatively new concepts in social innovation literature. Moore et al. (2014) define key elements of socio-ecological systems and propose a modification to three phase transformation framework by Olsson, Folke, and Hahn (2004). In this original framework transformative change in social-ecological systems takes place through the stages of formulating change, directing the transition, and constructing resilience of the new path of development. Yet, Moore et al. (2014) argue for the need of institutionalizing the new development trajectories at the third phase of the transformation process. Accordingly, Moore et al. (2014) suggest that sense making, envisioning, and gathering momentum compose the “preparing for change” phase while navigating the transition stage focuses on selecting, learning, and adopting changes. Modifying the third stage, they rename it as “institutionalizing the new trajectory” where routinization, strengthening cross-scale relationships, and stabilization of the system become the key processes of transformation. This new framework underpins Prasad’s (2016) work to explore and analyze System of Rice Intensification in India (an example for an agroecological 127

Transition Management Perspective of Social Innovation

innovation) based on Transformative Social Innovation Theory (TRANSIT) (see key terms and definitions) which examines the social innovation process to social transformation. In an editorial to the journal of Ecology and Society, Avelino et al. (2017) introduce a conceptualization of macro-trends which change the “rules of the game” (known as game-changers) of transformative social innovation processes. They use “game changers” as a lay term to refer to “events and developments that shape the course of history” (Avelino et al. 2017, p. 41). Extending this work, Avelino et al. (2019) later proposes a set of concepts to study the dynamics of transformative social innovation and the underlying processes of multi-actor (dis)empowerment. They define transformative social innovation as “social innovation that challenges, alters or replaces dominant institutions in the social context” (Avelino et al. 2019, p. 196). They argue that transformative nature to social innovation is brought by the co-evolutionary interaction between four different but related aspects of social change including social innovation; system innovation; game-changers and; narratives of change. In this context, changing social relations entailing new ways of doing, organizing, framing and knowing are referred to social innovations. The processes of structural change at the level of societal sub-systems such as health, welfare, energy, transport, city, region is known as system innovations. Game changers are the macro events, trends Figure 6. Citation network for transition management research in social innovation literature

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Sources: Authors

128

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Transition Management Perspective of Social Innovation

and developments shaping the rules, fields and actors of societal interaction defining new conditions for societal orientations and interpretations. Storylines, concepts, and ideas about change and innovation are identified as narratives of change which are mediated by language and comprised of two types: generative narratives (e.g. Social economy based social changes) and social innovation-based narratives (e.g. Social movements). Cluster 2 comprises four journal papers, including: Scott-Cato and Hillier (2010); Mehmood (2015); Van Der Schoor, Van Lente, Scholtens, and Peine (2016) and; Marques, Morgan, and Richardson (2018). This cluster comprises research mainly looking at transition towns (please see key terms and definitions) and environmental challenges. Transition towns (e.g. Transition Town Glassboro-USA- see https://www.transitionus.org/transitiontowns for more examples) are community movements addressing climate change challenges (Scott-Cato and Hillier 2010) by initiating grassroots changes directly instead of influencing the wider body of policy processes (Seyfang, Haxeltine, Hargreaves, and Longhurst 2010). Transition towns were popularized with transition towns movement which is an example for a grassroots innovation (please see key terms and definitions) (Seyfang and Haxeltine 2010). Based on Deleuzean philosophy, Scott-Cato and Hillier (2010) firstly look at ways to bring about greater social inclusion in transition towns and to address climate change challenges through social innovation. On the same lines, supporting the assertion made by Scott-Cato and Hillier (2010) about social innovation helping to bring about social and behavioral change in the communities, Mehmood (2015) applies an evolutionary resilience framework to study transition towns as innovative, adaptive and resilient places. His arguments support for place-based transformations such as advancing social relations among groups and communities, providing opportunities to people to involve in socio-political decision-making and satisfying basic human needs and stressing that resilience is not just about economy and environment but also society and culture. Therefore, transition towns, are resilient settlements with the preparedness, persistence, transformability and adaptability needed for both short-term and long-term change. Through Actor-Network Theory (ANT)1 and Social Movement Theory (SMT)2, Van Der Schoor et al. (2016) investigate centralized decision-making in the handling of energy resources and the application and impacts of recently developed networks. They particularly address energy transition and believe in the necessity of mobilization of local communities and local production of renewable energy for sustainable energy transition. They find that the people in the energy movement organize themselves around a specific vision related to sustainability, regional economy 129

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Transition Management Perspective of Social Innovation

and democracy to challenge the current governance approach of the energy system. Therefore, the ‘network structure’ becomes a grassroots innovation and community energy networks resemble a close link with regional culture and a unique mentality. This confirms the SMT premise holding that the changes in the larger political and cultural context can stimulate or discourage people from participating in collective action. Such context can result in structural innovations such as social movements as defined by Marques et al. (2018). Structural innovations result from changes in wider socio-economic and political elements affecting social institutions or relationships. In the typology of social innovation by Marques et al. (2018) includes structural, targeted-radical, targeted-complementary and instrumental social innovations. Radical social innovations are the activities that drastically change essential goods and services delivery processes at targeting to improve welfare and challenge power relations. Largely discussed Transition Towns (Mehmood 2015; Scott-Cato and Hillier 2010) are an example for such radical social innovations given the context it exist (Marques et al. 2018). The new processes and relationships generating inclusive solutions to societal challenges are considered as targeted complementary social innovations. Finally, rebranding of political agendas, community development, corporate social responsibility are examples for instrumental social innovations. Cluster 3 includes three publications: Raven, Van Den Bosch, and Weterings (2010); Seyfang and Haxeltine (2012) and; Wolfram (2018) focusing on grassroot innovations and socio-technical transitions. Raven et al. (2010) reviews the transitions and strategic niche management literature and find that there has been inadequate work towards developing a managerial perspective. Seyfang and Haxeltine (2012), however, considers and the role of community-based initiatives in sustainability transition. They consider the civil society-based social innovations as innovative niches where new and resilient low-carbon infrastructures, practices and ideas are developed and diffused into the wider society, consequently changing the regime. Raven et al. (2010) find the ‘protected space’ or the niches as one of values and culture rather than market pressures while Seyfang and Haxeltine (2012) find a struggle to maintain a viable sustainable sociotechnical space within a wider unsustainable regime as one of the main challenges of grassroots innovations which can subsequently create difficulties in securing funds institutionalization and consolidating learning, managing organizational change, and networking and relationship building with stakeholders. Wolfram (2018), lastly, investigates the role played by cities in the emergence and formation of grassroots sociotechnical niches and sustainability transitions. Cities are considered crucial 130

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Transition Management Perspective of Social Innovation

to establishing sustainability (Wolfram 2018), often through radical systemic changes, equitable human development (Wolfram and Frantzeskaki 2016) and networked infrastructures that sustain urban life (Hodson et al. 2017). Therefore, Hodson et al. (2017) argue that urban transitions are not solely about individual technologies or social innovations but about governance processes of experimenting and reconfiguring innovations within urban contexts. Wolfram (2018) find sharing the expectations of the achievements of an innovation among niche members and stakeholders, networking beyond niche members to increase the diversity and experiential learning within the wider community and organizations as necessary conditions for development and diffusion of niche innovations. This discussion is a contribution to sustainability innovations that are driven and implemented by civil society actors going beyond the current emphasis of the strategic niche management research. Cluster 4 is comprised of three publications, including Seyfang and Longhurst (2013); Martin, Upham, and Budd (2015) and; Martin and Upham (2016) and discusses various aspects of grassroot innovations. Seyfang and Longhurst (2013), for example look at grassroots innovation in community contexts as opposed to the more widely investigated topic in this field: top-down technological innovation in market settings. Contributing to the grassroots innovation in the market settings, Martin et al. (2015) argue on the contradictions in the literature regarding the practice of grassroots innovation in terms of the differences between outside-of the world business reforms and non-profit organization practices. They study the causes, processes and outcomes of grassroot niche organizations within socio-technical innovation niches and find a sharp distinction between grassroots organizations and for-profit organizations within socio-technical innovation niches. Martin and Upham (2016) show how societal experiments within ‘grassroots innovation’ networks respond to and mobilize the values of the citizens involved. The community innovation focused Seyfang and Longhurst’s (2013) study evaluates the applicability of original transitions theory (i.e. socio-technical transitions framework) to explain the dynamics of technological and market-driven innovation, particularly in the context of community currencies. Community currencies are “civil society-led parallel exchange mechanisms designed to promote sustainable development” (Seyfang and Longhurst 2013, p. 882) and hence, a type of grassroots social innovation. Martin et al. (2015) further find that there are significant coercive and indirect pressures in the development of grassroots organizations within social innovation niches; is a potential for misalignment between the norms and values of global niche actors and those 131

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Transition Management Perspective of Social Innovation

of grassroots actors creating a form of passive niche resistance; a tendency to adopt commercial organizational practice with differences in values and ambitions. Cluster 5 is comprised of only two publications by Seyfang and Longhurst (2016) and Martiskainen et al. (2018). These authors focus on grassroots innovations and niche management. Seyfang and Longhurst (2016) examine determinants of diffusion of grassroots innovation within niches. They find that while internal project-to-project networking becomes key to the diffusion success learning and expectation management appear to be relatively unimportant. Internal resource constraints and external sociopolitical and cultural factors found to be strongly influencing resourcing of the projects. Martiskainen et al. (2018), examine political forms of grassroots innovations, especially how community energy initiatives perform everyday politics. They find that Energy Cafés reflect on critical niches and argue that the implicit politics in such community actions are related to fuel poverty and creating implications on the integration of social and climate policies. Supporting this assertion and the finding, Martiskainen et al. (2018) find that the wider regime and sociopolitical contexts tend to be significant in determining diffusion success of grassroots innovations, especially the favorable policy contexts and regime destabilizations were linked to wider diffusion. Cluster 6 lastly, includes two publications by Hodson et al. (2017) and Wolfram and Frantzeskaki (2016) published in Sustainability journal. Through conceptual approaches, these researchers investigate urban sustainability transitions. Wolfram and Frantzeskaki (2016) firstly presents a literature review on principles, theories, methods and empirical foundations in urban transitions literature. They argue on the limited application of theoretical concepts to conceive of and explain transformations in studies focusing cities and systemic and suggest a multifaceted approach to comprehensively study the spatial, temporal and institutional aspects of systemic change dynamics in cities. Following this suggestion, Hodson et al. (2017), however, take urban sustainable mobility as a reference point to reconfigure transitions contextually, providing insight into urban sustainability transitions and contribute to the debate between socio-technical sustainability transitions and urban geography. Wolfram and Frantzeskaki (2016) accentuated the need for a multifaced approach entailing discussions around emerging synergies and conflicts between drivers (e.g. urban political ecology, innovation systems and grassroots innovations), orientations and old vs new approaches to systemic change. Supporting the same, Hodson et al. (2017) emphasize the need for 132

Transition Management Perspective of Social Innovation

embracing multiplicity to contextually reconfigure urban sustainable mobility for a better understanding. The key focuses and the theories underpinning the above discussion can be summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Focused areas and specific theories of transition management research (Source: Authors)

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Cluster

Focused area and specific theories

Cluster 1

Transformative social innovation and social transformation/Transformative social innovation theory

Cluster 2

Grassroots innovation: transition towns; Actor-network theory, social movement theory and evolutionary resilience framework

Cluster 3

Grassroots innovation: urban niches; socio-technical transitions; strategic niche management

Cluster 4

Dynamics of grassroots innovation; socio-technical innovation niches in organizational setting and civil society; Transition Theory

Cluster 5

Grassroots innovation and niche management: political forms and diffusion success

Cluster 6

Urban sustainability transitions and urban sustainable mobility

Most of the transition management research focuses on grassroots innovation as sustainability transitions. There are two types of main research strands within it: socio-technical innovation in markets (cluster 3) and civil society-led innovation in social institutions and arrangements (cluster 4) (Seyfang and Longhurst 2013). Co-evolutionary systems innovations or the socio-technical transformations are recognized as sustainability transitions in transition management research (Seyfang and Haxeltine 2012) as they are the fundamental changes that move towards more sustainable modes of production and consumption (Markard, Raven, and Truffer 2012). Such transition innovations occur within societal systems, normally begin at the niche level and then spill over to the regime level, eventually changing landscapes (Geels and Schot 2007; Seyfang and Longhurst 2013). Key features of sustainability transitions include multi-dimensionality, co-evolution, multiactor process, dialectic relationship between stability and change, long-term process, open-endedness, uncertainty, values contestation, and the central role of public policy (Bilali 2019). A significant body of work has focused on various elements of grassroots innovations (cluster 2, 3, 4 and 5). Grassroots innovations are “networks of activists and organizations generating novel bottom–up solutions for 133

Transition Management Perspective of Social Innovation

sustainable development; solutions that respond to the local situation and the interests and values of the communities involved” (Seyfang and Smith 2007, p. 585). They transform systems to enable more sustainable production and consumption (Martin and Upham 2016). Community energy projects, community gardens, local food networks, community currencies and car sharing clubs are examples of grassroots initiatives (Martiskainen et al. 2018) which may potentially lead to socio-technical innovation (Seyfang and Longhurst 2016) helping transition towards sustainability (Martiskainen et al. 2018). Grassroots initiatives are transitional because they are often the most appropriate way of transforming communities by themselves and they are the sites of social innovation for regional transitions (Forrest and Wiek 2015). However, the development and diffusion of grassroots innovations is largely different to conventional innovations (Seyfang and Longhurst 2013). Diffusion of grassroots innovations, for example, seems strongly associated with values of self-transcendence (benevolence and universalism) and may also largely depend on structural features (Martin and Upham 2016). Urban transitions and transition towns has also received a considerable attention within this research sphere given their significance as resilient places and settlements.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

SOCIAL INNOVATION IN THE TRANSITION MANAGEMENT CONTEXT Despite definitional ambiguity, social innovation is receiving increasing attention from policy makers, practitioners and researchers (Marques et al. 2018). This may be due to the transformative potential of social innovation (Mehmood and Parra 2013). Social innovation involves social actors who reconfigure social practices and replace existing approaches with novel approaches (Kapoor, Weerakkody, and Schroeder 2018). Social innovations fulfil needs and address social problems. The new arrangements may include either incremental or disruptive changes in social practices. They may be new combinations of ideas, models, rules, social relations and products (Avelino et al. 2014). Moore et al. (2014), however, recognize social innovation as a transformational change, as opposed to incremental or adaptive. Regardless of the level at which change takes place, social innovation is about doing social good and upholding the interests of the vulnerable (Scott-Cato and Hillier 2010). 134

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Transition Management Perspective of Social Innovation

Challenges such as climate change require ‘transitions’ in economic structures and social and behavioral practices to reach more sustainable means of fulfilling social needs (Raven et al. 2010; Scott-Cato and Hillier 2010). Niches can be used to develop and implement a series of ‘transition experiments’ by which social innovations can be improved and subsequently replace established practice (Scott-Cato and Hillier 2010). Based on the scale and scope of social change generated by social innovations, Marques et al. (2018) identify four main types: structural, radical-targeted, complementarytargeted and instrumental social innovation. Structural social innovations bring wide social change in terms of scale and scope and they happen in social institutions due to macro level socio-economic changes. Targeted social innovation can be either radical or complementary. Innovative activities that reshape service provisions target welfare development and challenge incumbent power relations. These are known as targeted radical social innovations. Targeted complementary social innovations are novel processes and relationships which generate inclusive solutions to societal challenges. Instrumental social innovation is the rebranding of older agendas in new ways that are more appealing to stakeholders. As the cluster analysis above has indicated, transition management is a deliberative process to influence governance activities (Kemp et al. 2007; Loorbach and Rotmans 2006). This is effected through new coalitions, partnerships and networks exerting continuous pressure to preserve the long-term orientation and goals of the transition process (Kemp et al. 2007; Loorbach and Rotmans 2006). These characteristics of transition management processes can be explained by ‘collective action theory’ proposed by Olson (1965). Collective action is a “goal directed, boundary-maintaining activity system, most of whose participants do not receive financial compensation for their involvement” (Knoke 1990, p. 51) and results in shared outcomes or ‘‘public good’’. Olson’s (1965) logic of collective action explains how collaborative intention and behaviors of responsible citizens organize a change process and how institutional solutions addressing social challenges emerge as self-organizing processes. As the transition management literature explains multiple actors in a collective process develop a common perspective on change and redefine roles and responsibilities in implementing change (Hölscher et al. 2019). As discussed above with reference to Marques et al. (2018), changes in the larger political and cultural context encourage participation in collective action which can subsequently lead to structural innovations such as social movements. Furthermore, the Transition Towns (Mehmood 2015; Scott-Cato and Hillier 2010) discussed above as examples for radical social 135

Transition Management Perspective of Social Innovation

innovations are such collective action driven civic innovations. Olson’s (1965) collective action theory further indicates the potential for a ‘free ride’ by individuals who engage in collective action to provide public goods. This is despite collaboration being the key which may subsequently weaken societal decision-making. This literature further asserts that individuals tend to rely on the formal organization to overcome such (i.e. free riding) constraints. This may provide an area for future research to address given there is limited literature (Tortia, Degavre, and Poledrini 2020) confirming such presence beyond the existing theoretical confirmations. As discussed earlier, urban places play a substantial role in the initiation and implementation of social innovation (Wolfram 2018). Urban places are great sources of bottom-up creativity that can help improve social relations, support socio-political empowerment and fulfil the basic needs of the people (Mehmood 2015). Grassroots innovations emerging from within urban places are recognized as a specific form of social innovation. They are aimed at sustainability values (Wolfram 2018); they provide novel solutions for sustainable consumption; they combine technological and social innovations and; they are most often driven by a social mission instead of focus on financial gain (Martiskainen et al. 2018).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CASE STUDY: FRYSHUSET YOUTH CENTRE IN SWEDEN Fryshuset is the largest youth center in the world. It is grounded on the belief that encouragement, confidence, responsibility and understanding are key enablers for the empowerment of young people. These enablers allow them to develop their native abilities and integrate productively into society (European Youth Portal 2019). The establishment of Fryhuset can be traced back to the destructive and violent youth protests in the early 1980’s in Stockholm. From this emerged an array of anti-violence initiatives targeting young people (Gawell 2013). These events can signal the origin of niche innovations: ‘‘innovative networks of activists and organizations that lead bottom-up solutions for sustainable development; solutions that respond to the local situation and the interests and values of the communities involved” (Seyfang and Smith 2007, p. 585). In 1984 Fryshuset was started as an innovative project within a civil society organization (Nordfeldt, Larsson, and Carrigan 2016). It was initiated by Anders Carlberg who had been heavily involved in student politics. It began upon the request of YMCA South to renovate an old cold storage in the outskirts of Stockholm, Sweden into a basketball hall (Fryshuset 2019). 136

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Transition Management Perspective of Social Innovation

Young groups demanded sports facilities and rehearsal studios for bands during the protests (Gawell 2013). Thus, the basketball hall was extended. The area was later also developed into music studios for young musicians. Today, they run over 60 projects worldwide (Fryshuset 2019). This initiative found constructive methods through which youth themselves partake in creating solutions. This enabled them to channel their energy in a more constructive way which subsequently mobilized resources (Gawell 2013). The broader approach here is an example of a community-level sustainability transition. It bears the key characteristics: organizing a collective bundle of actions; initiating and implementing multiple projects simultaneously and; aiming at transforming a community into a more sustainable state (Forrest and Wiek 2015). The transition emerges through a grassroots innovation, which is based in the social economy, involves social and institutional innovation and is motivated by social need and ideological commitment (Seyfang and Smith 2007). The approach at Fryshuset is largely different from the general youth organizations and public sector organizations. The people involved in Fryshuset explain this difference emphasizing the importance of departing from the young peoples’ situation and instead, involving them in constructing solutions (Gawell 2013). Hence, this represents a social innovation which actively engages in a current social problem - youth tension and violence - to achieve socially beneficial outcomes (Scott-Cato and Hillier 2010). At Fryshuset, people share and develop passionate interests, social commitments, sports, entertainment, culture and innovative educational programs. It is an effective response to young people’s needs. It’s emergence as a niche was effectively supported through widespread sharing of specific, realistic and achievable visions and expectations (Kemp, Schot, and Hoogma 1998). There are now up to 40,000 youth visits each month (Gawell 2013). During its lifetime, Fryshuset has become a well-known and entrepreneurial organization with a wide range of different activities. Their work contributes to everyday knowledge and expertise and asks us to ‘question the assumptions and constraints of mainstream systems altogether (Kemp et al. 1998). They have established a place for all kinds of creative and constructive activities. Engagement between young people and grown-ups, for example, is a common theme in their mission, enabling everyone to participate, contribute and learn (Fryshuset 2019). This multifaceted and dynamic initiative now empowers and promotes the social inclusion of young people, especially for those at risk or who already face exclusion (Fryshuset 2019). The initiative reflects many transition management principles. These include: managing social problems by adjusting, 137

Transition Management Perspective of Social Innovation

adapting and influencing the societal system; organizing joint searching and learning processes and; ensuring an ongoing focus on long-term sustainable solutions (Loorbach and Rotmans 2010; Rotmans et al. 2001). The projects implemented throughout have been focused on related areas such as youth culture, schools, role models & future perspectives, work and entrepreneurship (Fryshuset 2019). Branches of the youth center now exist in several places in Sweden, including Hammarby Sjöstad, Husby and Skärholmen, Gothenburg, Malmö, Öland, Borlänge. Fryshuset are also closely working with other organisations. These include youth and civil organizations, governmental agencies, social enterprises and research centers in The Netherlands, Oslo, Norway, USA, Finland, Brazil, France, Kenya, Senegal and South Africa (Fryshuset 2019). Embracing diverse stakeholders in networking activities is one of the key elements of success in strategic niche management. It helps bring in diverse resources from various organizations to support emergence of the niche (Kemp et al. 1998). Going further beyond traditional practice, Fryshuset was successful in attracting private funding from private for-profit enterprises and directly from individuals (Gawell 2013). These achievements and practices reflect on the nature of a ‘protected space’ discussed in strategic niche management literature. Protected spaces develop alternative values and a culture formed by multiple organizational forms such as cooperatives, voluntary associations and informal community groups relying on grant funding, volunteer labor, mutual exchange and limited commercial activity (Seyfang and Smith 2007). Overall, Fryshuset has continued to do things differently to the public and civil society organizations. They have vitalized the role of civil society organizations as actors who were able to deliver distinctive activities and services which may not have been possible for the public sector (Gawell 2013).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSION Transition management is a novel approach for collective engagement. As a field of research, transition management has received significant attention from policy-makers, researchers and practitioners. This is due to its paramount contribution to devising socio-technical transformations. Transition management is recognized as a governance approach to achieving sustainability development objectives by redefining perspectives, roles and responsibilities to initiate and implement positive social change. Social innovations are interpreted as transition experiments leading to bottom-up 138

Transition Management Perspective of Social Innovation

creativity among communities and stakeholders and helping to improve social relations, support socio-political empowerment and fulfil the basic needs of the people. Such occur at the niche level of the societal system and often develop grassroots innovations that support societal transformation in the long-term.

REFERENCES Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J., Haxeltine, A., Kemp, R., O’Riordan, T., Weaver, P., . . . Rotmans, J. (2014). Game Changers and Transformative Social Innovation. The Case of Economic Crisis and New Economy: Transit Working Paper. TRANSIT EU SSH.2013.32-1 Grant Agreement no: 61319. Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J., Kemp, R., & Haxeltine, A. (2017). Game-Changers and Transformative Social Innovation. Ecology and Society: A Journal of Integrative Science for Resilience and Sustainability, 22(4), 1-7. Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J. M., Pel, B., Weaver, P., Dumitru, A., Haxeltine, A., ... Ruijsink, S. (2019). Transformative Social Innovation and (Dis) Empowerment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145(1), 195–206. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.002 Bilali, H. E. (2019). The Multi-Level Perspective in Research on Sustainability Transitions in Agriculture and Food Systems: A Systematic Review. Agriculture, 9(4), 74–98. doi:10.3390/agriculture9040074

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Brand, U., & Wissen, M. (2017). Social-Ecological Transformation. In D. Richardson, N. Castree, M. F. Goodchild, A. Kobayashi, W. Liu, & R. A. Marston (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Geography (pp. 1–9). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. doi:10.1002/9781118786352.wbieg0690 Britton, J. (2017). Smart Meter Data and Equitable Energy Transitions–Can Cities Play a Role? Local Environment, 24(7), 595–609. doi:10.1080/1354 9839.2017.1383372 Bulkeley, H., Marvin, S., Palgan, Y. V., McCormick, K., Breitfuss-Loidl, M., Mai, L., von Wirth, T., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2019). Urban Living Laboratories: Conducting the Experimental City? European Urban and Regional Studies, 26(4), 317–335. doi:10.1177/0969776418787222

139

Transition Management Perspective of Social Innovation

Di Iacovo, F., Moruzzo, R., Rossignoli, C., & Scarpellini, P. (2014). Transition Management and Social Innovation in Rural Areas: Lessons from Social Farming. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 20(3), 327–347. doi:10.1080/1389224X.2014.887761 Eisenberg, L. (1975). Caring for Children and Working: Dilemmas of Contemporary Womanhood. Pediatrics, 56(1), 24–28. Elliott, C., & Zhang, L.-Y. (2019). Diffusion and Innovation for Transition: Transnational Governance in China’s Green Bond Market Development. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 21(4), 391–406. doi:10.108 0/1523908X.2019.1623655 European Youth Portal. (2019). Stiftelsen Fryshuset. Retrieved from https:// europa.eu/youth/volunteering/organisation/942723019_en Forrest, N., & Wiek, A. (2015). Success Factors and Strategies for Sustainability Transitions of Small-Scale Communities–Evidence from a Cross-Case Analysis. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 17(1), 22–40. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2015.05.005 Fryshuset. (2019). Who We Are. Retrieved from https://fryshuset.se/theglobal-fryshuset/about-fryshuset Gawell, M. (2013). Social Entrepreneurship–Innovative Challengers or Adjustable Followers? Social Enterprise Journal, 9(2), 203–220. doi:10.1108/ SEJ-01-2013-0004 Geels, F. W. (2006). The Dynamics of Transitions in Socio-Technical Systems: A Multi-Level Analysis of the Transition Pathway from Horse-Drawn Carriages to Automobiles (1860–1930). Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 17(4), 445–476. doi:10.1080/09537320500357319

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of Sociotechnical Transition Pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399–417. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003 Hartman, S., Parra, C., & de Roo, G. (2019). Framing Strategic Storytelling in the Context of Transition Management to Stimulate Tourism Destination Development. Tourism Management, 75(1), 90–98. doi:10.1016/j. tourman.2019.04.014 Hodson, M., Geels, F., & McMeekin, A. (2017). Reconfiguring Urban Sustainability Transitions, Analysing Multiplicity. Sustainability, 9(2), 299. doi:10.3390u9020299 140

Transition Management Perspective of Social Innovation

Hölscher, K., Wittmayer, J. M., Avelino, F., & Giezen, M. (2019). Opening up the Transition Arena: An Analysis of (Dis) Empowerment of Civil Society Actors in Transition Management in Cities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145(1), 176–185. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.004 Hyysalo, S., Marttila, T., Perikangas, S., & Auvinen, K. (2019). Codesign for Transitions Governance: A Mid-Range Pathway Creation Toolset for Accelerating Sociotechnical Change. Design Studies, 63(1), 181–203. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2019.05.002 Kapoor, K., Weerakkody, V., & Schroeder, A. (2018). Social Innovations for Social Cohesion in Western Europe: Success Dimensions for Lifelong Learning and Education. Innovation (Abingdon), 31(2), 189–203. doi:10.10 80/13511610.2017.1419336 Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., & Rotmans, J. (2007). Transition Management as a Model for Managing Processes of Co-Evolution Towards Sustainable Development. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 14(1), 78–91. doi:10.1080/13504500709469709 Kemp, R., Schot, J., & Hoogma, R. (1998). Regime Shifts to Sustainability through Processes of Niche Formation: The Approach of Strategic Niche Management. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 10(2), 175–198. doi:10.1080/09537329808524310 Knoke, D. (1990). Organizing for Collective Action: The Political Economy of Associations. De Gruyter.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Loorbach, D., & Rotmans, J. (2006). Managing Transitions for Sustainable Development. In X. Olsthoorn & A. Wieczorek (Eds.), Understanding Industrial Transformation (Vol. 44, pp. 187–206). Springer. doi:10.1007/14020-4418-6_10 Loorbach, D., & Rotmans, J. (2010). The Practice of Transition Management: Examples and Lessons from Four Distinct Cases. Futures, 42(3), 237–246. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2009.11.009 Markard, J., Raven, R., & Truffer, B. (2012). Sustainability Transitions: An Emerging Field of Research and Its Prospects. Research Policy, 41(6), 955–967. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013

141

Transition Management Perspective of Social Innovation

Marques, P., Morgan, K., & Richardson, R. (2018). ‘Social Innovation in Question: The Theoretical and Practical Implications of a Contested Concept’, Environment and Planning C. Politics and Space, 36(3), 496–512. Martin, C. J., & Upham, P. (2016). Grassroots Social Innovation and the Mobilisation of Values in Collaborative Consumption: A Conceptual Model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 134(1), 204–213. doi:10.1016/j. jclepro.2015.04.062 Martin, C. J., Upham, P., & Budd, L. (2015). Commercial Orientation in Grassroots Social Innovation: Insights from the Sharing Economy. Ecological Economics, 118(1), 240–251. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.08.001 Martiskainen, M., Heiskanen, E., & Speciale, G. (2018). Community Energy Initiatives to Alleviate Fuel Poverty: The Material Politics of Energy Cafés. Local Environment, 23(1), 20–35. doi:10.1080/13549839.2017.1382459 Mehmood, A. (2015). Of Resilient Places: Planning for Urban Resilience. European Planning Studies, 24(2), 407–419. doi:10.1080/09654313.2015. 1082980 Mehmood, A., & Parra, C. (2013). Social Innovation in an Unsustainable World. In F. Moulaert, D. MacCallum, A. Mehmood, & A. Hamdouch (Eds.), International Handbook on Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research (pp. 53–66). Edward Elgar Publishing. doi:10.4337/9781849809993.00014

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Miller, K. K., Lin, S. H., & Neville, M. (2019). From Hospital to Home to Participation: A Position Paper on Transition Planning Poststroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 100(6), 1162–1175. doi:10.1016/j. apmr.2018.10.017 Moore, M. L., Tjornbo, O., Enfors, E., Knapp, C., Hodbod, J., Baggio, J. A., Norström, A., Olsson, P., & Biggs, D. (2014). Studying the Complexity of Change: Toward an Analytical Framework for Understanding Deliberate Social-Ecological Transformations. Ecology and Society, 19(4), 1–10. doi:10.5751/ES-06966-190454 Nordfeldt, M., Larsson, O. S., & Carrigan, A. (2016). Stockholm: Innovative Ways of Supporting Children of Single (Lone) Mothers Social Innovations in the Urban Context. Springer.

142

Transition Management Perspective of Social Innovation

Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Harvard University Press. Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Hahn, T. (2004). Social-Ecological Transformation for Ecosystem Management: The Development of Adaptive Co-Management of a Wetland Landscape in Southern Sweden. Ecology and Society, 9(4), 1–12. doi:10.5751/ES-00683-090402 Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Hughes, T. P. (2008). Navigating the Transition to Ecosystem-Based Management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(28), 9489–9494. doi:10.1073/pnas.0706905105 Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007). Transitions Towards Adaptive Management of Water Facing Climate and Global Change. Water Resources Management, 21(1), 49–62. doi:10.100711269-006-9040-4 Prasad, S. (2016). Innovating at the Margins: The System of Rice Intensification in India and Transformative Social Innovation. Ecology and Society, 21(4), 1–10. doi:10.5751/ES-08718-210407 Raven, R., Van Den Bosch, S., & Weterings, R. (2010). Transitions and Strategic Niche Management: Towards a Competence Kit for Practitioners. International Journal of Technology Management, 51(1), 57–74. doi:10.1504/ IJTM.2010.033128 Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., & Van Asselt, M. (2001). More Evolution Than Revolution: Transition Management in Public Policy. Foresight, 3(1), 15–31. doi:10.1108/14636680110803003

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Scott-Cato, M., & Hillier, J. (2010). How Could We Study Climate-Related Social Innovation? Applying Deleuzean Philosophy to Transition Towns. Environmental Politics, 19(6), 869–887. doi:10.1080/09644016.2010.518677 Scuttari, A., Volgger, M., & Pechlaner, H. (2016). Transition Management Towards Sustainable Mobility in Alpine Destinations: Realities and Realpolitik in Italy’s South Tyrol Region. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(3), 463–483. doi:10.1080/09669582.2015.1136634 Seyfang, G., & Haxeltine, A. (2010) Growing Grassroots Innovations: Exploring the Role of Communitybased Social Movements for Sustainable Energy Transitions. In Working Paper - Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (pp. 1-22). Academic Press. 143

Transition Management Perspective of Social Innovation

Seyfang, G., & Haxeltine, A. (2012). Growing Grassroots Innovations: Exploring the Role of Community-Based Initiatives in Governing Sustainable Energy Transitions. Environment and Planning. C, Government & Policy, 30(3), 381–400. doi:10.1068/c10222 Seyfang, G., Haxeltine, A., Hargreaves, T., & Longhurst, N. (2010) Energy and Communities in Transition - Towards a New Research Agenda on Agency and Civil Society in Sustainability Transitions. In Working Paper - Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (pp. 1-21). Academic Press. Seyfang, G., & Longhurst, N. (2013). Desperately Seeking Niches: Grassroots Innovations and Niche Development in the Community Currency Field. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 881–891. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.007 Seyfang, G., & Longhurst, N. (2016). What Influences the Diffusion of Grassroots Innovations for Sustainability? Investigating Community Currency Niches. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 28(1), 1–23. doi:1 0.1080/09537325.2015.1063603 Seyfang, G., & Smith, A. (2007). Grassroots Innovations for Sustainable Development: Towards a New Research and Policy Agenda. Environmental Politics, 16(4), 584–603. doi:10.1080/09644010701419121 Tortia, E. C., Degavre, F., & Poledrini, S. (2020). Why Are Social Enterprises Good Candidates for Social Innovation? Looking for Personal and Institutional Drivers of Innovation. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 91(1), 459–477. doi:10.1111/apce.12265

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Truffer, B., Voß, J.-P., & Konrad, K. (2008). Mapping Expectations for System Transformations: Lessons from Sustainability Foresight in German Utility Sectors. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(9), 1360–1372. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2008.04.001 Van Der Schoor, T., Van Lente, H., Scholtens, B., & Peine, A. (2016). Challenging Obduracy: How Local Communities Transform the Energy System. Energy Research & Social Science, 13(1), 94–105. doi:10.1016/j. erss.2015.12.009 Voß, J. P., Smith, A., & Grin, J. (2009). Designing Long-Term Policy: Rethinking Transition Management. Policy Sciences, 42(4), 275–302. doi:10.100711077-009-9103-5 144

Transition Management Perspective of Social Innovation

Wolfram, M. (2018). Cities Shaping Grassroots Niches for Sustainability Transitions: Conceptual Reflections and an Exploratory Case Study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 173(1), 11–23. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.044 Wolfram, M., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2016). Cities and Systemic Change for Sustainability: Prevailing Epistemologies and an Emerging Research Agenda. Sustainability, 8(2), 144–156. doi:10.3390u8020144

ADDITIONAL READING Nowak, A., & Vallacher, R. R. (2019). Nonlinear societal change: The perspective of dynamical systems. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(1), 105–128. doi:10.1111/bjso.12271

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Actor Network Theory (ANT): This is an approach to social theory developed by French scholars of Latour and Callon and emphasize that everything in the society is based on continuously shifting networks of social relationships. Grassroots Innovation: These are community level social innovations aiming to develop solutions to generate sustainable solutions by working with networks of neighbours, community groups, and organizations. Social Movement Theory (SMT): Social movement theory explains the reasons for resource mobilization in the social system, its manifestation, and socio-cultural consequences of such mobilization. Socio-Technical Systems: Socio-technical systems consist of a cluster of elements, including technology, regulation, user practices and markets, cultural meaning, infrastructure, maintenance networks and supply networks Strategic Niche Management: Strategic niche management has developed as a governance-focused strand of research, which seeks to understand how to proactively create and nurture niches developing desirable sustainable innovations, with the aim of triggering wider systemic transitions. Transformative Social Innovation Theory: Or TRANSIT, has highlighted the potential of social innovations in enabling transformative change by

145

Transition Management Perspective of Social Innovation

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

challenging, adjusting, and/or providing alternatives to the dominant systems and institutions in society. Transition Towns: These are initiatives of transition movement which is a collection of grassroots community initiatives that seek to build community resilience in the face of such challenges as peak oil, climate change and the economic crisis. Transition Initiatives differentiate themselves from other sustainability and “environmental” groups by seeking to mitigate these converging global crises by engaging their communities in home-grown, citizen-led education, action, and multi-stakeholder planning to increase local self-reliance and resilience.

146

147

Chapter 7

The Design Approach to Social Innovation

ABSTRACT

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

This chapter identifies the way in which design thinking is evidenced as trends and patterns in the social innovation literature. The newly emergent concept of design thinking has become more prominent in social innovation literature since 2010. The inclusive and multidisciplinary state of social innovation research has supported the integration of design thinking elements within its literature thereby resulting in the two literatures co-evolving. The conceptual developments of social design, service design, and socially responsible design are viewed as micro-level perspectives. Whilst the design for sustainability is viewed at the meso level and design for social innovation is viewed at the macro level. It is accepted that design thinking may take the form of an attitude or a participatory design or co-design process. The case studied in this chapter is the One World Project’s approach to making, selling, and distributing durable footballs exemplifies the evolution of service design to design for social innovation.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-4588-1.ch007 Copyright © 2021, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

The Design Approach to Social Innovation

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION The inevitable shift of the locus of economic activity in the developed world from industrial manufacturing to knowledge-centric service delivery, has made innovation crucial to long-term survival. Thus, mere confinements to the introduction of new physical products is now hardly viable, calling for new processes, services, interactions, entertainment forms, and ways of communicating and collaborating (Brown and Katz 2011). This has led design professionals to push design beyond an isolated engagement with consumer culture and to exploration of new forms of practice (Chick 2012). Furthermore, as a development, design is now used to tackle social issues to create innovative solutions (Cairns 2017; Light 2019; Manzini and Rizzo 2011). With the publication of the book entitled “design thinking” by Rowe (1987) and the influence of an article by Buchanan (1992), diverse business communities have now adopted design thinking methods. These adaptations come with expectation that they will contribute to developing competitive advantages. In addition, various types of businesses embrace design thinking, believing that such processes will yield greater innovation, higher differentiation of their brand, and a faster turnaround of their products and services in the markets. Not only the for-profits oriented firms but also the not-for-profit organizations are now using design thinking approaches to develop interventions to address social challenges with improved and appropriate solutions. As a result, design thinking goes beyond the traditional borders between public, private, and third sector organizations (Brown and Wyatt 2010; Kim 2018). With this background, policy makers, organizations, researchers and other stakeholders are now paying increased attention to design thinking in social innovation development. The historical social movements have shown that social innovation generates prolific outcomes to meet the unmet social needs in communities. Social innovation, in a way, has become a movement of its own (Bennett and McWhorter 2019). However, as a field of research, it is still in its infancy (Light 2019). The design perspective of social innovation research is attracting popularity amongst academics, practitioners and policymakers, particularly after 2010. The word ‘design’ has gained prominence in the fields of business and management, yet it remains contested term with multi-faceted interpretations and meanings (Cairns 2017). With the higher involvement of design professionals to address growing social, cultural and

148

The Design Approach to Social Innovation

environmental challenges, design related strategies, methodologies, tools and language are all at an embryonic stage and continuing to evolve (Chick 2012). There are various concepts of design thinking discussed in the social innovation literature. Design for social innovation, socially responsible design, design for sustainability. social design, service design, participatory design, co-design and designerly thinking form some of the concepts, discussions and debates in the literature between 2009-2019. In this context, the current chapter elaborates on how social innovation is defined and applied in this relatively novel research stream. Immediately following is a discussion around design and design thinking concepts. An account of design thinking research in the social innovation literature is provided, as based on bibliometric analyses. This is then followed by a detailed discussion on how social innovation is embraced in design thinking and concluded with an analysis of the case study, ‘One World Project’.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

DESIGN AND DESIGN THINKING The field of design embraces broad categories, including architectural, industrial, graphic, product and systems design (Cairns 2017). Conventionally, the look and the functionality of products were the main concerns of the designers. However, growing social challenges have required more systemic solutions to customer needs. In recent years, therefore, designers have started creating whole systems to ensure effective delivery of solutions to address the social challenges (Brown and Wyatt 2010). Thus, design must be considered first and foremost as an attitude, (Cairns 2017; Chick and Micklethwaite 2011) much more so than a process or profession (Chick and Micklethwaite 2011, p. 24). It is committed to tenets of collaborative, cumulative and innovative solution-generation, appropriate to real and urgent problems facing human society and the natural environment (Cairns 2017). This fundamental expectation is where design thinking excels. Design thinking is a mindset, a process and a mechanism for addressing ‘wicked social problems’ (the complex and multi-faceted socio-cultural and economic challenges that are difficult to solve – e.g. poverty, income disparity, sustainability, and financial crisis) and exploring possible futures (Docherty, 2017). It is an approach comprising in-depth consumer insight and rapid prototyping, going beyond assumption-testing in designing effective solutions (Brown and Wyatt 2010). This approach embraces a close user-centric feedback approach (human-centered design); visualizing and prototyping; a 149

The Design Approach to Social Innovation

systematic, gradual and continuous improvements focused process in solution development; and tolerance for failure, as key principles of innovation (Kolko 2015). The design thinking process is a system of overlapping stages instead of a sequence of orderly steps, including inspiration, ideation and implementation. Inspiration is the problem or opportunity which motivates the search for solutions. The stage of generating, developing, and testing ideas is known as ideation. At the implementation stage, the solution is linked to people’s lives. An extended version based on these stages is presented in Figure 1 below where the process starts with empathizing customers and then leads to brainstorming potential solutions for a problem at hand. Figure 1. Design thinking process

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Authors

As a customer-centered approach, the design thinking process starts by empathizing with potential customers and associated parties of a targeted problem. This enables us to obtain a better understanding about problems and circumstances. It enables deep understanding, helping the designers or entrepreneurs to better define the problem/s of the target group/s. Ideation benefits from this, as ideation is the solution-generating stage. A few feasible solutions can be prototyped and tested here to assess the viability and applicability of the proposed solution. The understanding gathered in the empathizing stage can further inform the design and outcomes of prototyping, which in-turn inform the ideation process to further refine or generate completely new solutions. The testing stage is an opportunity for the entrepreneur or designer to monitor and verify if the proposed solution properly addresses the problem at hand or what other expectations are to be met by the solution. Therefore, the design thinking process depicted in Figure 1 above clearly demonstrates key characteristics of design thinking: customer-centered, integrity between customer needs and proposed solution, and focus on continuous improvement.

150

The Design Approach to Social Innovation

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The increased application and growing acceptance of design thinking appears to be the proverbial ‘magic toolbox’ for solving problems (Valentine, Kroll, Bruce, Lim, and Mountain 2017). While it is traditionally concerned about improving products and services in the private sector, it is now applied in tackling more complex social needs and challenges, giving rise to social innovations which transcend traditional boundaries of public, private, and third sector organizations (Brown and Wyatt 2010). Cairns (2017) uses the term ‘designerly thinking’, viewing it from the perspective of design-as-attitude. This shares some aspects with the broader conception of design thinking, such as ‘empathy with users’ and ‘tolerance for failure’ (Kolko 2015). A more advanced concept of design thinking research is “design for social innovation”. According to Manzini (2014), design for social innovation includes any design-related activity which starts, bolsters, supports, strengthens, and replicates social innovation, tending to form new ways of looking at the world or supporting people in it. While looking at the practical applications of design thinking in business management, Bennett and McWhorter (2019) recognize that social innovation is predicated on sincerely held social values and more specifically - empathy for others. Social innovation is recognized as a social movement with the goal of applying creativity and design principles to solve social problems. As an external influence such movements determine how employees develop in an organization committed for social actions. They emphasize that the values are embedded in design thinking supports social innovation and learning and development of employees engaging in social innovation. Therefore, they recommend design thinking for Human Resources Development (HRD) professionals as a technique in partnering with affiliates in corporate social responsibility projects, designing innovation initiatives, and working for social organizations. Therefore, design thinking in social innovation is attracting significant attention from researchers. To this end, the following section considers the developments and trends in design thinking research within social innovation literature.

DESIGN THINKING RESEARCH To provide a broader overview of this research area, a search was carried out in the Scopus database with the Boolean operations carrying the search tags of “design*” OR “design perspective*” OR “design thinking*” on titles AND “Social innovation*” on keywords, titles and abstracts. The search generated 151

The Design Approach to Social Innovation

218 publications. With our focus limited to journal articles, there were only 78 journal publications written in English. These 78 journal articles were published between 2007 and 2019 as shown in Figure 2 below, indicating a growth trend throughout this period. This field of research has particularly grown after 2010, with 56% of the journal articles published after 2016. Figure 2. Growth of design thinking journal papers in social innovation research

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Authors

One hundred and sixty authors contributed to these 78 journal papers. Among them, Manzini, E. (3), Cassim, F. (2), Kashimura, K. (2), and Maruyama, Y. (2) were the key contributing authors. These were mainly from the United Kingdom (11), USA (11) and Australia (10). The rest were from 24 other countries, indicating a diverse interest in this field of research. Table 1 exhibits the major journal sources of these publications. A fair few journals dedicated to “design” have been housing these publications. Among them include Design and Culture, Design Journal, Codesign and International Journal of Design (Table 1). A co-occurrence network of keywords; a well-known bibliometric method (Lee and Su 2010) - was developed based on the keywords in the 78 journal papers. Eighty-four highly occurring keywords were generated when the occurrence threshold was set to 10 on Vosviewer. Out of those 84, 48 were 152

The Design Approach to Social Innovation

Table 1. Main journals housing design thinking outputs in social innovation Journal

Number of publications

Design and Culture

10

Design Journal

7

Codesign

5

International Journal of Design

4

Design Issues

3

International Journal of Design in Society

3

International Journal of Design Management and Professional Practice

2

She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation

2

Techne

2

Academy of Management Learning and Education

1

Source: Authors

highly connected and visualized in Figure 3 below. This co-occurrence network of keywords (Figure 3) shows important areas the scholars have investigated and the progression of the main themes within the field. Figure 3. Cooccurrence network of key words: design perspective of social innovation

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Sources: Authors

Participatory Design, Transformative Design and Inclusive Design: Figure 3 indicates that concepts such as participatory, transformative and

153

The Design Approach to Social Innovation

Figure 4. Link between participatory design, transformative design and inclusive design

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Authors

inclusive design are the most popular between 2014-2015. These three are interrelated. The link between them is summarized in Figure 4 below. Participatory design is “a constellation of design initiatives aiming at the construction of socio-material assemblies for and with the participants in the projects” (Manzini and Rizzo 2011, p. 201). The transformative design approach involves heterogeneous stakeholders from the beginning through to participatory design (Hillgren, Seravalli, and Emilson 2011). This type of inclusive design is an important theoretical underpinning in contemporary design (Cope and Kalantzis, 2011; Holt, 2011). It considers the widest possible user-base at the onset of the design process, ensuring interaction and flexibility are inherent throughout the entire project (Dong et al, 2005). For instance, Whitfield and Fels (2013) introduce non-conventional audio descriptions as an inclusive design strategy, supporting the subjectivity and creativity of the directors and actors. Design for sustainability, socially responsible design and design for social innovation: Between 2015 and 2016, the most popular design research topics were sustainability, design for social innovation, collaborative design and participatory research. Three closely associated topics include socially responsible design, design for sustainability and design for social innovation. Their differences are summarized in Figure 5. 154

The Design Approach to Social Innovation

Figure 5. Main characteristics of socially responsible design, design for sustainability and design for social innovation

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Authors

Socially responsible design (Melles, de Vere, and Misic 2011) considers technical solutions to social problems, focusing more on people’s needs rather than wants (Papanek, 1985). Therefore, socially responsible design calls for action on design education (Cipolla and Bartholo 2014) to reorient ‘specific situation targeted problem solving (specific-case)’ focused teaching toward designing things generally useful for the various contexts (generalcase). Design for sustainability offers solutions at the level of communities and systems, rather than products and production. It involves higher levels of design intervention and increased attention to the social component of sustainability (Ceschin and Gaziulusoy 2016). Design for social innovation is an emergent and large-scale design approach, aiming to identify, shape, address, and transform challenges on the path to social change (Bayrak 2019). Instead of focusing on social problems such as extreme poverty, social innovation designers help communities produce novel ‘social forms’ to affect ‘social change towards sustainability’ (Manzini 2015, p. 62). Design for social innovation requires extensive openness to diverse cultures, perspectives and contexts; different levels of literacy; variety of needs, expectations and tendencies and; a mixture of values (Bayrak 2019). Critiques of socially responsible design highlight the limitations of understanding design as an expert aid. They identify a need for system-based and locally-specific solutions, which are best developed via participatory approaches (Morelli 2007). Due to the participatory nature of design interventions, participatory design and design for social innovation converge and largely overlap (Manzini and Rizzo 2011). Although design for social innovation is not a new research discipline, it is a new field of design application, which goes beyond traditional boundaries to meet the challenges of everyday

155

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The Design Approach to Social Innovation

life (Olivastri 2017). Design for social innovation is an alternative to socially responsible design focus. Social Design, Co-Design and Service Design: Recent design thinking in social innovation research has been focused on social design, co-design and service design, particularly throughout and after 2017. Design approaches are now focused on social innovation, as driven by social demands rather than commercial motivations. This focus is helping broaden the new field of social design (Kim 2018). The use of service design, in particular, is important for ensuring effective, efficient, pleasant and user-centered services (Meroni and Sangiorgi 2016). Service design approaches in design thinking have emerged as new means for identifying solutions in the public sector through citizen-centered policy-making (Kim 2018). In this context there is increasing attention and focus on experience-driven design used to improve existing products and develop new products. This is understood as co-design (Sanders and Stappers 2014) which involves a designerly thinking approach where designers first create probe packages requiring respondents to interpret a set of questions and respond to them. Second, design researchers make generative toolkits followed by participants making expressive artefacts and discussing them by using the toolkits. Finally, co-designers create and evaluate prototypes iteratively to determine if the prototype meets the needs in the best possible manner. The designer’s responsibility is to build not only an external mechanism of involvement, but an internal mechanism of change, bridging participatory design (Ehn 2008) with transformation design (Sangiorgi 2011). This is done through shared ownership of design outcomes, process and methods, in the attempt to shape a culture of resilience (Manzini 2015). Within the associated research, service design (Meroni and Sangiorgi 2016) is proposed as a humancentered, strategic and systemic approach to tackling complex challenges. Another key concept popularized during this period is social design. A participatory mindset and a local focus characterize much of the work on social design (Armstrong, Bailey, Julier, and Kimbell 2014; Koskinen and Hush 2016). Social design also relies on participatory design and emphasizes the need for design tools which enable skillful participation (Chen, Cheng, Hummels, and Koskinen 2016). Social design practices serve primarily noncommercial ends, and specifically, for the benefit of a disadvantaged group (Armstrong et al. 2014; Markussen 2017). One of the main features of social design is open collaboration among co-designers (Manzini 2015). The most common objectives of social design include making problems visible, creating opportunities for debate and collaboration, and mobilizing communities on 156

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The Design Approach to Social Innovation

that basis. Social design does not typically involve the co-design of longterm, permanent solutions to problems encountered by communities (Akdur and Kaygan 2019). Social design initiatives are largely oriented around problem-solving at the micro level, with the aim of subsequent larger changes (Tonkinwise 2015). Design for Social Enterprise: Design for social enterprise (Selloni 2017) is a parallel topic which does not form a brand-new design discipline but instead a new field of design activities (Manzini 2015). Valentine et al. (2017) consider design for social enterprise as a combination of design approaches, methods and tools which support innovation within social enterprises. It aims at cultural and organizational change and places users at the center of the entrepreneurial process. Design for social enterprise improves on a virtuous circle of relationships with workers, users, volunteers, public servants, and policy-makers. Hence, in the framing of ‘design for social enterprise’ they incorporated the design thinking principle of developing empathy with people and their environment. Since people generally have strong connections with their local context, design for social enterprise emphasizes the need for a human-centered and context-specific approach. This approach is different from the co-design approach and is simply a starting point for re-connecting social enterprises with their users (Valentine et al. 2017). To ensure the reconnection of social enterprises with their users, moving from co-design to co-production and co-management of services is necessary, as is the changing of the organizational model of the social enterprise (Selloni 2017). Design Activism: Another body of research work is around ‘design activism’ - design projects that are more explicitly concerned with the political dimension of design. Thus, political activism (Thorpe 2011), counter-narratives (Fuad-Luke 2013), disruptive aesthetics (Markussen 2017), and political conflict (DiSalvo 2012) are key characteristics of design activism. Design activist interventions are developed through experimental avenues targeting awareness building, disillusion and subversion. Designerly Thinking: Cairns (2017) considers the business school focus in design thinking to reflect a superficial understanding of design, introducing instead - “designerly thinking”. Designerly thinking generates holistic value, encompassing social, economic, and ecological benefits for end-users and owners of the specific problem at hand. From a social innovation perspective, designerly thinking goes beyond just being a functional or problem-solving approach to a broader ethically informed and contextual approach. It is guided by the search for the greater ‘good’ of the end user and community (Docherty 2017). The diverse interpretations of problem contexts by end-users make 157

The Design Approach to Social Innovation

designerly thinking essential in social innovation, although it is not the only element in designing for social innovation (Cairns 2017). Taken together, design for social innovation is seen to be the most impactful. Participatory design, co-design, social design, service design and design for sustainability are all included in design for social innovation but are not equivalent to it. The application of designerly thinking is termed as collaborative realization by Cairns (2017) and it is a must to have attitude in design for social innovation. Further, the design concepts described above are observed to be co-evolving, with the added influence of other disciplinary domains such as social enterprise and political science.

SOCIAL INNOVATION IN DESIGN THINKING Design thinking, and social innovation are both contested concepts with multiple meanings in different contexts. Social innovation enables new ways of tackling social needs and creating new relationships by both empowering citizens and generating social benefit. It is a responsive mechanism to delayed, insufficient or incorrect approaches, addressing system errors or organizational inactivity (Markussen 2017). One of the pioneering design thinking researchers, Manzini (2014, p. 58) defines social innovation as “a process of change emerging from the creative re-combination of existing assets (from social capital to historical heritage, from traditional craftsmanship to accessible advanced technology) to achieve socially recognized goals in a new way”. One of the specific features of social innovation is the ability to create new relationships between different actors, assigning them new roles and improving their capabilities (Valentine et al. 2017). The key characteristics Figure 6. Key attributes of social innovation in design thinking perspective

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Authors

158

The Design Approach to Social Innovation

of social innovation found in design thinking literature are summarized in Figure 6. Design fields have historically devoted part of their creativity to engaging with social and environmental issues (Akdur and Kaygan 2019). For instance, the Helsinki Design Lab3 differentiated two fundamental design approaches: functional and strategic. The functional approach is the search for the right answer to a well-defined problem, while the strategic reframes a complex and ambiguous, or ‘wicked’ problem to prompt exploration of innovative options for its resolution (Cairns 2017). The developments in design thinking research and practice discussed make evident that design thinking is progressing from a mere functional approach towards a more strategic approach of addressing complex social problems. For instance, according to Tonkinwise (2015), sustainable design and social design approaches are largely problem-solving-oriented whereas transition design is a systems-level change version of sustainable design. Figure 7. Contributory features of design thinking to social innovation

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Authors

159

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The Design Approach to Social Innovation

This emphasis on systems-level change aligns closely with the focus of the strategic approach. Transition design focuses on extending human-scale design solutions to structural transitions needed for a sustainable economy through transformation of daily practices. This focus of design thinking is well placed to support new solutions to the complex and challenging civic issues prevalent in the society (Docherty 2017). Design thinking has widely been adopted as a successful way to address economic and social challenges by many countries such as the UK, Denmark, Finland, and the USA (Durose and Richardson 2015). Among other contributions, design thinking facilitates social innovation by making innovation processes more inclusive, allowing a shared understanding to evolve, and motivating and empowering participants through practical learning (Docherty, 2017). The contributory characteristics of design thinking in its support of social innovation can be summarized as follows (Figure 7). The definitions discussed above affirm that social innovations connect previously unrelated actors, ideas, and practices, while creating new relationships and understandings, whilst addressing social issues. Social innovations generate either processes or products through collaborative arrangements among actors, which go beyond conventional boundaries and alter the relationships making positive changes in the society (Svensson, Szijarto, Milley, and Cousins 2018). The locus of social innovation is not just confined to a specific organization or person, such as the social entrepreneur or enterprise, but rather it within an intricate system of multifaceted actors. This involves a heterogeneity of creativity, accommodating ingenuity and imagination of multiple actors across organizations and sectors. Creativity, in-turn, enables the development of well-fitting formulations that address social challenges (Light 2019). The process requires designers to use their knowledge and skills to support promising social innovation cases. They are support by making initiatives more visible and continuously contributing to the co-design of their products, services, and communication programs. This subsequently facilitates the scaling-up of social innovations (Manzini 2015). The fundamental principles of design thinking, such as the human-centric approach to redefining problems, creating multiple solution ideas and testing them with hands-on approaches and prototyping, are well embraced in the definitions discussed. Despite the popularity of this approach to social innovation within public and private sectors, design thinking continues to draw criticism. For instance, scholars view design thinking as a mechanistic approach with limited application and over-claimed impacts (Docherty 2017). The definitional 160

The Design Approach to Social Innovation

challenges of social innovation, emanating from its uniqueness and the fact that it is a buzzword, have reduced clarity around its relevance, applicability and scope (Svensson et al. 2018).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CASE STUDY: ONE WORLD PLAY PROJECT The One World Futbol Project designs, manufactures and promotes a durable soccer ball which will rarely puncture and does not require inflating. The project guarantees that there is no child labor involved in the manufacturing process, and adopts a “buy-one, give-one-to-developing countries” selling model to send equipment to places where football can create hope and build communities (One Wold Play Project 2018, p. 2). One World Project is a for-profit Certified B Corporation1 based in California, harnessing the power of business for social good (B Lab 2019; One Wold Play Project 2018). This exemplifies how social innovation can take place inside or outside of public services (Chick 2012; Mulgan 2006). The main mission of the company is to support, enable and expand the transformative power of play by making, selling and distributing products and services and collaborating with sponsors, organizations and individuals. They help enable play around the world, especially for those living in the toughest environments where opportunities may be fewer (One Wold Play Project 2018). This resembles social innovation as informed through design thinking, emphasizing that innovation is inspired by the desire to meet social needs neglected by traditional forms of private market provision and state services (Chick 2012). This project was originally started as One World Futbol by Tim Jahnigen. His inspiration came from watching news footage about physically injured refugee youth in Darfur playing soccer on dirt using a ball they made by tying trash together with twine (Buchanan 2012; One Wold Play Project 2018). Tim quickly identified the global need for a durable ball which can endure severe conditions faced by youth living in refugee camps, disaster areas and other disadvantaged communities in the world. This reflects how service design approaches focus on building ‘experience’ in to the product/service they offer (Kim 2018). Tim spent two- or three-nights developing sketches and calculating material requirement to make a new type of ball. Finally, he decided to use ‘pop foam’ which is a cross-linked and closed-cell foam (very similar to the material in Crocs shoes) which supposedly lasts a lifetime. Pop foam ensures that the soccer ball will never go flat, never need a pump or needle and never 161

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The Design Approach to Social Innovation

obstruct playing even if you punctured the ball (Buchanan 2012). To secure financing, Tim explained the idea to his friend Sting, the world-renowned entertainer, who responded with - “You do it. I’ll pay for it.” He put up the money immediately in to R&D (Buchanan 2012). Reflecting on one of the key steps of the design thinking process (i.e. prototyping and testing), after 11 months and nearly $30,000 in spending, Tim produced a feasible prototype. The ball was later named “One World Futbol” [based on a song by Sting: “One World (Not Three)”] as a gratitude to Sting’s sincere contribution to the project. Sting then found another friend to donate money to help produce the first 10,000 balls to be field-tested. They were sent to a child-soldier rehabilitation camp in Rwanda and to rural areas in South Africa, Haiti, and Iraq and they found the balls performed extraordinarily (Buchanan 2012). This process of developing a viable soccer ball illustrates how social innovation combines ingenuity and imagination of many people across many different situations, to find a formula for addressing well-bounded social challenges (Light 2019). One World Futbol was finally launched through the establishment of a B Corporation - One World Futbol Project, with a mission to bring the transformative power of play to youth living in disadvantaged communities worldwide. Chevrolet became the founding sponsor of One World Futbol Project, supporting the donations and distributing 1.5 million Chevroletsponsored One World Futbols to programs and schools around the world (One Wold Play Project 2018). These actions are a clear reflection of USA design scholarship’s definition of design for social innovation –developing countries-based projects (Brown and Wyatt 2010). The origin of the One World Project resembles the socially responsible design perspective (Davey, Wootton, Thomas, Cooper, and Press 2005). Later in its trajectory, the project more closely resembles the design for social innovation approach (Bayrak 2019) where novel social forms are developed and social change affected. This transformation in design approaches is also evident in current programs and strategies of One World Project. Today, One World Futbols are used by a broad network of organizations where sport and play are combined to teach conflict resolution, gender equality, health awareness and other essential life skills. Reaching a significant milestone, in September of 2014, One World Futbol Project and Chevrolet celebrated the delivery of the 1 millionth Chevrolet-sponsored One World Futbol, bringing power of play to nearly 30 million youth around the world. One World Futbol Project recognizes play as a universal human need and broadens its vision to create additional tools, resources and services that will foster play everywhere. Thus, in November 2014, the company changed its name to One World Play 162

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The Design Approach to Social Innovation

Project (One Wold Play Project 2018). The greater good created by this project to the end user community resembles ‘designerly’ thinking principles which emphasize the collaborative realization (Cairns 2017). Design for social innovation necessitates mature and critical views on designers approaches to complex societal issues and an understanding risk-taking behaviors in relation to precarity in social innovation (Bayrak 2019; Manzini 2015). Thus, a design-based approach should avoid singular perspectives but instead work towards diverse intervention approaches gain a broader understanding of associated sociocultural, political, and economic concerns (Clarke and Burkett 2019). The measures to meet such design for social innovation requirements in the context of One World Play Project can be seen regarding the personal development of youth in disadvantaged communities. The One World Play Project has devised many campaigns and sub-programs to support and involve them in Play. For instance, “The All Girls Can Play campaign” sets out to raise awareness about the disparity of play opportunities between boys and girls and the discrimination challenges that girls worldwide face every day. With the partnerships of Women Win and Bay Area Women’s Sports Initiative, One World Project has now helped deliver almost 1,000 Futbols and innumerable benefits of play to girls worldwide. A separate campaign - “Make Life PlayFull” - focused on inspiring and encouraging people to incorporate moments of play into their daily lives. The aim of this program was to enhance the feeling of freedom people experience when they play, smile, laugh and live in the moment. Through partnerships with Coaches Across Continents, Futbol por la Paz and Playworks, One World Project helped another 10,000 youth to experience the joy and hope of play. Similarly, “The Play Together” campaign focused on bringing the benefits of play to refugees displaced from their homes. Further yet, partnerships with organizations like Aniko, The Sanneh Foundation, The Whitaker Peace & Development Initiative, International Sports & Music Project, Muti Onlus, Hermanosenel Camino and Soccer in the Streets, enabled One World Project to provide relief from trauma and hope for the future in the form of One World Futbols; delivering play to more than 50,000 youth. These varied partnerships and accompanying outcomes affirm how design can play an important role in triggering, supporting and scaling-up social innovations (Chick 2012).

163

The Design Approach to Social Innovation

CONCLUSION As a research constellation within social innovation research, design thinking is yet to become a dominant field of research. Nonetheless, design thinking research trajectories confirm its growth, showing growing interest amongst researchers, policy-makers, for-profit and not-for profit organizations. Reflecting on this developing research field, we can already see the presence of several important concepts and their development, including socially responsible design, sustainable design and design for social innovation. The evolution of parallel concepts and fields of research, and their application across sectors, including designerly thinking, transition design, design activism, design for social enterprise, social design and co-design is also visible in this growing field of research. Discussion provided in this chapter, together with the case study, illustrate how design thinking approaches evolve in to innovative solutions that embrace participatory processes and address complex social challenges. Therefore, social innovation, in the design thinking perspective, is a social value-creation mechanism, involving co-design approaches and ensuring inclusivity, practical learning, motivation and empowerment for participation.

REFERENCES Akdur, S. G., & Kaygan, H. (2019). Social Design in Turkey through a Survey of Design Media: Projects, Objectives, Participation Approaches. Design Journal, 22(1), 51–71. doi:10.1080/14606925.2018.1560592 Armstrong, L., Bailey, J., Julier, G., & Kimbell, L. (2014). Social Design Futures: Hei Research and the Ahrc. University of Brighton.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Bayrak, A. T. (2019). Games as a Catalyst for Design for Social Innovation. Unlocking Legendary Tools. Design Journal, 22(sup1), 1409-1422. Bennett, E. E., & McWhorter, R. R. (2019). Social Movement Learning and Social Innovation: Empathy, Agency, and the Design of Solutions to Unmet Social Needs. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 21(2), 224–249. doi:10.1177/1523422319827939 Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2011). Change by Design. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(3), 381–383. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00806.x 164

The Design Approach to Social Innovation

Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design Thinking for Social Innovation. Development Outreach, 12(1), 29–43. doi:10.1596/1020-797X_12_1_29 Buchanan, L. (2012). Invincible Ball Brings Joy to Kids (& Lions): Soccer Balls from the One World Futbol Project Stand up to Life in a Refugee Camp. Inc. Retrieved from https://www.inc.com/leigh-buchanan/mal-warwick-oneworld-futbol-project.html Cairns, G. (2017). Can Design Inform Effective Social Innovation? Design Journal, 20(6), 725–734. doi:10.1080/14606925.2017.1370658 Ceschin, F., & Gaziulusoy, I. (2016). Evolution of Design for Sustainability: From Product Design to Design for System Innovations and Transitions. Design Studies, 47(1), 118–163. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2016.09.002 Chen, D.-S., Cheng, L.-L., Hummels, C., & Koskinen, I. (2016). Social Design: An Introduction. International Journal of Design, 10(1), 1–5. Chick, A. (2012). Design for Social Innovation: Emerging Principles and Approaches. Iridescent, 2(1), 78–90. doi:10.1080/19235003.2012.11428505 Chick, A., & Micklethwaite, P. (2011). Design for Sustainable Change: How Design and Designers Can Drive the Sustainability Agenda (Vol. 38). AVA Publishing. doi:10.5040/9781350088740.0012 Cipolla, C., & Bartholo, R. (2014). Empathy or Inclusion: A Dialogical Approach to Socially Responsible Design. International Journal of Design, 8(2), 87–100.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Clarke, R., & Burkett, I. (2019). Anticipating Precarity and Risk in Social Innovation Design for Entrenched Place-Based Disadvantage. Design and Culture, 11(1), 85–108. doi:10.1080/17547075.2019.1571305 Davey, C. L., Wootton, A. B., Thomas, A., Cooper, R., & Press, M. (2005). Design for the Surreal World?: A New Model of Socially Responsible Design. Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference of the European Academy of Design, EAD06 University of the Arts, Bremen, Germany. DiSalvo, C. (2012). Adversarial Design as Inquiry and Practice. MIT Press. doi:10.7551/mitpress/8732.001.0001 Docherty, C. (2017). Perspectives on Design Thinking for Social Innovation. The Design Journal, 20(6), 719–724. doi:10.1080/14606925.2017.1372005

165

The Design Approach to Social Innovation

Durose, C., & Richardson, L. (2015). Designing Public Policy for CoProduction: Theory, Practice and Change. Policy Press. doi:10.2307/j. ctt1t896qg Ehn, P. (2008). Participation in Design Things. Proceedings of the tenth anniversary conference on participatory design. Fuad-Luke, A. (2013). Design Activism: Beautiful Strangeness for a Sustainable World. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781849770941 Hillgren, P. A., Seravalli, A., & Emilson, A. (2011). Prototyping and Infrastructuring in Design for Social Innovation. CoDesign, 7(3-4), 169–183. doi:10.1080/15710882.2011.630474 Kim, T. (2018). Identifying Stakeholders and Interactions in the Dementia Café in Seongju through Empathic Service Design Approaches. Journal of Open Innovation, 4(3), 28. doi:10.3390/joitmc4030028 Kolko, J. (2015). Design Thinking Comes of Age. Harvard Business Review, (1), 66-73. Koskinen, I., & Hush, G. (2016). Utopian, Molecular and Sociological Social Design. International Journal of Design, 10(1), 65–71. Lab, B. (2019). B Impact Report: One World Play Project-Ultra-Durable Balls. Retrieved from https://bcorporation.net/directory/one-world-play-project Lee, P.-C., & Su, H.-N. (2010). Investigating the Structure of Regional Innovation System Research through Keyword Co-Occurrence and Social Network Analysis. Innovation, 12(1), 26–40. doi:10.5172/impp.12.1.26 Light, A. (2019). Design and Social Innovation at the Margins: Finding and Making Cultures of Plurality. Design and Culture, 11(1), 13–35. doi:10.10 80/17547075.2019.1567985

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Manzini, E. (2014). Making Things Happen: Social Innovation and Design. Design Issues, 30(1), 57–66. doi:10.1162/DESI_a_00248 Manzini, E. (2015). Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. MIT Press. doi:10.7551/mitpress/9873.001.0001 Manzini, E., & Rizzo, F. (2011). Small Projects/Large Changes: Participatory Design as an Open Participated Process. CoDesign, 7(3-4), 199–215. doi:1 0.1080/15710882.2011.630472 166

The Design Approach to Social Innovation

Markussen, T. (2017). ‘Disentangling ’the Social’ in Social Design’s Engagement with the Public Realm’. CoDesign, 13(3), 160–174. doi:10.10 80/15710882.2017.1355001 Melles, G., de Vere, I., & Misic, V. (2011). Socially Responsible Design: Thinking Beyond the Triple Bottom Line to Socially Responsive and Sustainable Product Design. CoDesign, 7(3-4), 143–154. doi:10.1080/157 10882.2011.630473 Meroni, A., & Sangiorgi, D. (2016). Design for Services. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315576657 Mulgan, G. (2006). The Process of Social Innovation. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1(2), 145–162. doi:10.1162/itgg.2006.1.2.145 Olivastri, C. (2017). Con [Temporary]. Design for Social Innovation. The Design Journal, 20(sup1), S2894-S2905. One World Play Project. (2018). Our Story: It Started with a Simple Concept: A Ball. Retrieved from https://www.oneworldplayproject.com/ Rowe, P. G. (1987). Design Thinking. MIT Press. Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2014). Probes, Toolkits and Prototypes: Three Approaches to Making in Codesigning. CoDesign, 10(1), 5–14. doi: 10.1080/15710882.2014.888183 Sangiorgi, D. (2011). Transformative Services and Transformation Design. International Journal of Design, 5(2), 29–40. Selloni, D. (2017). New Forms of Economies: Sharing Economy, Collaborative Consumption, Peer-to-Peer Economy Codesign for Public-Interest Services. Springer.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Svensson, K., Szijarto, B., Milley, P., & Cousins, J. B. (2018). Evaluating Social Innovations: Implications for Evaluation Design. The American Journal of Evaluation, 39(4), 459–477. doi:10.1177/1098214018763553 Thorpe, A. (2011). Defining Design as Activism. Journal of Architectural Education, 1–16. Tonkinwise, C. (2015). Design for Transitions‒from and to What? Design Philosophy Papers, 13(1), 85–92. doi:10.1080/14487136.2015.1085686

167

The Design Approach to Social Innovation

Valentine, L., Kroll, T., Bruce, F., Lim, C., & Mountain, R. (2017). Design Thinking for Social Innovation in Health Care. Design Journal, 20(6), 755–774. doi:10.1080/14606925.2017.1372926 Whitfield, M., & Fels, D. I. (2013). Inclusive Design, Audio Description and Diversity of Theatre Experiences. Design Journal, 16(2), 219–238. doi:10. 2752/175630613X13584367984983

ADDITIONAL READING Bjögvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P. A. (2012). Design things and design thinking: Contemporary participatory design challenges. Design Issues, 28(3), 101–116. doi:10.1162/DESI_a_00165 Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). ‘Design thinking for social innovation’. Development Outreach, 12(1), 29–43. doi:10.1596/1020-797X_12_1_29 Docherty, C. (2017). Perspectives on design thinking for social innovation. The Design Journal, 20(6), 719–724. doi:10.1080/14606925.2017.1372005 Pieniazek, M. (2016). Design Thinking for Social Innovation. In D. Christopher & G. Robert (Eds.), Social Entrepreneurship: A Skills Approach (2nd ed., pp. 65–70). Policy Press: University of Bristol.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Design for Social Innovation: A design-based approach to formulate new social forms instead of solving social problems targeting sustainability through social change. Design Thinking: Design thinking is a creative problem-solving approach involving a human-centered focus. Human-Centered Design: Human-centered design is a problem-solving approach where people’s perspectives are considered in all the phases of process. Inclusive Design: A design approach involving the widest possible stakeholders of a considering project. Participatory Design: A design approach involving the participants of a project. 168

The Design Approach to Social Innovation

Socially Responsible Design: Design-based technical solutions to address social needs. Transformative Design: A design approach involving multiple stakeholders related to a problem in concern.

ENDNOTE

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

1



Certified B-Corporation – these are the businesses certified by International B-Lab, a non-profit organisation, for meeting high standards in social sustainability, environmental performance and public transparency in balancing social and economic purpose of the business. (https://bcorporation.eu/what-are-b-corps/about-b-lab)

169

170

Chapter 8

Embracing Social Innovation in Creativity Research

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

ABSTRACT Creativity has garnered the attention of researchers and practitioners developing solutions to address social challenges, thus marking a new presence within social innovation research. Social innovation is the generation and implementation of new ideas associated with organizing social interactions. Much of the literature is developed based on the foundational work developed by Mumford, M.D. Experimental designs, and case study approaches to research are most prominent, organized along the two main themes of involvement of creative cognition, and its related concepts in generating socially innovative solutions and this is followed by creative problem-solving in the development of social innovation. Habitat for Humanity, as a case study, offers good examples of the involvement of creative aspects in social innovation. This case study indicates key aspects including mental representation, problemsolving, goal-orientation, social mechanisms of emotion, the cognitive process of association, procedural creativity, experiential nature of persuasion, and the induction of active analysis.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-4588-1.ch008 Copyright © 2021, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Embracing Social Innovation in Creativity Research

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Creativity is a personal characteristic that is most clearly associated with innovation (Miron, Erez, and Naveh 2004). It may be considered as the most important aspect of generating new ideas (West & Farr, 1990). Amabile (1997) defines creativity as the generation of new ideas that are useful and appropriate to a given situation. Thus, creativity involves two dimensions - novelty and usefulness (Chang, Peng, Lin, and Liang 2015). Creativity is identified as an essential capacity of successful entrepreneurs (Peng and Liang 2019). There is now a growing trend amongst researchers to apply theoretical underpinnings of creativity and creative problem-solving to explaining social phenomena. New ideas about social systems and social interactions are rare but can have tremendous impacts on our lives and our world (Marcy and Mumford 2007) by optimizing social problem-solving (Santos 2012). Hence, creative problem-solving provides new and often better ways of addressing real‐world problems, ranging from artistic expression through to science (e.g., particle structures) and business (e.g., micro‐finances) problems (Mumford, Martin, Elliott, and McIntosh 2018). The creativity literature recognizes social innovations as creative products and changes which bring value to society, addressing social needs (Jiang and Thagard 2014). Therefore, social innovation is “the generation and implementation of new ideas about how people should organize interpersonal activities, or social interactions, to meet one or more common goals” (Mumford 2002, p. 253). Such efforts may create new kinds of social institutions, form new ideas about government, develop new social movements, create new processes and procedures for structuring collaborative work, introduce new social practices in a group, or develop new business practices (Hunter, BedellAvers, Hunsicker, Mumford, and Ligon 2008; Mumford 2002). However, creativity research is relatively an emerging ðeld (Williams, Runco, and Berlow 2016). It will take some time before it fully embraces social inclusion and societal challenges (van der Have and Rubalcaba 2016). The creativity literature addressing social innovation, thus far, has largely focused on the application of creative thought (e.g. Hunter et al. 2008), creative cognition (e.g. Jiang and Thagard 2014) and associated concepts in the development of social innovation. The literature has embraced various elements of creative problem-solving associated with social innovation. Therefore, the objectives of this chapter are to identify trends and patterns of creativity research within

171

Embracing Social Innovation in Creativity Research

the social innovation literature and to discuss how creativity research interprets the social innovation phenomenon. The remainder of the chapter is organized as follows. A concise explanation of creative thought, creative problem solving and its link to social innovation is presented, followed by an analysis of creativity research within social innovation literature. The analysis is based on a citation network. Next, a discussion identifies the way in which social innovation is interpreted within the creativity research. Lastly, the case study - Habitat for Humanity’s – and its historical development is discussed in relation to the fundamentals of creativity and social innovation.

CREATIVE THOUGHT, CREATIVE PROBLEMSOLVING AND SOCIAL INNOVATION Creative thought is well-applied within complex, novel and ill-defined problems, where solutions of quality, originality, and elegance are valuable (Besemer and O’Quin 1999). Social innovation problems are one such domain, calling for creative thought (Mumford and Moertl 2003). Creative thought depends on knowledge or expertise (Amabile 2012) and the effective application of core-processes of knowledge construction (Scott, Lonergan, and Mumford 2005). Creative problem-solving involves eight such core processes (Figure 1) of problem construction or problem identification (Mumford, Medeiros, and Partlow 2012), information gathering (Davidson & Sternberg, 1984; Qin & Simon, 1990), conceptual combination (Mobley, Doares, and Mumford 1992), idea generation (Plucker and Renzulli 1999) and idea evaluation (Basadur, Runco, and Vegaxy 2000). Each of these processes involves a complex set of mental operations, commonly referred to as heuristics (Mumford and Norris 1999). Figure 1. Creativity process model Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Mumford et al (2012)

172

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Embracing Social Innovation in Creativity Research

Problem definition in the development of social innovation is experientiallybased for the most part. Indeed, social innovation tends to arise from the efforts of talented, marginal individuals’ pursuing somewhat unique paths in life, as shaped by special patterns of experience (Policastro and Gardner 1999). The conceptual combination of gathered information is another important part of this process. This heuristic contributes to the creation of new knowledge structures and is considered as the base for creative thought in many fields of arts and sciences. It can therefore contribute to the production of higher quality, original and well-designed ideas in the social innovation arena (Scott et al. 2005). The development of a creative thought is supported by various knowledge structures such as schematic knowledge, associational knowledge and casebased knowledge. Schematic knowledge is based on concepts and principles abstracted from experience (Sakamoto and Love 2004) and provides a basis of analogical problem-solving with the application of feature search and mapping mechanisms (Hummel and Holyoak 1997). This knowledge is acquired rather slowly and with some difficulty, whereas associational knowledge appears to be acquired relatively effortlessly with little conscious processing (Reber 1992). Associational knowledge reflects regularities in experience based or probabilistic linkages among stimuli and response event nodes (Estes 1991). Associational knowledge contributes to creative thought through network activation, resulting in the production of remote or unusual associations (Mednick, Mednick, and Jung 1964). People may apply case-based, or episodic knowledge in creative thought. Case-based knowledge entails formation of a mental model describing critical aspects of past performance events (Kolodner 1997). Case-based knowledge is a form of contextual knowledge that provides a model for action when people encounter similar situations (Hershey, Walsh, Read, and Chulef 1990). Different knowledge structures contribute to creative thought in different ways depending on whether idea generation or solution formation is under consideration. Associational or schematic knowledge is more useful than case-based knowledge or various combinations of knowledge structures for idea generation. People generate ideas most easily when they can work with a single knowledge structure that provides a variety of connections or relationships that are not bound to a performance setting. This is different when one considers the quality and originality of solutions to social innovation problems. Case-based knowledge doesn’t promote idea generation but does contributes to the production of original, high quality solutions. At the 173

Embracing Social Innovation in Creativity Research

solution generation stage, the application of multiple knowledge structures is necessitated (Hunter et al. 2008). Creative problem-solving allows for multiple solution paths, while social innovation requires ideas and solutions that are based on a limited number of manageable key causes. A feasible solution in social settings should have the potential for further developments. Social innovation is essentially a practical activity which requires observable and measurable benefit within a relatively short period. Social innovation, particularly in its early developmental stages, demands resources such as time and money. In addition, social innovation involves persuasion, as exercised through a variety of mechanisms. Accordingly, researchers recommend self-promotion in the pursuit of social innovation (Gardner, 1993) and as such, involves a willingness to rearrange or restructure existing social relationships to address issues at hand (Mumford 2002).

CREATIVITY RESEARCH IN SOCIAL INNOVATION LITERATURE Although creativity research is not a new area of investigation, it is relatively new to the social innovation literature. For this context, a citation network was developed based on a search executed with the following search tags “creativity*” OR “creative*” AND “social innovation*” in titles, keywords and abstracts in the Scopus database. This generated 200 publications written in English. This was reduced to 46 publications each publication having 5 or more citations. Out of these, only 10 were highly cited and connected in the citation network. Figure 2 below illustrates the connections.

Figure 2. Citation network of creativity research in social innovation literature Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Authors

174

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Embracing Social Innovation in Creativity Research

The 10 highly cited and connected publications in Figure 2 are organized along four clusters. However, we noticed that there were two journal articles published by Mumford, M.D. which did not appear in the Scopus database search. These were Mumford et al. (2012) and Mumford et al. (2018). These are included in the forthcoming discussion due to important insights. Cluster 1 of the citation network, firstly includes, three publications with Taylor (1970); van der Have and Rubalcaba (2016) and Vickers, Lyon, Sepulveda, and McMullin (2017). Taylor (1970) reports on how an interdisciplinary research project overcame the usual problems of resentment among disciplines and succeeded in introducing several social innovations into a community. He suggested five key principles for successful social innovation: (1) higher commitment; (2) involvement of other groups and agencies; (3) shared responsibility; (4) research as creative play and; (5) researchers as leaders in the program. By so doing Taylor (1970) recognizes social innovation as a separate innovation type, different to technological innovation. van der Have and Rubalcaba (2016) traces the content, scope and relatively short history of modern social innovation research across disciplines by applying network and bibliometric analyses and exploring their relevance to innovation studies. They note Taylor (1970) recognizing social innovation as a separate innovation category as an opposing view to the modern sociological view of social innovation as another paradigm of innovation (e.g. Howaldt and Schwarz 2010). Hence, van der Have and Rubalcaba (2016, p. 1924) refer social innovation to “a large revitalization of the social aspects involved in any kind of innovation”. Following institutional logics approach (see key terms and definitions), Vickers et al. (2017) explore how public, private and third sector norms, values and behaviors can creatively be combined to productively navigate tensions experienced in a public service innovation in social enterprise context. They find social innovation as greater collaboration between multiple actors in different domains to bring change through alternative ways of mobilizing resources for productive outcomes. This investigation supports the multifaceted nature of social innovation accentuated by van der Have and Rubalcaba (2016, p. 1925) referring to “novel products and services produced by private, third sector, or public sector organizations (or a combination thereof)”. This diversity of relationships governing social innovation, particularly in social enterprise context requires leaders to develop a team of individuals who is comfortable and able to work with different logics and diverse backgrounds; explore and balance different logics of financing and to have explicit policies for surplus generation and subsequent investment in innovation (Vickers et al. 2017). 175

Embracing Social Innovation in Creativity Research

Cluster 2 comprises two articles by Mumford (2002) and Martinez, O’Sullivan, Smith, and Esposito (2017). Using historic record provided by Benjamin Franklin as case studies, Mumford (2002) develops a set of hypotheses and strategies in developing and implementing social innovation. The mechanisms involved in idea generation in social innovation and that of other domains such as arts and sciences tend to be similar despite the creativity being different between social innovation and other domains. In the seminal work by Mumford (2002), he develops nine important hypotheses to conclude the key characteristics of social innovation as follows: • •

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • •

Experiential based problem identifcation. Emerged and developed through talents and life experience of marginal individuals. Ideas and solutions are based on a limited number of key causes. Viability of the solution demonstrate the scalability of it. Benefts of the solution needs to be proven within a short span of time. Requirement of fnancing. Early developmental stages call for time and money Persuasion mechanisms are key for development and implementation Willingness to reconfgure the current social relationships to bring out the solution

Martinez et al. (2017) examine the involvement of business in social innovation, as distinct from social innovation in the civil society and the state. Advocating for a human-centric conceptualization of social innovation in business, they find three key features of this phenomenon: First, developed and diffused by morally engaged and proactive individual business agents. Second, business agents can develop new ideas to generate social progress by using social capital and other business resources. Third, economic gains are the outcomes rather the engine of the process. By so doing they highlight the nature of social innovation as a socially responsible innovation which purely focuses on bringing clear social benefits to address social challenges. Both Mumford (2002) and Martinez et al. (2017) underscore the usage of human interactions and networks to develop and implement social innovation. Effective capitalization on networks of enterprise and the careful acquisition of elite support are necessary for the success of social innovation (Mumford 2002). In that way, a firm’s human capital can be employed toward a desired end of a social goal (Martinez et al. 2017). To optimize the benefits, Mumford (2002) calls for the need of social refinement process (see key terms and 176

Embracing Social Innovation in Creativity Research

definitions) as a basis for planning and communication in social innovation design and development. Cluster 3 includes Mumford and Moertl (2003), Marcy and Mumford (2007), and Peterson et al. (2013). These articles were all published in Creativity Research Journal and co-authored by the prominent scholar Mumford, M.D. Mumford and Moertl (2003). A review of two recent books about the history of two social innovations in the 20th century to discuss the implications on (a) the generation of creative ideas about social interactions, (b) the factors influencing development of these ideas, and (c) the social settings that lead to acceptance and diffusion of these ideas. Mumford and Moertl’s (2003) discussion underpins the development of scientific management and the use of standardized tests for college admissions and concludes the followings four major assertions. • • •

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

•

Persuasion, leadership, elite support, demonstrations and casebased reasoning are critical factors determining the success of social innovation idea generation and implementation. Social innovation can not be studied systematically given the infrequent and complex nature of events and they emerge as a set of coherently and sequentially connected products instead of a single product. The expertise in the system at hand, the ability to go beyond the current knowledge and forgo previous commitments to encourage a system to adapt new models, new technologies, and new goals are key qualities to be possessed by social innovators. The alignment with the demands imposed by broader social trends, the fexibility to adapt to changes in social requirements and the needs of diferent constituencies and capability to being linked to other social initiatives are key traits of successful social innovations.

Marcy and Mumford (2007), employ a causal analysis to examine how people generate new ideas about people, and their interactions, in social systems and demonstrate that social innovation idea generation depends on active analysis of causes leading to social challenges within a given social system. Deliberation found to be playing a key role in producing high quality and novel solutions to social challenges while trainings in causal analysis affect solution originality but not the solution quality. Such trainings work as effective ‘tools’ for the people who are involved in the concerned social challenge, to conduct the analysis effectively. This finding supports Mumford 177

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Embracing Social Innovation in Creativity Research

and Moertl (2003) and underscores that causal analysis provides foundation for the generation of original social innovation ideas. Peterson et al. (2013) examined the effectiveness of training-oriented strategies for the management of constraints affecting creative problem-solving. They found that constraint management training improves creative problemsolving performance and enhances the quality, originality, and sophistication of social innovation. While both Mumford and Moertl (2003) and Peterson et al. (2013) consider addressing social challenges calls for creative thought, there is a methodological similarity between Marcy and Mumford (2007) and Peterson et al. (2013) where both studies use the experimental manipulations approach to test the hypotheses. Cluster 4 is formed by research conducted by Henderson (1993) and Marcy (2015b) and mainly builds arguments based on the behaviors and expectations of social structure and social elites. Henderson (1993) explains the nature of social movements contributing to social innovation. They assert that social movements can arise at the spaces in social structures and provide corrective feedback and creative approaches to social evolution suggesting that the conceptual tools of non-linear systems dynamics, chaos, and complexity modelling as methods of studying social movements which are often informal, unpredictable, and difficult to identify. Marcy (2015b), following historical records as a case study approach, investigates leader cognition to identify key differences in the cognitions of socially-innovative leaders and their impact on the generation and implementation of social innovation. Basically, she finds two social change approaches: a rearrangement of resources within a system and a redistribution of resources. She clarifies the differences in terms of the level of collaboration involved in these processes. Rearrangement of resources expect agreement from both parties given that collaboration is employed as a strategic tactic while redistribution of resources demonstrates differences in consensus for which civil tactics such as campaigning, will be used as primary modes of intervention. It is worthy to note that Marcy (2015b) builds on Henderson (1993) to accentuate that not every notable social innovations began with collaboration with social system elites or the prevailing social system, which is a statement contradictory to Mumford (2002) who maintained that the collaboration with elites in the social system is a key tactic for social innovators. Therefore, Marcy (2015b) argues that the context and goals of social innovation being proposed create differences in tactics used by social innovators. Specifically, she points out that the radical social innovation as a novel form of social innovation directly challenges the status, power, and values of social elites in 178

Embracing Social Innovation in Creativity Research

an organizational system whereas incremental social innovations demand less for sense breaking. Moreover, leaders of radical social innovation put together a team of creative individuals with right qualities. However, this behavioral requirement is different from those of incremental social innovations who will generally work toward inclusion and cultivating collaboration with elites.

INTERPRETING SOCIAL INNOVATION FROM THE CREATIVITY PERSPECTIVE A product is a social innovation if it is motivated by social needs and brings value to society by meeting social needs (Mulgan 2006; Phills, Deiglmeier, and Miller 2008). Thus, if a creative product brings social value but is not motivated by social needs, it is more likely a technological innovation. Nonetheless, technological innovations can sometimes emerge from social innovations. If a product is motivated by social needs but does not bring social value, then it is not creative since there is no value (Jiang and Thagard 2014). Therefore, social value, creativity and social motivation are three essential ingredients of a social innovation as indicated in Figure 3 below. Figure 3. Main qualifiers for a social innovation

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Authors

The aim of social innovation is to fulfil social needs. Technological innovation, however, is generally motivated by profit (Bulut, Eren, and Halac 2013). Accordingly, Mumford (2002, p. 253) define social innovation as “the generation and implementation of new ideas about how people should 179

Embracing Social Innovation in Creativity Research

organize interpersonal activities, or social interactions, to meet one or more common goals”. If this is organized along a continuum, one extreme can be the development of new ideas about social organization or social relationships, new types of social institutions, new ideas about government or new social movements. The other extreme of the continuum may comprise social innovation, involving the creation of new processes and procedures for structuring collaborative work, the introduction of new social practices in a group or the development of new business practices (Mumford 2002). Through innovative means, these social innovations help tackle global social challenges (Bulut et al. 2013) such as climate change and poverty or more localized challenges such as the need for a small community garden (Goldenberg, Kamoji, Orton, and Williamson 2009). Social innovation transforms new knowledge and technologies into policies and services for local, national and global application (Phipps and Shapson 2009). A high rate of innovation in-turn contributes to more intellectual capital, social capital, economic growth, and enhanced quality of life and cultural engagement. In examining the creative elements of social innovation development, Jiang and Thagard (2014) introduce eight key characteristics of social innovation: (1) mental representations; (2) is generated by a problem-solving process; (3) is goal oriented – short-term and long-term; (4) involves both social and psychological mechanisms of emotion; (5) involves emotional reactions to risk; (6) is prompted by cognitive processes of association and analogy; (7) is realized through procedural creativity and; (8) requires interactions among people. These characteristics and others discussed in this chapter can be summarized as follows (Figure 4). Figure 4. Main characteristics of social innovation in the creativity perspective

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Authors

180

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Embracing Social Innovation in Creativity Research

Social innovation occurs in response to pressing social needs and in consideration of current social conditions (Mumford 2002). Social innovation results from a combination of mental representations that can be verbal, visual or kinesthetic. This involves a problem-solving process and sometimes the solution occurs serendipitously. Problem-solving usually takes place in the internal mental world and is driven by what innovators believe should change in order to make the world a better place. Serendipity, as such, depends on the external world and is driven by what innovator/s see and talk about with others. Social innovation is goal-oriented, including both short-term and long-term goals. Social innovation involves both psychological and social mechanisms of emotions. Fear, rage, frustration, hope and faith are some of the most common psychological emotions fueling the creative motivation of social innovators. The most common social mechanisms for communicating emotions include emotional contagion by mimicry, sympathy, social cuing and power manipulation. When there is a conñict between emotional responses and deliberate assessments (e.g., cost-beneðt analyses) emotional reactions to risk become involved in social innovation. Regarding rationality however, association and analogy are the two primary cognitive processes prompting social innovation. Association is the psychological process of activating and spreading mental representations, which can be combined into something original (Schröder and Thagard 2013). Analogy transfers relational information from one problem to another new problem that requires a solution. Social innovation is often seen as procedural creativity, where the new product or solution is a method consisting of new rules for doing things. Procedural creativity requires the introduction of new procedures rather than concepts, hypotheses or things that are usually considered creative products. This view recognizes the following steps: (a) start with goals that indicate a speciðc problem to be solved; (b) try to solve the problem by processes such as reasoning, association, analogy, and representation combination; (c) arrive at a speciðc solution to a speciðc problem; (d) generalize the successful solution into a method of the form. Social innovation requires interactions among people, which include support, rejection and reaction to rejection (Jiang and Thagard 2014). An active exchange of information and elaboration of ideas through interchange with others signals a conducive climate for social innovation. New ideas must have tangible benefits and be capable of low-cost implementation within the context of existing systems. Innovators identify restrictions and obstacles to solutions and find strategies to circumvent or mitigate these. 181

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Embracing Social Innovation in Creativity Research

Support of financiers is most often essential, along with the support of all relevant constituencies. There is thus a process of revision and refinement of an interactive and integrative nature as support is acquired and solutions refined. Lastly, effective communication is an essential for ensuring widespread acceptance of the innovation (Mumford 2002). The above discussion leaders to following major conclusions related to social innovation research in creativity perspective. The seminal work by Mumford (2002) has garnered interest among creativity researchers who want to better understand the generation and implementation of social innovation. To this end, studying how creative thought occurs in different domains of endeavor has been one of the key research areas in the field. Scott et al. (2005) examine the relative merits of analogical and case-based solution paths (alternative solution paths) that might be used in conceptual combination. Marcy and Mumford (2007) later expand on the work of Scott et al. (2005), as discussed earlier in the chapter. Similarly, Hunter et al. (2008) investigate the effects of different knowledge structures, including schematic, associational, and casebased knowledge, on idea generation and creative problem-solving. Further advancing social innovation research addressing creative thinking, Antes and Mumford (2009) looked at how temporal orientation - a focus on the past, present, or future, and perception of it, impact on creative thought. Work by Jiang and Thagard (2014) closely considered the notion that creativity in social innovation may require both cognitive and social processes. Separately to this, Mumford and Moertl (2003) examine idea generation, development and refinement of social innovations and social factors that promote their implementation. They argue that social innovation differs from other forms of creativity since the involvement of large number of people in the development and implementation changes the pattern of interaction requiring investment of a substantial amount of resources and elite support. Linking to this line of research, studies looking at how networks, groups, and leadership affect social innovation idea generation and implementation. One of the oldest publications from Taylor (1970) asserted that successful social innovation depends on the involvement of other groups and agencies while Mumford and Moertl (2003) accentuated the importance of visionary leadership and elite support. As a result, they emphasized the importance of persuasion skills of the leader which becomes necessary to obtain the elite support, financial resources and to attract early adaptors of social innovation solution. In a recent review, van der Have and Rubalcaba (2016, p. 1925) recognized “social innovation as greater collaboration between multiple actors”. However, Mumford and Moertl (2003) argued that success of social 182

Embracing Social Innovation in Creativity Research

innovation not only depends on the actor collaboration, but also on the linkage established with other initiatives, the flexibility of adapting to social trends and the development of new technologies. Studying leader cognition, Marcy (2015a) argue that the quality of leader thought likely plays a notable role in the generation and implementation of social innovations which is a finding supporting Marcy and Mumford (2007) and Mumford (2002). Given the complexity and diversity in social innovation, leaders to develop a team of individuals who is comfortable and able to work with different logics and diverse backgrounds; explore and balance different logics of financing and to have explicit policies for surplus generation and subsequent investment in innovation (Vickers et al. 2017). In terms of methodologies, as observed throughout, this line of research relies heavily on the use of experimental designs (Peterson et al. 2013; Scott et al. 2005), especially classic experimental designs (Hunter et al. 2008) and case-based studies (Jiang and Thagard 2014; Mumford 2002; Mumford and Moertl 2003). Among the scientific and quantitative approaches, historic records as case studies were used in some of the studies such as Mumford (2002) and Mumford and Moertl (2003) while causal analysis was one of the prominent methods employed in studies such as Marcy and Mumford (2007).

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CASE STUDY: HABITAT FOR HUMANITY Clarence Jordan was a farmer and an ordained minister who founded Koinonia Farm in the early 1940s. His early mission was to live in a community with people from all backgrounds and to guard against materialism and militarism. He fulfilled this mission by living happily in a multicultural community, continuing to thrive even during communist allegations in the 1950s and racial turmoil in the 1960s (Walmer 2018). Millard and Linda Fuller first arrived in Koinonia in 1965 to begin a new life of Christian service, leaving behind a successful business and an affluent lifestyle in Montgomery, Alabama. Millard and Linda Fuller were inspired by the work and ideals of the farming community. “It was a great time of transition for us,” Millard later wrote (Habitat International 2019). Jordan’s experience as a farmer and a minister and the business experience of Millard Fuller gave rise to a social innovation. It was to be a system of using donated money, material and voluntary labor to build homes for low-income families (Martin 2009). Reflecting on the experiential nature of social innovation (Mumford et al. 2012), this concept was also known as “partnership housing”, which was centered on those in 183

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Embracing Social Innovation in Creativity Research

need of adequate shelter, working side-by-side with volunteers to build simple, decent houses (Habitat International 2019). This case exemplifies how people working in familiar domains use personal engagement and active analysis to develop solutions to social innovation problems (Marcy and Mumford 2007). Social innovations, as such, may be particularly likely to arise from successful people who have had somewhat atypical experiences, originate from marginalized backgrounds and have acquired expertise. These nontypical experiences can provide people not only with a motivation for doing things differently, but also with a cognitive basis for creating new ways of doing things (Mumford 2002; Mumford and Moertl 2003). Furthermore, having substantial familiarity with a domain, extant case models1 and expertise provides a sufficient basis for identifying and rearranging causes to generate novel ideas and empower problem-solving (Marcy and Mumford 2007). The problem faced by Jordan and Fuller was that there were “1.6 billion people around the world lacking adequate shelter.” Habitat for Humanity’s vision, as such, was a world where everyone has a decent place to live. It has since evolved from a dream of building 100,000 houses to an organization helping over 22 million people improve their housing conditions in all 50 American states and 70 other countries (Milnes 2019). Their creative solution brings social value, as motivated by social challenges. Habitat is working to solve an ongoing problem through a creative problemsolving approach (Jiang and Thagard 2014). Habit for Humanity ensures that the houses are developed at no profit and interest is not charged on the loans. Building costs are financed by a revolving fund called “The Fund for Humanity.” The fund is financed through the new homeowners’ house payments. The no-interest loans are afforded by supporters and fundraising activities. In 1968, they began building houses for poor people nearby to Koinonia. They then went to Zaire in 1973 and began a new project, leading to the development of 114 houses. Three years later, a group of stakeholders met in a converted chicken barn in Koinonia Farm, where the decision was made to establish Habitat for Humanity International. The participants agreed that the organization would work through local chapters. The decision was also made to accept government money for infrastructure improvements, including streets and sidewalks. These developments confirm what Marcy (2015b) found as to how social innovating leaders behaves in implementing solutions. She accentuated that the leaders of radical social innovations require sense-breaking as a cognitive skill since their context needs more systemic change requiring working with the public to accept new ideas regarding social relationships. This further calls for radical social innovation driving 184

Embracing Social Innovation in Creativity Research

leaders to reach out directly to the public to effect change whereas leaders of incremental innovations favor to deal directly with elites rather than the public at large. This theoretical explanation is well-supported by the following quote clarifying the new future for Koinonia in an open letter to the friends of Koinonia Farm:

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

What the poor need is not charity but capital, not caseworkers but coworkers. And what the rich need is a wise, honorable and just way of divesting themselves of their overabundance. The Fund for Humanity will meet both needs. Money for the fund will come from shared gifts by those who feel they have more than they need and from non-interest-bearing loans from those who cannot afford to make a gift but who do want to provide working capital for the disinherited…The fund will give away no money…It is not a handout. (Habitat for Humanity International 2020, p. 5). Social innovations, moreover, will emerge from and be embedded within a broader network of enterprise. They are often pursued by individuals with a history of innovative endeavors, providing lessons to be used in later endeavors (Mumford 2002). The goal-oriented nature of social innovation (Jiang and Thagard 2014) was on full display on a handwritten note from the meeting outlining the group’s grand ambition: to build housing for a million low-income people. The goal was reached in August of 2005, when home number 200,000 was developed, with each home housing an average of five people (Martin 2009). The rather prolonged development period characterizes these types of social innovations. It may be traced to several considerations: the need to navigate diverse application requirements in several different contexts; the need to develop efficient, flexible procedures applicable across a range of settings and; the need to acquire demonstration sites for initial application and procedural refinements (Mumford and Moertl 2003). The organization strived to make an impact in the housing deficit in all targeted locations, but the financing challenges were far more significant than anticipated. The statistics showed that 1 in every 4 people worldwide lacked adequate shelter. In addition, virtually nowhere in the USA could a full-time employee working at minimum wage afford a one-bedroom apartment (Habitat International 2019). This knowledge spurred Habitat to expand beyond improving housing conditions to actively advocating for the improvement of living conditions in general. They also developed a “three-house plan” with interdependent strategies building upon one another. House 1 involved building community 185

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Embracing Social Innovation in Creativity Research

impact through improving housing conditions. House 2 included building sector impact through partnering to increase shelter access. House 3 was the most ambitious - building societal impact through inspiring action to end poverty housing (Milnes 2019). The congruence of an innovation with other social trends is another important aspect of successful social innovation. These creative social solutions should not only fit with the demands imposed by broader social trends, but they should be flexible enough to be adapted to changes in social requirements and needs of different constituencies. The need for, and retention of, flexible core concepts is thus another important factor to influence the success and dissemination of social innovation. New technologies can enhance flexibility, and are therefore important to the success of many social innovations (Hunter et al. 2008). In another domain, the leadership literature indicates that social innovation involves certain cognitive operations and expertise not always seen in other forms of creative thought. Social innovation differs from other forms of creativity in that the development and eventual implementation of new ideas involves large numbers of people and changes in their daily patterns of interaction (Mumford and Moertl 2003). The Chicago Tribune, for example, notes that: “...he sees Habitat as a hammer that can drive the image of a woman in a rat-infested apartment as deep into the mind of America as the image of an African child with a distended stomach.” Not only does social innovation require visionary leadership, but also demands leaders who are unusually skilled at the art of persuasion. Persuasion is, of course, necessary to acquire elite support and financial resources, and to attract early adaptors who will maintain, extend, and disseminate ideas (Mumford 2002). In the case study example provided, the skills included fund-raising diplomacy, enthusiastic speech delivery and a talent for making use of the news media (Martin 2009). Now, more than a million people live in the homes developed by Habitat for Humanity, residing in more than 100 countries. There are 180 in New York City, including some that former President Jimmy Carter, a long time Habitat supporter and volunteer, personally helped construct. Mr. Carter once said that “he (Fuller) was an inspiration to me, other members of our family, and an untold number of volunteers who worked side by side under his leadership.” Former President Bill Clinton has also volunteered on Habitat projects. When he presented Mr. Fuller the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1996, he said, “I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that Millard Fuller has literally revolutionized the concept of philanthropy.” “What will little Genesis become?” he asked at the time. “What will little Serenity become? 186

Embracing Social Innovation in Creativity Research

We don’t know, but we know one thing: if we give them a good place to live, they’ve got a better chance.”

CONCLUSION Creativity research within social innovation literature is a recently growing domain. Creativity research examines social innovation from psychological perspectives, expanding the boundaries established by sociological framings of social change and transformation. With the seminal work of Mumford, M.D. providing impetus into this research, we now have a flourishing of insight into the creativity and cognition-based understanding of social innovation. In this context, creativity research is seen to be largely focused on topics surrounding creative thought and the knowledge structures that support and enable social innovation. Indeed, creativity is now recognized, alongside social value and social motivation as one of the three essential enablers of social innovation. However, this knowledge domain is yet to expand beyond a focus on social innovation outputs and yet to offer insights into the long-term outcomes of social innovation, such as social change and social transformation. Therefore, creativity research within social innovation literature can be viewed as a practical and goal-oriented view. It involves psychological and social mechanisms of emotion in explaining the configuration and development of social relationships among people and organizations aiming to address social challenges.

REFERENCES

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Amabile, T. M. (2012). Componential Theory of Creativity. Harvard Business School, 12(96), 1-10. Antes, A. L., & Mumford, M. D. (2009). Effects of Time Frame on Creative Thought: Process Versus Problem-Solving Effects. Creativity Research Journal, 21(2-3), 166–182. doi:10.1080/10400410902855267 Basadur, M., Runco, M. A., & Vegaxy, L. A. (2000). Understanding How Creative Thinking Skills, Attitudes and Behaviors Work Together: A Causal Process Model. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 34(2), 77–100. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2000.tb01203.x 187

Embracing Social Innovation in Creativity Research

Besemer, S. P., & O’Quin, K. (1999). Confirming the Three-Factor Creative Product Analysis Matrix Model in an American Sample. Creativity Research Journal, 12(4), 287–296. doi:10.120715326934crj1204_6 Bulut, C., Eren, H., & Halac, D. S. (2013). Which One Triggers the Other? Technological or Social Innovation. Creativity Research Journal, 25(4), 436–445. doi:10.1080/10400419.2013.843358 Chang, C.-C., Peng, L.-P., Lin, J.-S., & Liang, C. (2015). Predicting the Creativity of Design Majors Based on the Interaction of Diverse Personality Traits. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(4), 371–382. doi:10.1080/14703297.2014.999697 Estes, W. K. (1991). Cognitive Architectures from the Standpoint of an Experimental Psychologist. Annual Review of Psychology, 42(1), 1–29. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.42.020191.000245 Goldenberg, M., Kamoji, W., Orton, L., & Williamson, M. (2009). Social Innovation in Canada: An Update. Citeseer. Habitat for Humanity International. (2020). Koinonia Farm and the Fund for Humanity. Retrieved from https://www.habitat.org/ap/about/how-we-began Habitat International. (2019). Learn More About How Habitat Began: AsiaPacific. Retrieved from https://www.habitat.org/ap/about/how-we-began Henderson, H. (1993). Social Innovation and Citizen Movements. Futures, 25(3), 322–338. doi:10.1016/0016-3287(93)90140-O Hershey, D. A., Walsh, D. A., Read, S. J., & Chulef, A. S. (1990). The Effects of Expertise on Financial Problem Solving: Evidence for Goal-Directed, Problem-Solving Scripts. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46(1), 77–101. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(90)90023-3

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Howaldt, J., & Schwarz, M. (2010). Social Innovation: Concepts, Research Fields and International Trends. RWTH Aachen University. Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Distributed Representations of Structure: A Theory of Analogical Access and Mapping. Psychological Review, 104(3), 427–440. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.104.3.427

188

Embracing Social Innovation in Creativity Research

Hunter, S. T., Bedell-Avers, K. E., Hunsicker, C. M., Mumford, M. D., & Ligon, G. S. (2008). Applying Multiple Knowledge Structures in Creative Thought: Effects on Idea Generation and Problem-Solving. Creativity Research Journal, 20(2), 137–154. doi:10.1080/10400410802088779 Jiang, M., & Thagard, P. (2014). Creative Cognition in Social Innovation. Creativity Research Journal, 26(4), 375–388. doi:10.1080/10400419.2014 .961774 Kolodner, J. L. (1997). Educational Implications of Analogy: A View from Case-Based Reasoning. The American Psychologist, 52(1), 57–64. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.1.57 Marcy, R. T. (2015a). Breaking Mental Models as a Form of Creative Destruction: The Role of Leader Cognition in Radical Social Innovations. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(3), 370–385. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.02.004 Marcy, R. T. (2015b). Breaking Mental Models as a Form of Creative Destruction: The Role of Leader Cognition in Radical Social Innovations. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(3), 370–385. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.02.004 Marcy, R. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Social Innovation: Enhancing Creative Performance through Causal Analysis. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2-3), 123–140. doi:10.1080/10400410701397180 Martin, D. (2009). Millard Fuller, 74, Who Founded Habitat for Humanity, Is Dead. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes. com/2009/02/04/us/04fuller.html Martinez, F., O’Sullivan, P., Smith, M., & Esposito, M. (2017). Perspectives on the Role of Business in Social Innovation. Journal of Management Development, 36(5), 681–695. doi:10.1108/JMD-10-2016-0212

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Mednick, M. T., Mednick, S. A., & Jung, C. C. (1964). Continual Association as a Function of Level of Creativity and Type of Verbal Stimulus. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69(5), 511–515. doi:10.1037/h0041086 Milnes, E. (2019). Building a Strategy for Problem Solving: Habitat’s Three Houses. Retrieved from https://www.moresteam.com/blog/habitatfor-humanity.cfm

189

Embracing Social Innovation in Creativity Research

Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2004). Do Personal Characteristics and Cultural Values That Promote Innovation, Quality, and Efficiency Compete or Complement Each Other? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 175–199. doi:10.1002/job.237 Mobley, M. I., Doares, L. M., & Mumford, M. D. (1992). Process Analytic Models of Creative Capacities: Evidence for the Combination and Reorganization Process. Creativity Research Journal, 5(2), 125–155. doi:10.1080/10400419209534428 Mulgan, G. (2006). The Process of Social Innovation. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1(2), 145–162. doi:10.1162/itgg.2006.1.2.145 Mumford, M., & Norris, D. (1999). Heuristics. In Encyclopedia of Creativity. Academic Press. Mumford, M. D. (2002). Social Innovation: Ten Cases from Benjamin Franklin. Creativity Research Journal, 14(2), 253–266. doi:10.1207/ S15326934CRJ1402_11 Mumford, M. D., Martin, R., Elliott, S., & McIntosh, T. (2018). Creative Failure: Why Can’t People Solve Creative Problems. The Journal of Creative Behavior. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/jocb.372 Mumford, M. D., Medeiros, K. E., & Partlow, P. J. (2012). Creative Thinking: Processes, Strategies, and Knowledge. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(1), 30–47. doi:10.1002/jocb.003 Mumford, M. D., & Moertl, P. (2003). Cases of Social Innovation: Lessons from Two Innovations in the 20th Century. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2-3), 261–266. doi:10.1080/10400419.2003.9651418

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Peng, X.-E., & Liang, C. (2019). Before Nonprofit Organisations Become Social Enterprises. Voluntas, 30(3), 460–474. doi:10.100711266-018-00071-7 Peterson, D. R., Barrett, J. D., Hester, K. S., Robledo, I. C., Hougen, D. F., Day, E. A., & Mumford, M. D. (2013). Teaching People to Manage Constraints: Effects on Creative Problem-Solving. Creativity Research Journal, 25(3), 335–347. doi:10.1080/10400419.2013.813809 Phills, J. A., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. (2008). Rediscovering Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(4), 34–43.

190

Embracing Social Innovation in Creativity Research

Phipps, D. J., & Shapson, S. (2009). Knowledge Mobilisation Builds Local Research Collaborations for Social Innovation. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 5(3), 211-227. Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric Approaches to the Study of Human Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 35–60). Cambridge University Press. Policastro, E., & Gardner, H. (1999). From Case Studies to Robust (Generalizations: An Approach to the Study of Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (p. 213). Cambridge University Press. Reber, A. S. (1992). The Cognitive Unconscious: An Evolutionary Perspective. Consciousness and Cognition, 1(2), 93–133. doi:10.1016/10538100(92)90051-B Sakamoto, Y., & Love, B. C. (2004). Schematic Influences on Category Learning and Recognition Memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 133(4), 534–553. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.4.534 Santos, F. M. (2012). A Positive Theory of Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 335–351. doi:10.100710551-012-1413-4 Schröder, T., & Thagard, P. (2013). The Affective Meanings of Automatic Social Behaviors: Three Mechanisms That Explain Priming. Psychological Review, 120(1), 255–280. doi:10.1037/a0030972 Scott, G. M., Lonergan, D. C., & Mumford, M. D. (2005). Conceptual Combination: Alternative Knowledge Structures, Alternative Heuristics. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 79–98. doi:10.120715326934crj1701_7

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Taylor, J. B. (1970). Introducing Social Innovation. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 6(1), 69–77. doi:10.1177/002188637000600104 van der Have, R. P., & Rubalcaba, L. (2016). Social Innovation Research: An Emerging Area of Innovation Studies? Research Policy, 45(9), 1923–1935. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2016.06.010 Vickers, I., Lyon, F., Sepulveda, L., & McMullin, C. (2017). Public Service Innovation and Multiple Institutional Logics: The Case of Hybrid Social Enterprise Providers of Health and Wellbeing. Research Policy, 46(10), 1755–1768. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2017.08.003

191

Embracing Social Innovation in Creativity Research

Walmer, J. (2018). Habitat for Humanity: Eradicating Poverty through Affordable Housing. Retrieved from https://borgenproject.org/habitat-forhumanity-eradicating-poverty-through-affordable-housing/ Williams, R., Runco, M. A., & Berlow, E. (2016). Mapping the Themes, Impact, and Cohesion of Creativity Research over the Last 25 Years. Creativity Research Journal, 28(4), 385–394. doi:10.1080/10400419.2016.1230358

ADDITIONAL READING Amabile, T. M. (2018). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780429501234 Marcy, R. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Social innovation: Enhancing creative performance through causal analysis. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2-3), 123–140. doi:10.1080/10400410701397180 Mumford, M. D. (2002). Social Innovation: Ten Cases from Benjamin Franklin. Creativity Research Journal, 14(2), 253–266. doi:10.1207/ S15326934CRJ1402_11 Mumford, M. D., Martin, R., Elliott, S., & McIntosh, T. (2018). Creative Failure: Why Can’t People Solve Creative Problems. The Journal of Creative Behavior. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/jocb.372

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Mumford, M. D., Medeiros, K. E., & Partlow, P. J. (2012). Creative Thinking: Processes, Strategies, and Knowledge. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(1), 30–47. doi:10.1002/jocb.003 Mumford, M. D., & Mulhearn, T. J. (2019). Leading creative research and development efforts: A literature review and proposed framework for the engineering domain. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part C, Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 233(2), 403–414. doi:10.1177/0954406218763449

192

Embracing Social Innovation in Creativity Research

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Case Modelling: A technique of depicting the objectives of users, communication between users and the systems and approaches within the system to meet the stated objectives in relation to resolving a problem. Creative Cognition: The mental processes of facilitating and generating new and useful ideas. Experimental Design: Experimental research designs follow scientific approach to study a set of manipulative variables against a set of control group of variables which are kept constant. Participants are allocated in to two groups: experimental group and control group. Experimental Manipulation: Experimental manipulation is the process of intentional change of testing variables, generally, the independent variables (treatment variables) of a study to see the effects on the dependent variable. Institutional Logics Approach: The set of material practices and symbolic systems including assumptions, values, and beliefs by which individuals and organizations provide meaning to their daily activity, organize time and space, and reproduce their lives and experiences. Social Refinement Process: Identifying social restrictions to proposed social innovation and potential reactions and making needed revisions to the solution.

193

194

Chapter 9

A Community Psychological Perspective of Social Innovation

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

ABSTRACT The objectives of this chapter are to identify the patterns of community psychology research and to clarify the application of community psychology principles within the social innovation field. Community psychology discussions in social innovation research can be traced back to the 1960s whilst there is only a minimal presence of the same to be found after 2003. Fairweather’s experimental social innovation and dissemination (ESID) model places social innovation in the community psychology research landscape. Two main knowledge clusters can be found in community psychology research. The first knowledge cluster focuses on applications of the ESID model and fidelity adaptation in social programme design and development. The second cluster focuses on phases of the ESID model and its applicability in social policy development. The social change created by the ESID approach is evident through social reform outcomes confirming that such social innovations are micro-level contributions of social reform facilitating meso-level social change.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-4588-1.ch009 Copyright © 2021, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

A Community Psychological Perspective of Social Innovation

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION The community psychology perspective of social innovation is based on humanitarian and multidisciplinary values. It proposes a scientific approach for addressing social problems at the community level. The field of community psychology is rooted in community mental health research (Townley, Brown, and Sylvestre 2018). Pioneering community psychology scholars first looked at the challenges of people living with serious mental illness in the community (Nelson, Kloos, and Ornelas 2014). Modern community psychology research looks beyond this and seeks to better address a wide range of social, environmental, political and economic issues (Eccleston and Perkins 2019). Hence, modern research in this field is focused on social settings and systems and institutions that influence communities by making them healthier or putting them at risk. Community psychologists and scholars aim to optimize the well-being of communities and individuals with innovative interventions that are designed in consideration of related disciplines and through collaboration with affected community members (Moritsugu, Vera, Wong, and Duffy 2019). The field of community psychology has a clear set of values, well-developed theories, a wide focus of research and action strategies to examine the many ways that social systems can preserve social injustice, oppression and hardship. This helps to devise solutions for social change and the betterment and well‐being of communities. What distinguishes community psychology from traditional applied science is its systematic and transdisciplinary approach to questioning individual, social and societal issues, as further bolstered by scientific methods of practice (Stark 2019). This is reflected in the four key principles of the community psychology literature, as noted in Figure 1 below (SCRA 2019). The need for explicit attention to and respect for diversity among people and settings is a major principle of community psychology. Through an ecological focus, it emphasizes that human competencies and problems are best understood by viewing people as within their social, cultural, economic, geographic and historical contexts. Community psychology research and practice encourage active collaboration among researchers, practitioners and community members, and the use of multiple methodologies. Research and actions are aimed at serving targeted communities by building on their needs and preferences and by actively involving them in the design of strategies and

195

A Community Psychological Perspective of Social Innovation

Figure 1. Principles of community psychology

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Authors

solutions. Change strategies are needed at multiple levels to foster settings that promote competence and well-being (SCRA 2019). Unlike more traditional psychology that focuses mainly on the individual, the unit of analysis of community psychology is “community” (Choi and Majumdar 2015) which also includes the individual and aims to bring about social change (Hazel and Onaga 2003). Community psychologists address problems such as dysfunctional school systems, racial and gender discrimination, intergroup conflicts, and socio-economic disparities (Maton 2000). Social innovation in community psychology is underpinned by humanitarian values such as compassion, caring, humility and a deep sense of shared humanity (Hazel and Onaga 2003; Seidman 2003). This is described in the Experimental Social Innovation and Dissemination (ESID) model by (Fairweather 1964). The purpose of ESID approaches is ‘to create a new social subsystem whose methods include innovating models as alternative solutions to social problems, experimentally evaluating them, and disseminating the information to those who can make the appropriate changes’ (Fairweather 1967, p. vi). From the perspective of community psychology, social innovations are mechanisms to bring about positive social change to groups and communities (Choi and Majumdar 2015). The objectives of this chapter are to firstly identify patterns of community psychology research on social innovation and secondly to clarify the application of community psychology principles in social innovation. What follows is a detailed discussion on the patterns of community psychology research within the social innovation literature. Furthermore, a detailed account 196

A Community Psychological Perspective of Social Innovation

of the ESID model is provided, including the key principles of ESID and community psychology - discussed in relation to a case study: the Alberta Family Wellness initiative.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH IN SOCIAL INNOVATION LITERATURE Community psychology research can be traced back to the embryonic stage of social innovation literature in the 1960’s. Notably, the beginnings are marked by G.W Fairweather’s work on the Experimental Social Innovation and Dissemination framework. Following on from this, there are two main knowledge clusters, as evident in the co-citation network based on community psychology references found in social innovation literature (Figure 2). Cluster 1 includes six publications: Blakely et al. (1987); Calsyn (2003); Emshoff et al. (2003); Fairweather (1964); Seidman (2003) and Tsemberis, Moran, Shinn, Asmussen, and Shern (2003). This cluster mainly focuses on applications of program-based approaches to addressing challenges associated with mental illness at the community level. Specifically, this includes the applications of Fairweather’s (1964) ESID approach and fidelity adaptation in designing and implementing social programs. Fairweather (1964) described the role and approach of scientists and experimental methods in solving social problems. Blakely et al. (1987), however, looked at fidelity and adaptation, introducing a modified Research, Development and Diffusion (RD&D) model as a strategy for disseminating social program innovations. Fidelity and adaptation are intervention strategies in community program implementation where fidelity or the implementation fidelity is the level of an intervention or a replicated program is delivered consistently with the original program (Emshoff et al. 2003; Van Daele, Van Audenhove, Hermans, Van den Bergh, and Van den Broucke 2014). They measured the program fidelity (implementation fidelity), reinvention, and effectiveness in a diverse set of program settings and refining the methodology for measuring innovation implementation. Psychology, Seidman (2003) recognizes Fairweather’s ESID approach as a legacy for future community psychology research and as a means to develop more meaningful and focused ecological theories of social change; theories which can help design and disseminate innovative social programs. Extending the discussion in this knowledge cluster, Emshoff et al. (2003) observe that 197

A Community Psychological Perspective of Social Innovation

Figure 2. Co-citation network of community psychology literature in social innovation research

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Authors

the scholarship surrounding social program implementation is divided over the issue of whether new programs should be disseminated (i.e. deliberately sharing research findings related to social programs to relevant groups and communities) and implemented with fidelity or implemented according to idiosyncratic needs, values and resources of local adopters. Tsemberis et al. (2003) illustrate Fairweather’s approach to Experimental Social Innovation and Dissemination with two experimental studies of programs to reduce homelessness. They argue that mental illness and substance abuse create less functional impairment than generally assumed and therefore, with proper support, individuals with mental illness can live, work and exercise self-governance in a community setting. Calsyn (2003) recommends a modified Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) model. This is a form of community-based mental health care for individuals experiencing serious mental illness which interferes with their ability to live in the community and find stable housing. In an introduction to a special issue published in the American Journal of Community, they observe fidelity is associated with program effectiveness and that well-operationalized programs are usually adopted and implemented with a degree of fidelity acceptable to program developers. Cluster 2 comprises six publications, predominantly from G.W. Fairweather. This work includes Emshoff et al. (2003); Fairweather (1967); Fairweather, Sanders, Tonartzky, and Harris Jr (1974); Fairweather and Tornatzky (1977); Tornatzky, Fergus, and Avellar (2013) and Sullivan (2003). Fairweather 198

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

A Community Psychological Perspective of Social Innovation

(1967), firstly, presents a behavioral, science-based research technique to facilitate social scientists and community leaders to collaborate and develop practical and humanitarian solutions to social problems. The need for natural and realistic models of social systems which can be compared with existing social practices or institutions is emphasized by the experimental approach proposed in this work. Following on from this, Fairweather et al. (1974) discusses the findings of an experiment designed to identify parameters of social change in mental health organizations, while also emphasizing the need for social and organizational change in treating mental illness. Building on this work, Fairweather and Tornatzky (1977) propose two types of methods in working with social problems: (1) methods for evaluating social models aimed at solving problems and; (2) methods for disseminating models beneficial to the state, the region and nation. They highlight the potential contribution of scientists to the welfare of society. Scientists, for example, use scientific methods to aid social decision-making and social policy. Emshoff et al. (2003) argue that the dissemination phase of the ESID model has been often overlooked in research efforts to create innovative and widespread social change. We have not fully considered human and organizational dynamics of replicating with fidelity as a prerequisite of social innovation dissemination. Sullivan (2003), however, describes a successful application of the ESID model to reducing male violence against women. He found that women who received a targeted intervention, reported less violence over time, higher social support and perceived quality of life. Lastly, Tornatzky et al. (2013) elaborate on the concerns, design, and methodologies of a an experiment into society’s perception of innovation based on a social innovation – the Community Lodge which is a living and working arrangement for patients who previously had mental issues. Social innovation is facilitated by social interaction and incremental social innovations resulted in larger scale social change. Social innovation implementation deals with a significant level of uncertainty for an organization and thus, it requires fluidity and flexibility of social processes to cope up with the uncertainty. Interactive nature of adapting organization and less bureaucratic forms of structures encourage and enhance social innovation implementation. Evidently, the key discussion addressing social innovation in community psychology research builds on Fairweather’s ESID model. Through the experimental social innovation approach, Fairweather (1972) places humanitarian values at the center of tackling social problems and affecting social change. This approach involves translating humanitarian values in to actions targeting a social problem, employing scientific methods and 199

A Community Psychological Perspective of Social Innovation

continuously engaging in research on the identified social problem (Fairweather 1972). Further supporting this approach, Seidman (2003) argues that social regularities need to be a central focus of assessing and devising social interventions to produce social change. Social regularities, is a key concept in social setting theory, and include patterned social interactions such as social norms, relationships and participation in activities which overtime determine the individual-level and social-setting level outcomes (Seidman 1990). Accordingly, much of this research is concerned with the varied aspects of program design and development to addressing social challenges pertaining to mental health. The roots of this literature, discussed above, are largely reflected in modern research within community psychology; particularly in research on critical community psychology. It is supported by values of power-sharing and social justice; it is praxis-oriented as it emphasizes solidarity with oppressed communities and it aims to create transformative and positive social change (Nelson and Evans 2014). A focus on social transformation, in particular, has come to prominence recently in the literature (Gokani and Walsh 2017). Although earlier scholars advocated for ‘social change’ (incremental level of changes occurred in the social settings), modern research has refined the concept into ‘social transformation’ (fundamental changes occurred in the society across various aspects including cultural and institutional elements). In any case, social change and social transformation are observed to require changes at the systemic level of society. However, this research area alone cannot deliver change at the systemic level. Rather, it supports larger, messolevel initiatives by providing effective and innovative micro-level reform.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL INNOVATION DISSEMINATION (ESID) Experimental Social Innovation and Dissemination (ESID) is a methodological approach borne out of the introduction of “social engineering” by social scientists in the 1960’s. This approach emphasizes the need to integrate scientific methods into processes of solving social problems. The pioneering work on the ESID model was first presented by Fairweather (1967) as an approach to designing innovative strategies and affecting social change (Hazel and Onaga 2003). ESID is a multi-step process comprises two main stages and sub-stages within. Stage 1 involves the development and validation of innovative social 200

A Community Psychological Perspective of Social Innovation

Figure 3. Key principles of ESID model

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Authors

models. Stage 2 involves the dissemination of innovative social models (Emshoff et al. 2003; Gray, Jakes, Emshoff, and Blakely 2003). Activities in stage 1 include: selecting a social problem to work on; conducting a thorough search of associated literature; developing, implementing and evaluating innovative solutions. In stage 2 the change agents promote the adaptation and utilization of the innovative social model. The addition of ‘dissemination’ to the original Experimental Social Innovation model (ESI) was due to the observation that active dissemination is needed for any innovation to be effective (Hazel and Onaga 2003). The ESID model, as such, is based on a set of principles (Fairweather and Tornatzky 1977) as shown in Figure 3. Social scientists, importantly, play an active role in creating societal change through a humanitarian and multidisciplinary approach to investigations. They apply a problem-oriented approach rather a discipline-based research approach. Furthermore, the development of innovative, continuously monitored and socially usable interventions are enabled by encouraging collaborative research efforts. Further, this perspective emphasizes on scientifically and longitudinally evaluated innovations. Lastly, ESID principles requires effective and innovative social models to be widely disseminated and replicated. These principles promote humanitarian values and social action orientation. They place social scientists in the position of being social change agents. They advocate community participation in the research process and encourage widespread dissemination of successfully tested models (Fernández et al. 2003). The mutual ties to social change, amongst social innovation and community psychology research, mean that social innovation is widely embraced in community psychology literature (Hazel and Onaga 2003). Social change challenges the status quo and this has long been identified as a central goal of community psychology (Kidder & Fine, 1986; Ryan, 1976, 1994). However, 201

A Community Psychological Perspective of Social Innovation

it is difficult for societies to adopt social innovations since they often require radical changes in current social structures and role behaviors (Hazel and Onaga 2003). Gray et al. (2003) found that the dissemination aspects of ESID have been typically implemented within the field. That is, although there is some evidence of a commitment to dissemination practice, there is much less evidence of a commitment to dissemination research. Unfortunately, too few scholars have substantially advanced thinking in social change theory, beyond the core postulates explicated by Fairweather (Seidman 2003). The case study outlined below will further clarify specific features of social innovations from a community psychology perspective.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CASE STUDY: THE ALBERTA FAMILY WELLNESS INITIATIVE In 2007, Alberta – a province in Canada - was experiencing increased rates of substance abuse, addiction and mental health issues. The province lacked sufficient or integrated programs to address these issues (Center on the Developing Child 2019). The Palix Foundation, established in 1999 (previously known as Norlien foundation), developed a program called the Alberta Family Wellness Initiative (AFWI). The initiative emerged in 2007, out of an active search for alternative means to addressing Alberta’s growing problems. The aim was to turn “what we know” about addiction and mental health into “what we do” in practice and service delivery (Palix Foundation 2019a). The establishment of the AFWI reflects the rationale of Fairweather and Tornatzky (1977). They maintain that as a first step to experimental social innovation it is necessary for someone to innovate new social program/s in situations where society has been unable to solve pressing issues. To this end, the goal of AFWI was to “improve outcomes in health and wellbeing for children and families across Alberta” (Palix Foundation 2019a, p. 1). Before AFWI, the foundation was always interested in addiction and mental health issues. A deepened understanding of these issues, through a comprehensive survey (Adverse Childhood Experience Survey), and consultation with all associated stakeholders, provided the basis for the leaders of the foundation to recognize the strong connection between childhood experiences and later adult health outcomes (World Research and Innovation Congress 2014). This offers evidence that decision-making about social innovations is a rational process that should be driven by 202

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

A Community Psychological Perspective of Social Innovation

empirical data drawn from rigorous social experiments (Fairweather 1967). The foundation realized that there would be two significant challenges in sharing this scientific knowledge with others trying to address Alberta’s issues. For one, effective communication would be difficult in the siloed environment that exists amongst different stakeholders and fields, including policymakers, researchers, educators and practitioners in medical, mental health, and social services fields. Secondly, lack of public understanding would be problematic to effective implementation. This includes a lack of understanding around the links between early childhood development, later experiences and relationships, lifelong learning, behavior and health (Center on the Developing Child 2019). An understanding of the challenges, for example, associated with the communication between stakeholders is important for effective implementation and dissemination, exemplifying the utility of the action-oriented and problem-focused approach to social innovation. The approach requires a broader view of the processes and structures that contribute to social problems (Hazel and Onaga 2003). The Palix Foundation developed AFWI to actively manipulate structural variables and social processes in the mental health sector in Alberta. This was to be achieved by designing and implementing an alternative social model in community settings. AFWI clearly marks a departure from the general applied science approach to ESID application, as proposed by Fairweather (1967). The Alberta Family Wellness Initiative can now be used as an engagement platform, supporting collaboration across sectors such as education, health, human services and justice. This has had significant impact on the welfare of children and families (World Research and Innovation Congress 2014). More specifically, AFWI supports the translation of scientific knowledge into forms that are easy for non-scientists to understand. Communities consist of multiple stakeholders with very different beliefs and educational backgrounds. As such, they are difficult to educate and empower through experimental evidence alone. Implementing and disseminating social programs requires working with different beliefs to find common goals and evidence which diverse stakeholders can understand and consider persuasive (Tsemberis et al. 2003). To this end, AFWI organizes events and uses resources, tools, curricula and range of media to disseminate important knowledge about brain development. They help bridge the gap between latest scientific knowledge concerning brain development, mental health and addiction, and appropriate policy and practice (Palix Foundation 2019a). The process of making scientific information broadly accessible is called ‘knowledge mobilization’, which aims to shift conversations and catalyze change. In this particular case, it aims to 203

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

A Community Psychological Perspective of Social Innovation

support strong brain architecture and good mental health for children and families (Palix Foundation 2019b). Building further on their work, an initiative named - ‘core story of brain development’ - was launched. This was achieved through a collaborative approach (e.g. Fernández et al. 2003), bringing together the National Scientific Council and the Centre on the Developing Child at Harvard University, USA. It includes a group of interdisciplinary scientists from neuroscience, pediatrics, psychiatry and psychology. Their plan of action was to synthesize the body of knowledge in this area, which has been built on 15-20 years of scientific knowledge. This collaborative process led to consensus around the most important scientific explanations of the problem. This enabled the findings to be effectively shared with non-experts by way of knowledge products - ‘working papers’ (World Research and Innovation Congress 2014). The process is well-aligned with the suggested humanitarian stance of the ESID approach, requiring a thorough understanding of the social problem, as developed on the viewpoints of communities and professionals most affected by it (Emshoff et al. 2003; Hazel and Onaga 2003). Similarly, Harvard University’s collaboration with FrameWorks Institute engaged scientists and the public through a methodology involving the development of ‘core stories’; a set of metaphors around an issue, making it more readily understandable and easily communicable. As a result, the ‘core story of brain development’ was conceived (World Research and Innovation Congress 2014). The program involved cohorts of hundreds of Alberta’s leaders and encompassed several conferences and symposia, including the 2013 “Accelerating Innovation Symposium: Telling the Brain Story to Inspire Action.” At this event, AFWI facilitated the formation of Innovation Teams, bringing the challenge of translating knowledge into action to participants’ own work priorities and agendas. According to Fairweather and Davidson (1986, p. 40) the outcome of any social innovation is “a function of the participants and the internal and external social situation processes operative at that time”. These approaches are means to: (1) gain deeper insight into social problems and potential solutions and; (2) evaluate social innovations through various indicators, including participant characteristics, organizational characteristics and community characteristics (Hazel and Onaga 2003). Through knowledge mobilization, AFWI has trained an “army” of change agents who continue to share with their communities the important message regarding early childhood development. They are continuously transforming the ways in which they and their colleagues work (Center on the Developing Child 2019; Palix Foundation 2019b). 204

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

A Community Psychological Perspective of Social Innovation

The AFWI, in this context, has been working together with Harvard Centre and FrameWorks Institute. Through its network of change agents, they have shared the Brain Story across the province to drive real change (Center on the Developing Child 2019; Palix Foundation 2019b). This is a real-world reflection of the theoretical descriptions by Fairweather and Tornatzky (1977, p. 32): “new helpful social processes must be promoted so that they can be made available to the public”. Relatedly, in 2016 AFWI launched an online course for professionals and the public designed to familiarize them with the science of brain development, mental health and addiction. These courses explain the scientific underpinnings of the strategies used to communicate these concepts and the methods by which they can be applied to policy and practice (Palix Foundation 2019a). This reflects the assertions by Calsyn (2003) and Tsemberis et al. (2003) that community psychologists should systematically evaluate humanitarian, action-oriented programs and ensure they fit contemporary and defined social issues. The outcomes of the AFWI have spawned many programs and policy implementations such as “Together We Raise Tomorrow: An Alberta Approach to Early Childhood Development”; a new province-wide initiative to support the well-being, security, education, and health of all children in Alberta. They have also incorporated the “Brain Story” into Alberta’s Health Services early childhood and parenting resources and into family justice services provided by Alberta’s provincial court system. Furthermore, the government of Alberta now requires potential human services contractors to commit to using the science of early childhood development in the delivery of their services (Center on the Developing Child 2019). The AFWI exemplifies contemporary social innovations which alter the role relationships between change agents and clients - from a hierarchical power relationship to one of increased equality; that is, to one of collaboration (Seidman 2003). Through social programs like these, ESID approaches are seen to gradually introduce social change (Emshoff et al. 2003). They demonstrate how social science can be applied to improving public policy and social welfare (Sullivan 2003). Accordingly, each of the terms of the ESID model - experimental, social innovation, and dissemination - convey important motivations of practice for modern community psychology (Hazel and Onaga 2003).

205

A Community Psychological Perspective of Social Innovation

CONCLUSION Social innovation is well embraced in community psychology research as through the application of the experimental social innovation dissemination model forwarded by (Fairweather 1964). This scientific approach to addressing social challenges is underpinned by values such as diversity, humanitarian and collaborative efforts, multidisciplinary arrangements and innovativeness. Scholars tend to consider social change and social transformation as the aim and outcome of ESID practices. However, deeper engagement with the literature and case study presented in this chapter shows that the more direct outcome of ESID practices is social reform. This can then be potentially supportive of higher-level social change occurred at the macro-level of the social structure. Thus, ESID practices deliver social reforms to address pressing social challenges and guide messo-level social structures to create social change in the macro level. Despite the importance of contributing to social reform, ESID discussion in social innovation literature cannot be seen beyond 2003.

REFERENCES Blakely, C. H., Mayer, J. P., Gottschalk, R. G., Schmitt, N., Davidson, W. S., Roitman, D. B., & Emshoff, J. G. (1987). The Fidelity‐Adaptation Debate: Implications for the Implementation of Public Sector Social Programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15(3), 253–268. doi:10.1007/ BF00922697

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Calsyn, R. J. (2003). A Modified Esid Approach to Studying Mental Illness and Homelessness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 32(3-4), 319–331. doi:10.1023/B:AJCP.0000004751.98756.ef Center on the Developing Child. (2019). Alberta Family Wellness Initiative: Mobilizing Knowledge to Improve the Lives of All Albertans. Retrieved from https://developingchild.harvard.edu/collective-change/key-concepts/ distributed-leadership/alberta-family-wellness-initiative/ Choi, N., & Majumdar, S. (2015). Social Innovation: Towards a Conceptualisation. In S. Majumdar, S. Guha, & N. Marakkath (Eds.), Technology and Innovation for Social Change (pp. 7–34). Springer.

206

A Community Psychological Perspective of Social Innovation

Eccleston, S. M. P., & Perkins, D. D. (2019). The Role of Community Psychology in Christian Community Development. Journal of Community Psychology, 47(2), 291–310. doi:10.1002/jcop.22121 Emshoff, J., Blakely, C., Gray, D., Jakes, S., Brounstein, P., Coulter, J., & Gardner, S. (2003). An Esid Case Study at the Federal Level. American Journal of Community Psychology, 32(3-4), 345–357. doi:10.1023/ B:AJCP.0000004753.88247.0d Fairweather, G. W. (1964). Social Psychology in Treating Mental Illness: An Experimental Approach. John Wiley & Sons. Fairweather, G. W. (1967). Methods for Experiemental Social Innovation. John Wiley and Sons. Fairweather, G. W. (1972). Social Change: The Challenge to Survival. General Learning Press. Fairweather, G. W., & Davidson, W. S. (1986). Introduction to Community Experimentation. McGraw-Hill. Fairweather, G. W., Sanders, D. H., Tonartzky, L. G., & Harris, R. N. Jr. (1974). Creating Change in Mental Health Organizations (Vol. 42). Pergamon. Fairweather, G. W., & Tornatzky, L. G. (1977). Experimental Methods for Social Policy Researcg. Pergamon Press. Fernández, M. I., Bowen, G. S., Gay, C. L., Mattson, T. R., Bital, E., & Kelly, J. A. (2003). Hiv, Sex, and Social Change: Applying Esid Principles to Hiv Prevention Research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 32(3-4), 333–344. doi:10.1023/B:AJCP.0000004752.42987.a1

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Gokani, R., & Walsh, R. T. (2017). On the Historical and Conceptual Foundations of a Community Psychology of Social Transformation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 59(3-4), 284–294. doi:10.1002/ajcp.12141 Gray, D. O., Jakes, S. S., Emshoff, J., & Blakely, C. (2003). Esid, Dissemination, and Community Psychology: A Case of Partial Implementation? American Journal of Community Psychology, 32(3-4), 359–370. doi:10.1023/ B:AJCP.0000004754.37080.57 Hazel, K. L., & Onaga, E. (2003). Experimental Social Innovation and Dissemination: The Promise and Its Delivery. American Journal of Community Psychology, 32(3-4), 285–294. doi:10.1023/B:AJCP.0000004748.50885.2e 207

A Community Psychological Perspective of Social Innovation

Maton, K. I. (2000). Making a Difference: The Social Ecology of Social Transformation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28(1), 25–57. doi:10.1023/A:1005190312887 Moritsugu, J., Vera, E., Wong, F. Y., & Duffy, K. G. (2019). Community Psychology (6th ed.). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780429021558 Nelson, G., & Evans, S. D. (2014). Critical Community Psychology and Qualitative Research: A Conversation. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(2), 158–166. doi:10.1177/1077800413510873 Nelson, G. B., Kloos, B., & Ornelas, J. (2014). Community Psychology and Community Mental Health: Towards Transformative Change. OUP USA. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199362424.001.0001 Palix Foundation. (2019a). Our History. Retrieved from https://www. albertafamilywellness.org/who-we-are/our-history Palix Foundation. (2019b). What We Do: Creating Change Agents to Find New Approaches to Health and Wellness. Retrieved from https://www. albertafamilywellness.org/what-we-do SCRA. (2019). Society for Community Research Action: Who We Are. Retrieved from http://www.scra27.org/who-we-are/ Seidman, E. (1990). Pursuing the Meaning and Utility of Social Regularities for Community Psychology. In P. Tolan, C. Keys, F. Chertok, & L. A. Jason (Eds.), Researching Community Psychology: Issues of Theory and Methods (pp. 91–100). American Psychological. doi:10.1037/10073-008

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Seidman, E. (2003). Fairweather and Esid: Contemporary Impact and a Legacy for the Twenty-First Century. American Journal of Community Psychology, 32(3-4), 371–375. doi:10.1023/B:AJCP.0000004755.51641.d3 Stark, W. (2019). From Disciplinary Approaches toward Transdisciplinary Perspectives: Conceptual and Political Frameworks of Community Psychology in Europe. Community Psychology in Global Perspective, 5(1), 56–66. Sullivan, C. M. (2003). Using the Esid Model to Reduce Intimate Male Violence against Women. American Journal of Community Psychology, 32(3-4), 295–303. doi:10.1023/B:AJCP.0000004749.87629.a3 Tornatzky, L. G., Fergus, E. O., & Avellar, J. W. (2013). Innovation and Social Process: A National Experiment in Implementing Social Technology. Elsevier. 208

A Community Psychological Perspective of Social Innovation

Townley, G., Brown, M., & Sylvestre, J. (2018). Community Psychology and Community Mental Health: A Call for Reengagement. American Journal of Community Psychology, 61(1-2), 3–9. doi:10.1002/ajcp.12225 Tsemberis, S. J., Moran, L., Shinn, M., Asmussen, S. M., & Shern, D. L. (2003). Consumer Preference Programs for Individuals Who Are Homeless and Have Psychiatric Disabilities: A Drop-in Center and a Supported Housing Program. American Journal of Community Psychology, 32(3-4), 305–317. doi:10.1023/B:AJCP.0000004750.66957.bf Van Daele, T., Van Audenhove, C., Hermans, D., Van den Bergh, O., & Van den Broucke, S. (2014). Empowerment Implementation: Enhancing Fidelity and Adaptation in a Psycho-Educational Intervention. Health Promotion International, 29(2), 212–222. doi:10.1093/heapro/das070 World Research and Innovation Congress. (2014). Social Innovation in Mental Health: Maximising Impact through Collaboration Retrieved from http://www.internationalinnovation.com/build/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ Michelle_Gagnon-_Intl_Innovation_158_Research_Media.pdf

ADDITIONAL READING Emshoff, J., Blakely, C., Gray, D., Jakes, S., Brounstein, P., Coulter, J., & Gardner, S. (2003). An ESID case study at the federal level. American Journal of Community Psychology, 32(3-4), 345–357. doi:10.1023/ B:AJCP.0000004753.88247.0d

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Gray, D. O., Jakes, S. S., Emshoff, J., & Blakely, C. (2003). ESID, dissemination, and community psychology: A case of partial implementation? American Journal of Community Psychology, 32(3-4), 359–370. doi:10.1023/ B:AJCP.0000004754.37080.57 Hazel, K. L., & Onaga, E. (2003). Experimental social innovation and dissemination: The promise and its delivery. American Journal of Community Psychology, 32(3-4), 285–294. doi:10.1023/B:AJCP.0000004748.50885.2e Mayer, J. P., & Davidson, W. S. (2000). Dissemination of innovation as social change. In Handbook of community psychology (pp. 421–438). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-4193-6_18

209

A Community Psychological Perspective of Social Innovation

Seidman, E. (2003). Fairweather and ESID: Contemporary impact and a legacy for the twenty-first century. American Journal of Community Psychology, 32(3-4), 371–375. doi:10.1023/B:AJCP.0000004755.51641.d3

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Adaptation: Bringing changes to the original design of an intervention strategy/program by its implementers or users. Community Psychology: A section of psychology which study how individuals are related to the communities and the impact of communities on individuals. With a broader focus this field of study integrates social, economic, political, and environmental influences to encourage positive social change and empower communities. Fidelity/Implementation Fidelity: The level of an intervention or a replicated program is delivered consistently with the original program.

210

211

Chapter 10

Resilience Perspective of Social Innovation

ABSTRACT

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

The objectives of this chapter are to identify the growth trajectories and key thematic areas of resilience in the social innovation literature and to identify the distinguishing characteristics of social innovation in socio-ecological resilience systems. An exponential growth of resilience literature can be found after 2013 with a slow uptake in 2008. The bibliographic coupling network uncovered the presence of five main knowledge clusters: the first being collective resilience and institutional transformation, the second being sustainable urban transformation, the third referring to transformative capacities of agency and social structure, the fourth being local development policy planning and urban resilience, and the fifth cluster addressing developmental evaluation and citizen involvement in urban management. Social innovation in socio-ecological resilience distinguishes it from other contextual innovation based on its transformative capacity to create systemic changes in the social structure of communities.

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-4588-1.ch010 Copyright © 2021, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Resilience Perspective of Social Innovation

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Social innovation is a “significant, creative and sustainable shift” in the way a given society deals with a “profound and previously intractable problem” such as poverty, disease, violence or environmental degradation (Nilsson 2003, p. 3). This emphasis has further been popularized by the involvements of international bodies such as European Union (EU). For instance, Social Innovation in Marginalized Rural Areas (SIMRA) is an example for the EU’s Horizon 2020 project funded research initiative aimed at better understanding social innovation and advancing innovative governance in agriculture, rural development and forestry (SIMRA 2020). Such initiatives to support “social innovators and local actors at the early stage of social innovation processes is key for efficiently addressing and tackling challenges” (Marini Govigli et al. 2020, p. 1) of wicked social issues and opportunities. Therefore, EU recognizes social innovation as a mechanism of addressing socio-economic challenges and rebuilding resilience (Secco et al. 2019). As a result of this increased recognition, socio-ecological resilience research shows a growing trend in examining the role of social innovation in resilience building in various contexts such as cities (e.g. Frantzeskaki 2019) and rural areas (e.g. Secco et al. 2019) and the approaches to facilitate social innovation initiatives (e.g. McCarthy, Whitelaw, Westley, Crandall, and Burnett 2014; Moore, Olsson, Nilsson, Rose, and Westley 2018; Moore, Westley, Tjornbo, and Holroyd 2012; Moore and Westley 2011). The same initiative defines social innovation as “the reconfiguring of social practices, in response to societal challenges, which seeks to enhance outcomes on societal well-being and necessarily includes the engagement of civil society actors” (Polman et al. 2017, p. 3). Such initiatives, products, processes or programs are transformative in nature and help realizing sustainable socio-ecological systems (Moore et al. 2018). Current socio-ecological resilience research mainly focuses on resilience in urban systems, the role of local institutions to enhance adaptive capacities and participatory governance approaches to facilitate social innovation (Baker and Mehmood 2015; Cole et al. 2018; Frantzeskaki 2019; Radywyl and Bigg 2013; Rodima-Taylor 2012). However, social processes leading to social innovation are influenced by the factors specific to the place where such initiatives found their roots (Baker and Mehmood 2015). This indicates that the place plays an agentic role on one hand and the potential effect of socio-ecological context of social life on the other (Gieryn 2000). The social innovation concept is 212

Resilience Perspective of Social Innovation

often specifically located and spatially embedded with a direct role in the sustainable place making literature and is not explicit in its focus (Baker and Mehmood 2015). Moreover, the capacity of a community to develop social innovation has significant impacts on the adaptation and transformation of a socio-ecological system and its ecological resilience (Moore and Westley 2011). However, resilience is questioned (Kousis and Paschou 2017) and is viewed as a multidisciplinary concept (McPhearson, Andersson, Elmqvist, and Frantzeskaki 2015). Therefore, a resilience perspective to social innovation is timely to gain the necessary understanding of the disruption, renewal and sustainable change delivered through new initiatives to overcome policy failures in designing, implementing and scaling up of needed interventions in addressing social challenges (Frantzeskaki 2019; Parkinson and Parsell 2018). What follows is a detailed discussion of growth trajectories of the social innovation literature to identify the key growth patterns and characteristics of social innovation in the resilience literature. This will be followed by a discussion of the social innovation in socio-ecological resilience to further uncover the key dimensions of social innovation. The findings are triangulated by the case study addressing Australian City Farms and Community Garden Network (ACFCGN) which is a placed-based approach and a nature-based solution to urban resilience management.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

RESILIENCE LITERATURE AND SOCIAL INNOVATION Boolean operations were conducted with the search tags of “resilience*” AND “social innovation*” in the abstracts, keywords and titles of Scopus database. This search yielded 69 articles. The search was subsequently limited to journal articles, books, book chapters, conference papers and reviews written in English and the emergent sample, was thus comprised 63 references. The growth of the resilience literature focusing social innovation is exhibited in Figure 1 below. The discussion of social innovation in the resilience literature commenced in 2008 and then had grown exponentially after 2013 with nearly 85% of the publications being produced during 2014 -2020. Further, around 63% of the publications are journal papers (Figure 2). Fourteen of these publications are in the form of conference papers (9) and book chapters (5). These 45 journal articles were contained in 36 journals and among them a set of well-known journals take the leading role. Specifically, Ecology and Society (6), Sustainability Switzerland (5), Local Environment 213

Resilience Perspective of Social Innovation

Figure 1. Growth of resilience research focusing social innovation from 2008-2020 Source: Authors

(3), Forest Policy and Economics (2) and Housing Theory and Society (2)

Figure 2. Publication type of resilience research in social innovation

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Authors

are among the five major journals containing these publications. A bibliometric coupling network was developed based on these 45 journal articles which revealed the existence of five highly connected knowledge clusters within the resilience literature addressing social innovation as shown in Figure 3. Cluster 1 being the largest cluster comprises eight publications including Rodima-Taylor (2012); Mehmood (2015); Baker and Mehmood (2015); Mehmood (2016); Kousis and Paschou (2017); Paidakaki and Moulaert 214

Resilience Perspective of Social Innovation

Figure 3. Bibliographic Coupling network for resilience literature in social innovation

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Authors

(2017); Cole et al. (2018) and Nijnik, Secco, Miller, and Melnykovych (2019). This cluster is a clear example to observe the developmental trajectories of the resilience literature which currently emphasizes the collective resilience calling for participatory democracy and collaboration in various contexts within the society. For instance, while Rodima-Taylor (2012) examines the role of local institutions in building the adaptive capacity and sustainable climate adaptation, Mehmood (2016) discusses the role of social innovation in institutional transformation. Social innovation occurs within the adaptive system and indicates the participatory, informal and multi-purpose institutional dimensions of climate adaptation (Rodima-Taylor 2012). Therefore, social innovation is a catalyst for social and institutional transformation achieving sustainability and resilience by building on the core ethics of social innovation, the nourishing network of institutions, and being agile to meet the evolving demands of local communities (Mehmood 2016). Hence, arranging adaptive changes through local, small-scale institutions and networks provides a possible move by local institutions to improve adaptive capacities of the local communities (Rodima-Taylor 2012). Bringing a place-based perspective of resilience to link with social innovation Baker and Mehmood (2015) suggest social innovation as a mechanism for advancing sustainable development. This perspective emphasizes the capacity of communities to resist or adapt to the required change. However, resilience of a place is determined by many 215

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Resilience Perspective of Social Innovation

other factors and cannot merely account for a place’s level of vulnerability to the environment or security (Mehmood 2015). Moving the discussion to another context within the socio-political resilience, Paidakaki and Moulaert (2017) propose a new recovery governance model for disaster resilience based on urban political ecology, housing studies and social innovation suggesting the need for redistribution of resources and empowering housing providers. Therefore, introducing the notion of alternative forms of resilience Kousis and Paschou (2017) call for citizencreated solidarity oriented collective resilience initiatives in the public sphere to foster, develop and empower common purpose and collective wisdom (Kousis and Paschou 2017). The physical infrastructure, socio-spatial inequalities, path dependencies, power relationships, competing discourses and human agency determine the paths towards resilience (Paidakaki and Moulaert 2017). Thus, Kousis and Paschou (2017) recognize alternative forms of resilience as initiatives which “comprise diverse repertoires of citizen direct solidarity actions and aims, with economic as well as a socio-political transformative capacity, which are alternative to the mainstream/dominant capitalist economy, or aim at building autonomous communities” (Kousis and Paschou 2017, p. 140). Narrowing down the focus to a more micro level investigation, Cole et al. (2018) examine social-ecological traps defined as the processes of applying rigid and persistent behavioral responses to address the lack of adaptation capacity in a fishery context. In a similar approach, Nijnik et al. (2019) discuss the role of social innovation in forest social-ecological systems. Combining technical innovation with social innovation is an effective approach to enable local communities to move away from socio-ecological traps (Cole et al. 2018). Cluster 2 comprises Radywyl and Bigg (2013); Wolfram and Frantzeskaki (2016); Arafah and Winarso (2017); Kaika (2017); Pagliacci, Russo, and Sartori (2017); and Parkinson and Parsell 2018). Building on resilence thinking, Radywyl and Bigg (2013) examine the contextual conditions and mechanisms to sustainable urban transformation through innovative social and institutional practices. Building adaptive urban communities, constructing urban innovation systems for green economies, empowering urban grassroots niches and social innovation and transforming urban metabolisms and political ecologies have thus, found to be key drivers of change within urban transformation (Wolfram and Frantzeskaki 2016). Therefore, low-risk, productive and experimental ‘commons practices’ to influence urban systems need to be developed by relaxing the urban systems through iterative approaches (Radywyl and Bigg 2013). Another set of literature within cluster 2 examines the implementation 216

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Resilience Perspective of Social Innovation

aspects of various placed-based approaches in diverse set of contexts especially advancing the urban management research broadly. In a literature study, employing the resilience concept, Arafah and Winarso (2017) redefine the concept of a smart city as a city that utilizes Information Communication Technology to increase a citizen’s awareness, intelligence, wellbeing as well as community participation in facing pressures, shocks, and hazard in order to be able to survive, adapt, be tough, and able to transform. This is to achieve a higher quality of life and environment, which is sustainable in facing the future era of uncertainties. In a critical evaluation of ‘Casa Italia’ plan for earthquakes in Italy Pagliacci et al. (2017) suggest such plans will be efficient social innovations only if the engineering and technical matrices are combined with a socio-economic perspective on natural disasters. Therefore, Kaika (2017) argues that real smart solutions and real social innovation should be found within dissensus practices as they are the living indicators of essential issues rather through consensus-building exercises. Looking at the implications on the homelessness issue based on the role of agencies and models, Parkinson and Parsell (2018) emphasize the lack of understanding of path dependencies associated with affordable housing and support provision through market, civil society and state relations across time and place as a reason for implementation failure of effectively designed models. Cluster 3 focuses primarily on agency and structure related approaches to strengthen social innovation in socio-ecological systems. Three out of four publications in this cluster were co-authored by Moore, M.L. Further, with most of the work in this cluster being published in the journal of Ecology and Society. The first two publications of this cluster discuss the approaches to facilitate social innovation aiming for system level impacts. The first of these two, Moore and Westley (2011), explores the role of social networks in facilitating innovations to create broad system level impacts from a complexity theory lens. They propose institutional entrepreneurs with entrepreneurial skills such as ‘pattern generation, relationship building and brokering, knowledge and resource brokering, and network recharging’ (p. 6) as primary agents of creating impacts across system levels. The second publication, Moore et al. (2012) build on resilience theory and analyze the process of social innovation applying athe daptive cycle concept to develop a theoretical framework exploring public policy requirements for social innovation. Based on the four phases of the infinity oriented adaptative cycle (growth, breakthrough, conservation and reorganization), they call for phase-appropriate government interventions to facilitate social innovation. 217

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Resilience Perspective of Social Innovation

Drawing from literature on radical changes from social movements, sociotechnical transitions, and social innovation, Moore et al. (2014) explore the potential tensions created by deliberate change and emergence, and agency and structure on different phases of socio-ecological system transformation. Contributing to socio-technical transitions and the social innovation literature, McCarthy et al. (2014) model the process of social change linking to the stages of innovation: catalytic, articulated, legitimized, enacted, embedded, and routinized, by describing the evolution of an agent’s vision of change in relation to the degree of institutionalization of the system. While tension between agents and different types of social structures was investigated by Moore and Westley (2011), McCarthy et al. (2014) identify the tensions between the evolution of an agent’s vision and the opportunities and the threats brought up by social structures in innovation processes. The work of Moore et al. (2018) has links to the approaches of facilitating the social innovation process but from another angle, that is, capacity building of people involved in social innovation processes. Thus, they focus on strengthening transformative capacities for social innovation through transformative learning space and propose capacity to navigate emergence (confronting diversity and connecting across scales) and cross-scale systems reflexivity (reflecting on system interactions). These are viewed as two most important capacities that organizational leaders and fellows need to develop in order to cross the system scales with transformative impacts. Each phase during a transformation will involve different structures and processes, and thus will require different strategies and capacities (Moore et al. 2018; Moore et al. 2014). From a policy perspective Moore et al. (2012) emphasize that policy choices by governments with regard to social innovations are co-evolutionary and thus, influencing a system’s need for social innovation, its generation, selection, adoption, and institutionalization. Cluster 4 is a relatively smaller cluster with only three publications which broadly focus on the ecosystem and participatory planning. While McPhearson et al. (2015) examines ecosystem services in cities, Gobattoni, Pelorosso, Leone, and Ripa (2015) discusses the relevance of perception and attitude of local communities for local development policy planning. The last publication in this cluster is from Frantzeskaki (2019) who examined the ecosystem and social benefits of nature-based solutions across 11 European cities in a policy and planning perspective using a cross-case comparative analysis. By modelling attitudes and perceptions of local communities Gobattoni et al. (2015) emphasize the need for rural re-development and social innovation. To this end cities and urban areas are crucial elements of global sustainability 218

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Resilience Perspective of Social Innovation

and drivers of global transformation of social innovation (McPhearson et al. 2015). While adaptability, resilience and self-organization become the three fundamental characteristics of a strong institutional network (Gobattoni et al. 2015), enhancing resilience in urban systems calls for interactions with urban socio-ecological systems (McPhearson et al. 2015) and nature-based solutions which are viable solutions to urban challenges such as climate change, urban degeneration and aging infrastructures (Frantzeskaki 2019). Therefore, resilience focused planning, management and governance may incorporate ecosystem services in resilience approaches (McPhearson et al. 2015) and identify the territorial potential of rural areas (Gobattoni et al. 2015). In addition, it is essential to identify the most effective actions for maintaining their natural and cultural capitals (Gobattoni et al. 2015) through approaches such as creating new green urban commons with aesthetic appeal to citizens (Frantzeskaki 2019). Building trust in the local government and the experimentation process itself, collaborative governance, and using narrative of mission to integrate with other urban agendas (Frantzeskaki 2019) will assist in promoting social innovation through changing unsustainable behaviors and removing structural constraints (Gobattoni et al. 2015). Cluster 5 is the smallest knowledge cluster in the bibliometric coupling network which is comprised of two publications: Antadze and Westley (2012) and Kudo (2016). A closer view at the bibliometric coupling network confirms that these two publications are not well-connected given the larger distance between the nodes. However, both these publications discuss the implications of respective mechanisms examined in their studies on wider stakeholder community including government and government agencies. For instance, Antadze and Westley (2012) discuss the impacts of developmental evaluation as a communication tool to better inform the stakeholders including grant makers, policymakers, government agencies, non-government and charity organizations while Kudo (2016) asserts citizen involvement as an effective tool in promoting cooperation and achieving energy consumption outcomes. Antadze and Westley (2012) recommend a developmental evaluation approach to impact the assessment of social innovation rather than the traditional accounting-based metrics and assessments given that the impacts of social innovation often go beyond economic and financial indicators. Measuring the multi-dimensional impacts of social innovation need to be based on reliable, consistent and relevant data in order to make the capital allocation decisions within the social finance market (Antadze and Westley 2012). By examining the socio-political implications of smart cities through an analysis of stakeholder views of Japanese Smart Cities, Kudo (2016) finds that 219

Resilience Perspective of Social Innovation

through smart communities citizens are not involved in city governance but instead participate in the co-production of public services thus, indicating a disciplinary strategy to improve efficiency rather than expanding democracy. Based on the above findings, the key thematic areas central to each cluster can be summarized as follows in Table 1 below. Based on the preceding discussion of ecological resilience research on social innovation, a few major conclusions can be made in relation to the growth trajectories of key thematic focuses. Broadly, the themes are centered on creating transformative changes in urban socio-ecological systems through local initiatives and the impacts of institutional environment associated with such changes. With the emphasis of place-based and nature-based solutions to build urban resilience, the literature tends to call for citizen centered social innovation initiatives. Table 1. Key thematic areas of knowledge clusters in ecological resilience research Cluster

Key themes

Cluster 1

Local institutions & adaptive capacity, sustainability, institutional transformation, participatory democracy and collaboration, place-based perspectives, disaster resilience, alternative forms of resilience through collective resilience

Cluster 2

Sustainable urban transformation, social and institutional practices, adaptive urban communities, placed-based perspectives

Cluster 3

Agency and broader social structure; transformative capacities

Cluster 4

Resilience in urban systems; nature-based solutions; local communities & local development policy planning; institutional environment; collaborative governance

Cluster 5

Developmental evaluation; citizen involvement in urban management

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Source: Authors

Collective resilience through participatory governance is strongly emphasized in this literature. Further, a set of policy calls are made to improve the transformative capacities of social innovation particularly linking to the phases of social innovation processes building on complexity theory and resilience theory. These themes confirm that the emergence and the resulting impacts of social innovation are largely dependent on socio-cultural characteristics of the place and the resource capacities at the local level (Baker and Mehmood 2015). With this background, below is an account of the role of social innovation in socio-ecological resilience.

220

Resilience Perspective of Social Innovation

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

ROLE OF SOCIAL INNOVATION IN RESILIENCE While resilience is a contested concept (Kousis and Paschou 2017) given its multidisciplinary nature (McPhearson et al. 2015) it is about persistence, recovery, and the adaptive and transformative capacities of social-ecological systems and subsystems within them (McPhearson et al. 2015). Specifically, resilience refers to the ability of a system to maintain its integrity of functions, structures, identities and feedback amid of external disturbances to the system (Walker, Holling, Carpenter, and Kinzig 2004). Social innovation may include initiatives, products, processes, or programs aiming at making transformative changes to basic routines, resources, and authority flows or beliefs of a social system creating durable and broad impacts (Antadze and Westley 2012; McCarthy et al. 2014). These impacts indicate three characteristics of the innovative nature of social innovation: First scale, that is the number of people benefited. Secondly scope, the extent of impact created and thirdly resonance in powerfully capturing people’s imagination (Baker and Mehmood 2015). Therefore, social innovation is a mechanism of resolving inefficiencies caused via traditional problem-solving approaches by creating significant changes within social relations, institutions and behaviors (Antadze and Westley 2012). Social relations of agents are shifted by exchanging ideas and values among public and private actors to challenge the established social steering norms and approaches (Baker and Mehmood 2015). Such participatory social change steering processes develop novel forms of interactions and partnerships between public, private and civil society organizations and citizens which subsequently build the adaptive capacities and the resilience of involved parties in the ecological system (Antadze and Westley 2012; Baker and Mehmood 2015; McPhearson et al. 2015). Therefore, by building resilience, and developing new network capacities among social actors, social innovation primarily aims at improving the quality of life and the well-being of local communities (Nijnik et al. 2019). Social innovation initiatives may include ideas, strategies, and organizational patterns addressing social challenges and strengthening links between the eco-logical systems and community institutions which subsequently enhance local adaptive capacity (Rodima-Taylor 2012). Place-based approaches such as urban community gardens (Baker and Mehmood 2015; Gruenewald 2008) and nature-based solutions such as urban green commons (Dorst, van der Jagt, Raven, and Runhaar 2019; Frantzeskaki 2019) and permanent supportive housing (Parkinson and Parsell 2018) are a few examples for such social 221

Resilience Perspective of Social Innovation

innovation initiatives. These social innovations occur within the embedded scales of the adaptive system and indicate the participatory, informal and institutional dimensions of adaptation (Rodima-Taylor 2012). Transformative social innovation shifts the authority, resource flows, norms, and beliefs, and the social-ecological relationships in a problem domain that the communities are engaged in (McCarthy et al. 2014; Moore et al. 2014). However, the transformative behavior of social innovation is subject to local culture, path dependencies and social–ecological interactions upon which places are constructed determining the capacities of adaptive transitions (Baker and Mehmood 2015). For instance, transformative learning experiences to build capacities of social entrepreneurs and innovators focus on individual’s leadership and market growth of the innovative initiative (Moore et al. 2014). Thus, the objective of social innovation in the resilience literature tends to reflect on the same issues that other perspectives believe in. In addition, the emergence and growth expectations of resilience focused social innovation are very similar to social innovation discussed in other perspectives of scholarship. These innovations are subject to institutional influences and path dependencies. Yet, impact expectations of social innovation are quite different as resilience innovations are aiming at creating systemic changes within social relations by shifting power, authority and the resources in a community through local initiatives.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

CASE STUDY: AUSTRALIAN CITY FARMS AND COMMUNITY GARDEN NETWORK Dr Darren Phillips founded the Australian Community Gardens Network (ACGN) in 1996. ACGN links city farms and community gardens around Australia. It is a community-based organization linking people interested in city farming and community gardening across Australia (ACFCGN 2018). Community gardens, “locally managed pieces of land that are developed in response to and reflect the needs of the communities in which they are based” (Witheridge and Morris 2016, p. 1). With the initial aim of setting up an Australia-wide network of interested people and groups in city farms, community garden and education centers, Dr Darren arranged people from different states to contact and provide information about community gardens (ACFCGN 2018). While the website itself address these need there are contactable people providing other advice within the limits of time and cost 222

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Resilience Perspective of Social Innovation

availability (ACFCGN 2018). This initiative indicates the emergence of an urban social innovation which is defined as “the new ways of doing, relating and knowing” (Yamaki 2016, p. 213). The key aims of ACFCGN include “facilitating the formation and management of community gardens and similar social enterprise by making available information and, where possible, advice and promoting the benefits of community gardening and urban agriculture” (ACFCGN 2018, p. 2). These aims reflects on what is often embraced by resilience and local economy literature as community gardens which is a mechanism to communicate sharing of values and to build resilient communities with strong stock of social capital (Witheridge and Morris 2016). ACFCGN is a voluntary organization which is an advocate of community gardeners; provides accurate and adequate information on its website; advices organizations interested in community gardens including local government; documents growth trajectories of community gardening in Australia; and provide the public with contacts through which they can link with community gardens across the Australian states (ACFCGN 2018). By doing so, ACFCGN create opportunities for learning, practice resource stewardship, and develop engagements in civic life (Krasny and Tidball 2009). Furthermore, ACFCGN has played a substantial role in legitimizing community gardening and related community food initiatives (Grayson 2015). Therefore, this initiative represents a social innovation driven by local citizen action which constructs new rules and social relations to meet societal needs and leads to social change and empowerment (Moulaert, Martinelli, Swyngedouw, and Gonzalez 2005). Specially, this is indicative of a nature-based social innovation solution which builds social capital by co-creating and supporting collaborative governance (Frantzeskaki 2019). In addition, such ecosystem services bridges planning, management and governance practices targeting more sustainable cities, and builds resilience in urban systems (McPhearson et al. 2015). Pro-community, pro-democracy, pro-good food and pro-people’s freedom to define their own choices, connecting people with place and community, citizen food production, promotion of community food systems to build resilient communities and cities are among the core values of ACFCGN (Grayson 2015). These values reflect on a place-based environmental governance approach (Baker and Mehmood 2015). According to Bush and Doyon (2017), community gardens in Melbourne provide a diverse set of locations, governance approaches and management models to build social inclusion and a sense of belonging. Local food production represents a sustainable example of human integration with nature (Gobattoni et al. 2015). Such initiatives 223

Resilience Perspective of Social Innovation

may further enhance the quality, quantity, and diversity of urban ecosystem services subsequently improving the health and wellbeing of urban residents (McPhearson et al. 2015). The continuation of this initiative nearly for 25 years clearly indicates the fundamental characteristics of a strong network: adaptability, resilience and self-organization (Gobattoni et al. 2015) as new ideas keep a society adaptable, flexible, and able to learn (Moore et al. 2012). However, the sustenance of this initiative will depend on the willingness to learn and collaborate among citizen groups and local governments; opportunities available to test and develop in to a more flexible and open innovation and a collaborative governance model (Frantzeskaki 2019).

CONCLUSION The focus on social innovation in the socio-ecological resilience literature is continuing to grow with the increased emphasis of its transformative capacity in making changes to the social structure to build resilience in communities. Overall, this research field largely examines the urban resilience management through local community approaches extending the focus to develop a more open and collaborative governance models in cities. The need for local government involvement in strengthening adaptation capacities of local communities, alternative resilience approaches through collaborative resilience efforts and placed-based and nature-based solutions to resilience in urban management have been focal and developing themes in this literature.

REFERENCES

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

ACFCGN. (2018). About Us: The Network. Retrieved from https:// communitygarden.org.au/acfcgn/ Antadze, N., & Westley, F. R. (2012). Impact Metrics for Social Innovation: Barriers or Bridges to Radical Change? Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 3(2), 133–150. doi:10.1080/19420676.2012.726005 Arafah, Y., & Winarso, H. (2017). Redefining Smart City Concept with Resilience Approach. Paper presented at the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 10.1088/1755-1315/70/1/012065

224

Resilience Perspective of Social Innovation

Baker, S., & Mehmood, A. (2015). Social Innovation and the Governance of Sustainable Places. Local Environment, 20(3), 321–334. doi:10.1080/13 549839.2013.842964 Bush, J., & Doyon, A. (2017). Urban Green Spaces in Australian Cities: Social Inclusion and Community Participation. Paper presented at the State of Australian Cities Conference. Cole, S. M., McDougall, C., Kaminski, A. M., Kefi, A. S., Chilala, A., & Chisule, G. (2018). Postharvest Fish Losses and Unequal Gender Relations: Drivers of the Social-Ecological Trap in the Barotse Floodplain Fishery, Zambia. Academic Press. Dorst, H., van der Jagt, S., Raven, R., & Runhaar, H. (2019). Urban Greening through Nature-Based Solutions–Key Characteristics of an Emerging Concept. Sustainable Cities and Society, 49(1), 101620. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2019.101620 Frantzeskaki, N. (2019). Seven Lessons for Planning Nature-Based Solutions in Cities. Environmental Science & Policy, 93(1), 101–111. doi:10.1016/j. envsci.2018.12.033 Gieryn, T. F. (2000). A Space for Place in Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 463–496. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.463 Gobattoni, F., Pelorosso, R., Leone, A., & Ripa, M. N. (2015). Sustainable Rural Development: The Role of Traditional Activities in Central Italy. Land Use Policy, 48(1), 412–427. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.06.013 Grayson, R. (2015). Hot Summers, Cool Winters and Tasty Gardens. Retrieved from https://afsa.org.au/blog/tag/acfcgn/

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Gruenewald, D. A. I. (2008). The Best of Both Worlds: A Critical Pedagogy of Place. Environmental Education Research, 14(3), 308–324. doi:10.1080/13504620802193572 Kaika, M. (2017). ‘Don’t Call Me Resilient Again!’: The New Urban Agenda as Immunology… or… What Happens When Communities Refuse to Be Vaccinated with ‘Smart Cities’ and Indicators. Environment and Urbanization, 29(1), 89–102. doi:10.1177/0956247816684763 Kousis, M., & Paschou, M. (2017). Alternative Forms of Resilience: A Typology of Approaches for the Study of Citizen Collective Responses in Hard Economic Times. Partecipazione e Conflitto, 10(1), 136–168. 225

Resilience Perspective of Social Innovation

Krasny, M. E., & Tidball, K. G. (2009). Community Gardens as Contexts for Science, Stewardship, and Civic Action Learning. Cities and the Environment, 2(1), 1–18. doi:10.15365/cate.2182009 Kudo, H. (2016). Co-Design, Co-Creation, and Co-Production of Smart Mobility System. Paper presented at the International Conference on CrossCultural Design. 10.1007/978-3-319-40093-8_54 Marini Govigli, V., Alkhaled, S., Arnesen, T., Barlagne, C., Bjerck, M., Burlando, C., Melnykovych, M., Rodríguez Fernandez-Blanco, C., Sfeir, P., & Górriz-Mifsud, E. (2020). Testing a Framework to Co-Construct Social Innovation Actions: Insights from Seven Marginalized Rural Areas. Sustainability, 12(4), 1441. doi:10.3390u12041441 McCarthy, D. D., Whitelaw, G. S., Westley, F. R., Crandall, D. D., & Burnett, D. (2014). The Oak Ridges Moraine as a Social Innovation: Strategic Vision as a Social-Ecological Interaction. Ecology and Society, 19(1), 48–63. doi:10.5751/ES-06212-190148 McPhearson, T., Andersson, E., Elmqvist, T., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2015). Resilience of and through Urban Ecosystem Services. Ecosystem Services, 12(1), 152–156. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.07.012 Mehmood, A. (2015). Of Resilient Places: Planning for Urban Resilience. European Planning Studies, 24(2), 407–419. doi:10.1080/09654313.2015. 1082980 Mehmood, A. (2016). Institutional Forms of Social Innovation. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 10(3), 300–311. doi:10.1504/IJISD.2016.077512

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Moore, M.-L., Olsson, P., Nilsson, W., Rose, L., & Westley, F. (2018). Navigating Emergence and System Reflexivity as Key Transformative Capacities: Experiences from a Global Fellowship Program. Ecology and Society, 23(2), 38–53. doi:10.5751/ES-10166-230238 Moore, M. L., Tjornbo, O., Enfors, E., Knapp, C., Hodbod, J., Baggio, J. A., Norström, A., Olsson, P., & Biggs, D. (2014). Studying the Complexity of Change: Toward an Analytical Framework for Understanding Deliberate Social-Ecological Transformations. Ecology and Society, 19(4), 1–10. doi:10.5751/ES-06966-190454

226

Resilience Perspective of Social Innovation

Moore, M. L., & Westley, F. (2011). Surmountable Chasms: Networks and Social Innovation for Resilient Systems. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 1–13. doi:10.5751/ES-03812-160105 Moore, M.-L., Westley, F. R., Tjornbo, O., & Holroyd, C. (2012). The Loop, the Lens, and the Lesson: Using Resilience Theory to Examine Public Policy and Social Innovation. In Social Innovation (pp. 89-113). Springer. Moulaert, F., Martinelli, F., Swyngedouw, E., & Gonzalez, S. (2005). Towards Alternative Model (S) of Local Innovation. Urban Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland), 42(11), 1969–1990. doi:10.1080/00420980500279893 Nijnik, M., Secco, L., Miller, D., & Melnykovych, M. (2019). Can Social Innovation Make a Difference to Forest-Dependent Communities? Forest Policy and Economics, 100(1), 207–213. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2019.01.001 Nilsson, W. O. (2003). Social Innovation: An Exploration of the Literature. McGill University. Pagliacci, F., Russo, M., & Sartori, L. (2017). Social Innovation and Natural Disasters: The” Casa Italia” Plan. Sociologia Urbana e Rurale, 113(1), 87–102. doi:10.3280/SUR2017-113006 Paidakaki, A., & Moulaert, F. (2017). Does the Post-Disaster Resilient City Really Exist? International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 8(3), 275–291. doi:10.1108/IJDRBE-10-2015-0052 Parkinson, S., & Parsell, C. (2018). ‘Housing First and the Reassembling of Permanent Supportive Housing: The Limits and Opportunities of Private Rental’, Housing. Theory and Society, 35(1), 36–56.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Polman, N., Slee, B., Kluvánková, T., Dijkshoorn, M., Nijnik, M., Gezik, V., & Soma, K. (2017). Classification of Social Innovations for Marginalized Rural Areas, Deliverable 2.1. Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas (SIMRA), 32. Radywyl, N., & Bigg, C. (2013). Reclaiming the Commons for Urban Transformation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 159-170. Rodima-Taylor, D. (2012). Social Innovation and Climate Adaptation: Local Collective Action in Diversifying Tanzania. Applied Geography (Sevenoaks, England), 33(1), 128–134. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.10.005

227

Resilience Perspective of Social Innovation

Secco, L., Pisani, E., Da Re, R., Rogelja, T., Burlando, C., Vicentini, K., . . . Nijnjk, M. (2019). Towards a Method of Evaluating Social Innovation in Forest-Dependent Rural Communities: First Suggestions from a ScienceStakeholder Collaboration. Forest Policy and Economics, 104, 9-22. SIMRA. (2020). Welcome to Simra. Retrieved from http://www.simra-h2020. eu/ Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability in Social–Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2), 1–9. doi:10.5751/ES-00650-090205 Witheridge, J., & Morris, N. J. (2016). An Analysis of the Effect of Public Policy on Community Garden Organisations in Edinburgh. Local Environment, 21(2), 202–218. doi:10.1080/13549839.2014.936843 Wolfram, M., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2016). Cities and Systemic Change for Sustainability: Prevailing Epistemologies and an Emerging Research Agenda. Sustainability, 8(2), 144–156. doi:10.3390u8020144 Yamaki, K. (2016). Role of Social Networks in Urban Forest Management Collaboration: A Case Study in Northern Japan. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 18(1), 212–220. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2016.06.009

ADDITIONAL READING Boyd, E., & Folke, C. (Eds.). (2011). Adapting institutions: governance, complexity and social-ecological resilience. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139017237

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

De Falco, S., Angelidou, M., & Addie, J. P. D. (2019). From the “smart city” to the “smart metropolis”? Building resilience in the urban periphery. European Urban and Regional Studies, 26(2), 205–223. doi:10.1177/0969776418783813 McCarthy, D., Whitelaw, G., Shannon, A., Alexiuk, E., Ness, R., Eastwood, M., ... Westley, F. (2018). The Conservation Authorities of Ontario, Canada as a Social Innovation: Applying the Vision as Social Construction Model for Describing Social Innovations. The Innovation Journal, 23(1), 1–30.

228

Resilience Perspective of Social Innovation

Nijnik, M., Secco, L., Miller, D., & Melnykovych, M. (2019). Can social innovation make a difference to forest-dependent communities? Forest Policy and Economics, 100(1), 207–213. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2019.01.001 Salomon, A., Quinlan, A., Pang, G., Okamoto, D., & Vazquez-Vera, L. (2019). Measuring social-ecological resilience reveals opportunities for transforming environmental governance. Ecology and Society, 24(3), 16–40. doi:10.5751/ ES-11044-240316 Stone-Jovicich, S., Goldstein, B. E., Brown, K., Plummer, R., & Olsson, P. (2018). Expanding the contribution of the social sciences to social-ecological resilience research. Ecology and Society, 23(1), 41–56. doi:10.5751/ES10008-230141

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Nature-Based Solutions: Actions and measures to protect and manage the ecological systems to deliver the dual benefits of social well-being and biodiversity. Place-Based Approach: Resilience approaches aiming to address the neighborhood level social issues. Resilience: The ability of social system to recover following disturbances. Socio-Ecological Traps: The rigid and persistent behavioral responses to address the lack of adaptation capacity in a socio-ecological system.

229

230

Conclusion

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

RECAPITULATING FINDINGS Social innovation is a collective endeavor embracing the participation of civil society actors, public, private and not-for-profit sector stakeholders to address social challenges through a change mechanism which drives transformations at the micro, messo and macro levels of any social structure (Edwards-Schachter and Wallace 2017; Moulaert, MacCallum, and Hillier 2013). Yet, social innovation theory lags behind practice (Nicholls, Simon, and Gabriel 2015) as it is a contested concept (Vanderhoven, Steiner, Teasdale, and Calo 2020) with the field being nascent, emerging (Krlev, Bund, and Mildenberger 2014) and underdeveloped (Cajaiba-Santana 2014). There is a call for rigorous attempts to understand the social innovation concept (Foroudi, Akarsu, Marvi, and Balakrishnan 2020; van Wijk, Zietsma, Dorado, de Bakker, and Martí 2019) despite the fact that a considerable number of case studies, conceptual discussions and policy reports provide multiple social innovation overviews (Cajaiba-Santana 2014). Employing a mixed method research design utilizing quantitative bibliometrics analysis and qualitative single case studies to develop 11 ontological analysis driven chapters, this book primarily answered the questions of “how has the social innovation conceptualization evolved over time; what patterns of core-meanings and characteristics can be found in the social innovation definitions and research findings in different social innovation knowledge clusters?” The introductory chapter 1 identified differences in social innovation definitions and highlighted six knowledge clusters including social enterprise and entrepreneurship; urban studies, territorial innovation and governance; transition management and grassroots innovation. These were followed by ecological resilience; social policy and network, and finally social innovation practice.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Conclusion

The rationale for a methodological approach underpinning the book was articulated in chapter 2. Thus, an ontological analysis was conducted within a mixed method research design using advanced bibliometric analysis triangulated by single case study analysis to arrive at conclusions about each of the six knowledge clusters identified in this book. The evolution of social innovation research in chapter 3 moved on to trace the evolution of social innovation which is predominantly published in journals confirming its multi-disciplinary nature and the increase of knowledge clusters to include entrepreneurship. To build on this perspective, chapter 4 addressed the social entrepreneurship perspectives of social innovation organized along three main themes of research focus. The first being motives, mission and outcomes of the social value creation process. The second is co-creation through networks and partnerships. Whilst the third theme focuses on the effects of institutional actors on the social entrepreneurial process. Moving on to chapter 5 which investigated the territorial development perspective of social innovation and summarized the patterns of, and links between social innovation and territorial development research. In summary, social innovation in territorial development settings satisfies human needs, empowers social actors and their involvement in governance and modifies power relations in spatial levels and contexts. The Integrated Area Development Model offered by Moulaert and Sekia (2003) has gained significant attention in both research and practice contexts. The transition management perspective of social innovation as discussed in chapter 6 shows that overwhelmingly the research focuses on niche level innovations and their management. Whilst chapter 7 moved on to address the design approach to social innovation and shows the way in which social innovation research has supported the integration of design thinking elements within its multi-disciplinary literature. Embracing social innovation in creativity research is explored in chapter 8 and identifies that the dominant approaches are experimental research designs and case study research which fall into the two main themes of (1) involvement of creative cognition and its related concepts in generating socially innovative solutions and (2) creative problem-solving in the development of social innovation. The chapter is followed by chapter 9 with a different focus which is anchored to the community social psychology perspective of social innovation. This chapter reports on the social change created by the experimental social innovation and dissemination (ESID) approach which is evident through social reform outcomes confirming that such social innovations 231

Conclusion

are micro-level contributions of social reforms which facilitate messo-level social change. Finally, the presence of social innovation in the socio-ecological resilience literature was explored in chapter 10 with a bibliometric coupling network comprising five main knowledge clusters. It is a knowledge domain largely focused on urban resilience management through local community approaches with specific focus on place-based approaches and nature-based solutions to expand the participatory governance as an alternative resilience approach. In summary, the chapters succinctly track the evolution of social innovation to provide a lens through which to view the chronology of this radically evolving concept. It is time now, to evaluate the learnings we can take away from this analysis.

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

LEARNINGS AT A GLANCE We have learned that social innovation research with its community psychology discussions can be traced back to 1960’s. These discussions are predominantly based in their inception of Mumford MD’s work which is multidisciplinary in nature and is evidenced in the forms of products, services, processes, legislation, social movements, business practices or social practices. Social innovation is the generation and implementation of new ideas around organizing social interactions. Social innovations are clearly distinguished from other forms of innovation on the basis that they are aimed at conferring benefits primarily to society and are understood as contributing to capacity building among people and communities in resource-constrained environments. Over the past decade, urban governance has become a more popular focus of research, signifying a substantial change of direction in the social innovation literature. In addition, a few new thematic areas, including grassroots innovation and creativity research, have entered the field. Social innovation approaches can either be bottom-up or top-down; are path dependent; process oriented and contextual; and are viewed as an alternative perspective of the development and territorial transformation underpinning social relations to empower communities. The two strands of socio-technical innovation in markets and civil societyled innovation in social institutions and arrangements provide the recent focus of social innovation research with the co-evolutionary perspective of transformative social innovation including social innovation, system innovation, game-changers and narratives of change. In addition, the field 232

Conclusion

sees the inclusion of social design, service design and socially responsible design are micro level perspectives, while design for sustainability is messo level and design for social innovation, macro level.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS Futurists and their predictions abound yet we currently live in a challenging world of global economic uncertainty. Unprecedented circumstances including dire consequences for organizations and people see a world where unemployment is alarmingly on the increase as organizations close their doors with loss of sustainability through lack of revenue, resources and staff. The future directions to address for social innovation studies as generated from the 10 book chapters are as follows: •

• •

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

•

•

Research attention is now shifting to civic engagement-based social innovation with the emphasis for local initiatives including citizens and public groups’ involvement to address social challenges (e.g. Chin, Yang, Zhang, Yu, and Cao 2019; De Silva, Khan, Vorley, and Zeng 2019; Toros et al. 2020). Examination of the publications of the broader feld of social innovation across multiple journals needs to be investigated to maintain track and consolidate the social innovation multi-disciplinary concept. New discussions such as institutional entrepreneurship (e.g. Onsongo 2019), intrapreneurship and extrapreneurship (e.g. Tracey and Stott 2017) underpin the current discussion of social innovation in social entrepreneurship perspectives. Expanding the boundaries of the social entrepreneurship scholarship, cross-fertilization of disciplinary thinking is evidenced and worthy of future studies to address for instance the applications of transition management concepts in social entrepreneurial context. There is a potential for widening social exclusion due to increased diferentiation in the level and quality of social service delivery. Therefore, the potential dark side of social innovation should be addressed in future studies. Niche level grassroots innovations that support societal transformation in the long-term is another potential area to consider in future studies. The role of creativity in grassroots innovation is a promising area for future studies. 233

Conclusion

•

• • • • •

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

•

Comparing across cultural boundaries the way in which social innovation, from the design thinking perspective, is a social valuecreation mechanism involving co-design approaches and ensuring inclusivity, practical learning, motivation and empowerment for participation. Ofer insights into the long-term outcomes of social innovation, such as social change and social transformation. Investigate the ESID discussion addressing the social innovation literature which to date, cannot be seen beyond 2003. The role of smart cities in improving citizen participation in governance and the implicit link between government approaches and co-production need to be studied (see Kudo 2016) in future research designs. How do the agency across urban social systems develop intervention and experimentation mechanisms to build resilience (see Wolfram and Frantzeskaki 2016)? The nature of ‘systems entrepreneurship’ (e.g. Moore, Olsson, Nilsson, Rose, and Westley 2018) in shaping adaptive and transformative capacities in socio-ecological systems Dynamic recovery governance approaches to build resilience in socioecological settings should be further studied based on Paidakaki and Moulaert (2017).

As can be seen, these areas of research for future studies to address build on the evidence-based findings as provided in each chapter. Yet, with the looming of a global recession, those social enterprises organizations that are surviving in these challenging times are ‘pivoting’ their entire business strategies and modifying the delivery of their services. Many of these organizations are dependent on a community’s human generosity and support to continue their operation anchored to frugal resources and budgets. For example, Lady Gaga in organizing a music concert led by artists such as Elton John and others across the globe raised US$35 million in seven days from corporations and philanthropists for the World Health Organization (WHO) to assist with their Covid-19 Solidarity Response Fund. Their innovation is predominantly supported by the concept of sustainability. Therefore, sustainable innovation within social community contexts is at the forefront of future research in the field of social innovation during times of crisis. The mergence between sustainable innovation and social innovation is inevitable as organizations morph into new structures, forms and cultures within a changing world and its new priorities and needs. Consistently, we 234

Conclusion

see social enterprises morphing into new forms of organizations underpinned by frugal innovation. Therefore, future research may like to address frugal innovation, sustainability innovation and social innovation. This is a new filed that has not been addressed in times of crisis and discontinuity.

REFERENCES Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2014). Social Innovation: Moving the Field Forward. A Conceptual Framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82(1), 42–51. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.05.008 Chin, T., Yang, Y., Zhang, P., Yu, X., & Cao, L. (2019). Co-Creation of Social Innovation: Corporate Universities as Innovative Strategies for Chinese Firms to Engage with Society. Sustainability, 11(5), 1–13. doi:10.3390u11051438 De Silva, M., Khan, Z., Vorley, T., & Zeng, J. (2019). Transcending the Pyramid: Opportunity Co-Creation for Social Innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 89(1), 471–486. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.12.001 Edwards-Schachter, M., & Wallace, M. L. (2017). ‘Shaken, but Not Stirred’: Sixty Years of Defining Social Innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 119(1), 64–79. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.012 Foroudi, P., Akarsu, T. N., Marvi, R., & Balakrishnan, J. (2020). Intellectual Evolution of Social Innovation: A Bibliometric Analysis and Avenues for Future Research Trends. Industrial Marketing Management, 1(1), 1–21. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.03.026

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Krlev, G., Bund, E., & Mildenberger, G. (2014). Measuring What MattersIndicators of Social Innovativeness on the National Level. Information Systems Management, 31(3), 200–224. doi:10.1080/10580530.2014.923265 Kudo, H. (2016). Co-Design, Co-Creation, and Co-Production of Smart Mobility System. Paper presented at the International Conference on CrossCultural Design, Cham. 10.1007/978-3-319-40093-8_54 Moore, M.-L., Olsson, P., Nilsson, W., Rose, L., & Westley, F. (2018). Navigating Emergence and System Reflexivity as Key Transformative Capacities: Experiences from a Global Fellowship Program. Ecology and Society, 23(2), 38–53. doi:10.5751/ES-10166-230238

235

Conclusion

Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D., & Hillier, J. (2013). Social Innovation: Intuition, Precept, Concept, Theory and Practice. In F. Moulaert, D. MacCallum, A. Mehmood, & A. Hamdouch (Eds.), International Handbook on Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research (pp. 13–24). Edward Elgar. doi:10.4337/9781849809993.00011 Moulaert, F., & Sekia, F. (2003). Territorial Innovation Models: A Critical Survey. Regional Studies, 37(3), 289–302. doi:10.1080/0034340032000065442 Nicholls, A., Simon, J., & Gabriel, M. (2015). New Frontiers in Social Innovation Research. Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9781137506801 Onsongo, E. (2019). Institutional Entrepreneurship and Social Innovation at the Base of the Pyramid: The Case of M-Pesa in Kenya. Industry and Innovation, 26(4), 369–390. doi:10.1080/13662716.2017.1409104 Paidakaki, A., & Moulaert, F. (2017). Does the Post-Disaster Resilient City Really Exist? International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 8(3), 275–291. doi:10.1108/IJDRBE-10-2015-0052 Toros, K., Kangro, K., Lepik, K.-L., Bugarszki, Z., Sindi, I., Saia, K., & Medar, M. (2020). Co-Creation of Social Services on the Example of Social Hackathon: The Case of Estonia. International Social Work, 00(0), 1–14. doi:10.1177/0020872820904130 Tracey, P., & Stott, N. (2017). Social Innovation: A Window on Alternative Ways of Organizing and Innovating. Innovation (North Sydney, N.S.W.), 19(1), 51–60. doi:10.1080/14479338.2016.1268924

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

van Wijk, J., Zietsma, C., Dorado, S., de Bakker, F. G., & Martí, I. (2019). Social Innovation: Integrating Micro, Meso, and Macro Level Insights from Institutional Theory. Business & Society, 58(5), 887–918. doi:10.1177/0007650318789104 Vanderhoven, E., Steiner, A., Teasdale, S., & Calo, F. (2020). Can Public Venture Capital Support Sustainability in the Social Economy? Evidence from a Social Innovation Fund. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 13(1), 1–6. Wolfram, M., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2016). Cities and Systemic Change for Sustainability: Prevailing Epistemologies and an Emerging Research Agenda. Sustainability, 8(2), 144–156. doi:10.3390u8020144

236

237

Related Readings

To continue IGI Global’s long-standing tradition of advancing innovation through emerging research, please find below a compiled list of recommended IGI Global book chapters and journal articles in the areas of social transformation, community empowerment and conflict transformation. These related readings will provide additional information and guidance to further enrich your knowledge and assist you with your own research.

Abdrabo, A. A. (2018). Egypt’s Knowledge-Based Development. In Knowledge-Based Urban Development in the Middle East (pp. 80-101). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-3734-2.ch005 Acharya, A. (2019). Ethnographic Study. In Qualitative Techniques for Workplace Data Analysis (pp. 246-271). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/9781-5225-5366-3.ch011

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Adnan, N. L., Abdullah, W. K., Muda, R., & Sallem, N. R. (2020). Practical Implementation of Assessment Activities for Deep Learning. In Assessment, Testing, and Measurement Strategies in Global Higher Education (pp. 84105). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-2314-8.ch005 Aldhaen, E. (2019). The Relationship of Leadership in Knowledge Management Towards Effectiveness in Higher Education Institutes. In Handbook of Research on Implementing Knowledge Management Strategy in the Public Sector (pp. 254-260). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-9639-4.ch013

Related Readings

Altinay Aksal, F., Bicen, H., & Altinay Gazi, Z. (2020). Blockchain Strategy and Management in Social Transformation for Being Social Agents. In Blockchain Technology Applications in Education (pp. 260-266). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-9478-9.ch013 Amin, A., Valverde, R., & Talla, M. (2020). Risk Management via Digital Dashboards in Statistics Data Centers. International Journal of Information Technologies and Systems Approach, 13(1), 27–45. doi:10.4018/ IJITSA.2020010102 Andrade, S. F., & Modesto, L. M. (2017). Architecture with Multi-Agent for Environmental Risk Assessment by Chemical Contamination. In MultiAgent-Based Simulations Applied to Biological and Environmental Systems (pp. 180-211). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-1756-6.ch008 Angove, M. (2019). Work-Based Learning and Innovation. In Innovation and Social Capital in Organizational Ecosystems (pp. 173-193). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7721-8.ch009 Antonova, A. (2019). Institutions on the Move and Revolutionary Shifts. IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-6270-2.ch004 Antonova, A. (2019). Understanding Mechanics of Smooth Institutional Transformation. IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-6270-2.ch003 Ardalan, S. S. (2019). Challenges Facing Contemporary Community Colleges. In Global Adaptations of Community College Infrastructure (pp. 186-200). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5861-3.ch013

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Azevedo, J., Oliveira, E. P., & Beites, P. D. (2019). E-Assessment and Multiple-Choice Questions. In Handbook of Research on E-Assessment in Higher Education (pp. 1-27). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-52255936-8.ch001 Bai, H. (2020). Student Perceptions of Learning Digital Literacy Online in a Leadership Program. In Handbook of Research on Fostering Student Engagement With Instructional Technology in Higher Education (pp. 346366). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-0119-1.ch019 Bailey, N. L. (2019). Leader Volunteers and Their Perceptions, Involving the Greater Yellowstone Sights and Sounds Archive. In Servant Leadership Styles and Strategic Decision Making (pp. 75-105). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-4996-3.ch003 238

Related Readings

Baker, N. L., & Buck, E. H. (2017). Conducting Programmatic Assessments of Online Writing Instruction. In Handbook of Research on Writing and Composing in the Age of MOOCs (pp. 385-405). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-1718-4.ch023 Baltazar dos Santos, A. P., Ferreira de Arruda, G., Filho, J. D., Marques, L. M., & Alves de Almeida, M. (2019). Dialogue With Interfaces. In Interface Support for Creativity, Productivity, and Expression in Computer Graphics (pp. 129-148). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7371-5.ch006 Banerjee, S. (2017). Globalization and Human Rights. In Defending Human Rights and Democracy in the Era of Globalization (pp. 1-16). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0723-9.ch001 Baron, A., & McNeal, K. (2019). Strategies for Teaching Online Higher Education Courses With an Eye Towards Retention. In Care and Culturally Responsive Pedagogy in Online Settings (pp. 280-298). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7802-4.ch014 Belay, D. G., & Kifle, M. Y. (2020). The Roles and Challenges of Micro and Small Enterprises in Urban Employment Creation in Ethiopia. International Journal of Political Activism and Engagement, 7(1), 1–22. doi:10.4018/ IJPAE.2020010101 Belay, D. G., & Robi, G. A. (2018). Socio-Economic and Psychological Risks of Unemployed Youth in Developing Countries. International Journal of Risk and Contingency Management, 7(2), 67–82. doi:10.4018/IJRCM.2018040104 Bhattacharya, A. (2020). Preparing Preservice Teacher Candidates for Educating Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Learners. In Beyond Language Learning Instruction (pp. 76-103). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-17998-1962-2.ch004

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Black, R. (2019). Evaluating and Assessing the Quality and Impact of Coaching Services. IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5948-1.ch006 Blake, S., & Burkett, C. (2018). Creative Transformation. IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-4952-9.ch006 Caruso, M., Fraschini, N., & Kuuse, S. (2019). Online Tools for Feedback Engagement in Second Language Learning. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 58–78. doi:10.4018/IJCALLT.2019010104 239

Related Readings

Chandani, P., & Gupta, C. (2020). A Systematic Literature Review on Risk Assessment and Mitigation Approaches in Requirement Engineering. In Crowdsourcing and Probabilistic Decision-Making in Software Engineering (pp. 51-80). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-9659-2.ch004 Chirisa, I., Mukarwi, L., & Matamanda, A. R. (2018). Social Costs and Benefits of the Transformation of the Traditional Families in an African Urban Society. In Urbanization and Its Impact on Socio-Economic Growth in Developing Regions (pp. 179-197). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/9781-5225-2659-9.ch009 Choi, J. (2018). Roles and Impacts of Automatic Item Generation on Assessment Research, Practice, and Policy. In Innovative Applications of Knowledge Discovery and Information Resources Management (pp. 143158). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5829-3.ch006 Chowdhury, S. R., & Wahab, H. A. (2019). Community Empowerment Initiatives of Faith-Based NGOs. In Social Research Methodology and New Techniques in Analysis, Interpretation, and Writing (pp. 75-105). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7897-0.ch005 Cinar, K. (2019). Women’s Entrepreneurship in Patriarchal Societies. In Women Entrepreneurs and Strategic Decision Making in the Global Economy (pp. 79-98). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7479-8.ch005 Clarke, R. (2019). Fieldwork in Business Contexts. IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-6344-0.ch005 Claudino, S. (2019). Project We Propose! In Handbook of Research on Education for Participative Citizenship and Global Prosperity (pp. 350-382). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7110-0.ch015

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Coelho, D. A., Carrola, T. E., & Couvinhas, A. F. (2018). Fostering Innovation and Creativity Through Systemic Design. In Promoting Interdisciplinarity in Knowledge Generation and Problem Solving (pp. 56-77). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-3878-3.ch005 Coffey, H., Harden, S. B., Byker, E. J., Good, A. J., & Fisher, L. B. (2018). Developing Self- and Cultural-Awareness Through Introductory Education Courses. In Innovative Practices in Teacher Preparation and Graduate-Level Teacher Education Programs (pp. 67-86). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/9781-5225-3068-8.ch005

240

Related Readings

Costuchen, A. L. (2020). Gamified Curriculum and Open-Structured Syllabus in Second-Language Teaching. In Challenges and Opportunities in Global Approaches to Education (pp. 35-55). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/9781-5225-9775-9.ch003 Dann, B. (2020). Course Development. In Technology-Enhanced Formative Assessment Practices in Higher Education (pp. 155-176). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-0426-0.ch008 Dann, B. (2020). Mobile Devices Contribute to Feedback Processes. In Technology-Enhanced Formative Assessment Practices in Higher Education (pp. 193-213). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-0426-0.ch010 Dann, C. E., & O’Neill, S. (2020). Are You Feeding Back or Is It Taking Students Forward? In Technology-Enhanced Formative Assessment Practices in Higher Education (pp. 275-296). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-17998-0426-0.ch014 Daoudi, I., Chebil, R., Tranvouez, E., Chaari, W. L., & Espinasse, B. (2017). Towards a Grid for Characterizing and Evaluating Crisis Management Serious Games. International Journal of Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management, 9(3), 76–95. doi:10.4018/IJISCRAM.2017070105 Dean, C. B. (2019). A Creative Approach to Assessment. In Healing Through the Arts for Non-Clinical Practitioners (pp. 228-249). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5981-8.ch014 Delgado-Algarra, E. (2020). Social Sciences, Geography and History Teaching Based on Research. IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-2882-2.ch001

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Demir, E. B., & Akbulut, Y. (2018). Responding to Contemporary Needs of Learning Communities Through Utilizing Emerging Social Networking Tools. In Enhancing Social Presence in Online Learning Environments (pp. 142-170). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-3229-3.ch007 Demir, K. A. (2020). E-Participating Decision-Making Mechanism in the Public Administration System. In Leadership Styles, Innovation, and Social Entrepreneurship in the Era of Digitalization (pp. 345-372). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-1108-4.ch014

241

Related Readings

Dessai, K. G., & Kamat, V. V. (2018). Computer Assisted Evaluation Using Rubrics for Reduction of Errors and Inter and Intra Examiner Heterogeneity. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 14(4), 49–65. doi:10.4018/IJICTE.2018100104 Dua, R., Sharma, S., & Kumar, R. (2018). Risk Management Metrics. In Analyzing the Role of Risk Mitigation and Monitoring in Software Development (pp. 21-33). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-6029-6.ch002 Elazier, K. B. (2019). Developing a Competency-Based Instructor Training Model of Professional Development. In Competency-Based and SocialSituational Approaches for Facilitating Learning in Higher Education (pp. 215-236). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-8488-9.ch011 Ellis, M., & Anderson, P. (2018). Teaching and Learning Through Interdisciplinary Pedagogies in a Second Life Environment. In Handbook of Research on Program Development and Assessment Methodologies in K-20 Education (pp. 275-303). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-52253132-6.ch013 Essery, R. (2020). Hellison’s Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility. In Handbook of Research on Leadership Experience for Academic Direction (LEAD) Programs for Student Success (pp. 173-195). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-2430-5.ch010 Etkinda, M., & Shafrir, U. (2020). Enhancing Conceptual Thinking With Interactive Concept Discovery (INCOD). In Pedagogy for Conceptual Thinking and Meaning Equivalence (pp. 54-60). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/9781-7998-1985-1.ch003

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Falcao, R., & Soeiro, A. (2019). Aligning E-Assessment With Learning Outcomes. In Handbook of Research on E-Assessment in Higher Education (pp. 243-267). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5936-8.ch010 Falk, A. F., & Vine, B. E. (2017). Supporting Graduate Students to Implement Community-Engaged Research. In Student Experiences and Educational Outcomes in Community Engagement for the 21st Century (pp. 196-224). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0874-8.ch009 Falk, A. F., & Willer, J. (2020). The Disciplining and Professionalization of Community Engagement. In Emerging Perspectives on Community Schools and the Engaged University (pp. 205-222). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/9781-7998-0280-8.ch013 242

Related Readings

Fallahi, M. (2019). Assessment of Learning in Higher Education. In OutcomeBased Strategies for Adult Learning (pp. 196-217). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5712-8.ch011 Fanshawe, M., Delaney, N., & Powell, A. (2020). Utilizing Instantaneous Feedback to Promote Self-Regulated Learning in Online Higher Education Courses. In Technology-Enhanced Formative Assessment Practices in Higher Education (pp. 41-59). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-0426-0. ch003 Ferreira, M. J., Moreira, F., & Seruca, I. (2019). Digital Transformation Towards a New Context of Labour. In Technological Developments in Industry 4.0 for Business Applications (pp. 26-49). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/9781-5225-4936-9.ch002 Filiz, B. (2020). Development of Attitudes Towards Assessment and Evaluation Course. In Enriching Teaching and Learning Environments With Contemporary Technologies (pp. 153-170). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-79983383-3.ch009 Fino, E., & Hanna-Khalil, B. (2020). Psychometric Post-Examination Analysis in Medical Education Training Programs. In Handbook of Research on the Efficacy of Training Programs and Systems in Medical Education (pp. 221242). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-1468-9.ch012 Fleming, T. (2018). Critical Theory and Transformative Learning. International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology, 9(3), 1–13. doi:10.4018/IJAVET.2018070101 Fleming, T. (2018). Mezirow and the Theory of Transformative Learning. In Critical Theory and Transformative Learning (pp. 120-136). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-6086-9.ch009

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Flores, J. L. (2020). The Politics of Social Media. In Examining the Roles of IT and Social Media in Democratic Development and Social Change (pp. 22-54). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-1791-8.ch002 Fraser, K., & Pechenkina, E. (2020). Research Paradigms Underpinning Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Papers. In Emerging Methods and Paradigms in Scholarship and Education Research (pp. 70-82). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-1001-8.ch004

243

Related Readings

Fu, R. H. (2018). Symbiosis Between Pastoralists Corralling Contract and Interethnic Relationship of Central Nigeria. International Journal of Public and on Healthcare, Culture, and the Environment, 2(1), IJPPPHCE.2018010103

and Agriculturalists Fulani and Nupe in Private Perspectives 33–58. doi:10.4018/

Gambrell, J. A. (2017). Embracing Teaching as Social Activism. In Handbook of Research on Efficacy and Implementation of Study Abroad Programs for P-12 Teachers (pp. 322-340). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-52251057-4.ch018 Ganguly, K., & Das, D. (2018). Modelling the Enablers of Supply Risk Management Using Interpretive Structural Methodology. In Research, Practices, and Innovations in Global Risk and Contingency Management (pp. 286-304). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-4754-9.ch016 Garcia, E. C., & Pons-Segua, L. (2020). The Promotion of Self-Regulated Learning Through Peer Feedback in Initial Teacher Education. International Journal of Technology-Enabled Student Support Services, 10(1), 1–20. doi:10.4018/IJTESSS.2020010101 Gardner-McCune, C., & Jimenez, Y. (2017). Historical App Developers. In Moving Students of Color from Consumers to Producers of Technology (pp. 85-112). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-2005-4.ch005 Gavrielides, T. (2017). Reconciling Restorative Justice with the Law for Violence Against Women in Europe. In Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Overcoming Violence Against Women (pp. 106-120). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-2472-4.ch007

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Gbortsu, F. K. (2018). Advocacy as a Strategy for Sustainable Development and Economic Growth. In Handbook of Research on Sustainable Development and Governance Strategies for Economic Growth in Africa (pp. 309-328). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-3247-7.ch017 Giovanni, I., & Jaramillo, D. F. (2019). Collaborative Peace Education in Contexts of Sociopolitical Violence. In Handbook of Research on Promoting Peace Through Practice, Academia, and the Arts (pp. 79-97). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-3001-5.ch005

244

Related Readings

Goosen, L. (2018). Ethical Data Management and Research Integrity in the Context of E-Schools and Community Engagement. In Ensuring Research Integrity and the Ethical Management of Data (pp. 14-45). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-2730-5.ch002 Gupta, A., Gupta, K., Joshi, A., & Sharma, D. (2019). Tools for E-Assessment Techniques in Education. In Handbook of Research on E-Assessment in Higher Education (pp. 28-52). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-52255936-8.ch002 Han, C. (2019). Conceptualizing and Operationalizing a Formative Assessment Model for English-Chinese Consecutive Interpreting. In Quality Assurance and Assessment Practices in Translation and Interpreting (pp. 89-111). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5225-3.ch004 Haq, F., & Medhekar, A. (2019). Challenges for Innovative Transformation in Heritage Tourism Development in India and Pakistan. In Conservation and Promotion of Heritage Tourism (pp. 127-154). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-6283-2.ch006 Haq, F., & Medhekar, A. (2019). Is Spiritual Tourism a Peace Vehicle for Social Transformation and Economic Prosperity in India and Pakistan? In Marketing Peace for Social Transformation and Global Prosperity (pp. 189211). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7464-4.ch010 Hasdell, P., Ku, H. B., & Kuo, J. Y. (2019). Miaoxia Community Kitchen. In Practice and Progress in Social Design and Sustainability (pp. 1-28). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-4183-7.ch001

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Hassell, D., & Lee, K. Y. (2020). Evaluation of Multi-Peer and Self-Assessment in Higher Education. International Journal of Innovative Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 1(1), 37–53. doi:10.4018/IJITLHE.2020010104 Hastings, N. B., & Rasmussen, K. L. (2017). Designing and Developing Competency-Based Education Courses Using Standards. In Handbook of Research on Competency-Based Education in University Settings (pp. 232249). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0932-5.ch012 Haughton, K. W. (2018). A Transformational Leadership Platform in Community Colleges in Jamaica. In Handbook of Research on Positive Scholarship for Global K-20 Education (pp. 260-283). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5667-1.ch019

245

Related Readings

Heine, C. (2019). Student Peer Feedback in a Translation Task. In Quality Assurance and Assessment Practices in Translation and Interpreting (pp. 337-357). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5225-3.ch015 Heitner, K. L., Sherman, K. C., & Jennings, M. E. (2019). Care and Cultural Responsiveness of Online College Courses. In Care and Culturally Responsive Pedagogy in Online Settings (pp. 331-355). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/9781-5225-7802-4.ch016 Holmqvist, M. (2019). Negotiating the Material Logics of Religious Learning. In Analytical Frameworks, Applications, and Impacts of ICT and ActorNetwork Theory (pp. 256-275). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-52257027-1.ch012 Hraiz, R., Khader, M., & Shaout, A. (2019). A Multi-Stage Fuzzy Model for Assessing Applicants for Faculty Positions in Universities. International Journal of Intelligent Information Technologies, 15(1), 51–83. doi:10.4018/ IJIIT.2019010103 Hubball, H. T., Clarke, A., & Pearson, M. L. (2017). Strategic Leadership Development in Research-Intensive Higher Education Contexts. In Handbook of Research on Administration, Policy, and Leadership in Higher Education (pp. 1-19). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0672-0.ch001 Huertas-Barros, E., & Vine, J. (2019). Constructing Standards in Communities. In Quality Assurance and Assessment Practices in Translation and Interpreting (pp. 245-269). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5225-3.ch011

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Iancu, M. (2018). The Assessment of Students’ Competencies and Constructionism With Examples in Biological and Natural Sciences. In Learning Strategies and Constructionism in Modern Education Settings (pp. 223-249). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5430-1.ch013 Ibrahim, A. H., Belay, D. G., Tiruneh, A. Z., & Kia, T. T. (2018). Social and Health Risks of Female Genital Mutilation for Medication and Braveness. International Journal of Risk and Contingency Management, 7(1), 20–36. doi:10.4018/IJRCM.2018010102 Incikabi, L., & Uysal, R. (2020). An Analysis of Turkey’s Recent Middle School Mathematics Teaching Programs Within the Context of the LearningTeaching Processes. In Handbook of Research on Online Pedagogical Models for Mathematics Teacher Education (pp. 273-286). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-1476-4.ch017 246

Related Readings

Inoue-Smith, Y. (2019). Optimizing Learning Through Activities and Assessments. In Faculty Roles and Changing Expectations in the New Age (pp. 176-195). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7438-5.ch011 Islam, M. R. (2019). Indigenous knowledge and Globalization in Bangladesh. In Social Research Methodology and New Techniques in Analysis, Interpretation, and Writing (pp. 49-74). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7897-0. ch004 Ivanov, B., Trif, V., & Trif, A. (2020). Assessment and Paradigms. In Analyzing Paradigms Used in Education and Educational Psychology (pp. 121-143). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-1427-6.ch006 Iwasaki, Y. (2020). Centrality of Youth Engagement in Media Involvement. In Using New Media for Citizen Engagement and Participation (pp. 81-96). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-1828-1.ch005 Iyioke, I. C. (2019). A Completely Structured Training on the Angoff StandardSetting Method for Developing Critical-Thinking Skills of Teachers. In Handbook of Research on Critical Thinking and Teacher Education Pedagogy (pp. 277-298). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7829-1.ch015 Jackson, C. M., & Kibetu, D. K. (2019). Emerging Technologies in Teaching, Research, and Learning. In Technology-Supported Teaching and Research Methods for Educators (pp. 201-217). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/9781-5225-5915-3.ch011 Jappie, N. B. (2019). The Role of University Leadership in Advocating Social Justice in South African Higher Education. In Diversity, Equity, and Inclusivity in Contemporary Higher Education (pp. 243-260). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5724-1.ch015

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Jayawardena, D. (2018). Patriarchy and (Un)Doing Factory of Women’s Collective Identity in Sri Lanka’s Localised Global Apparel Industry. In Handbook of Research on Women’s Issues and Rights in the Developing World (pp. 19-36). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-3018-3.ch002 Jordan, K. W., Fazio-Brunson, M., & Butler, S. M. (2019). Strategies for Fostering Critical Thinking in Early Childhood Education. In Handbook of Research on Critical Thinking and Teacher Education Pedagogy (pp. 346366). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7829-1.ch019

247

Related Readings

Karaksha, A. (2018). The Scholarship of Learning and Teaching in the Dynamic Discipline of Pharmacology and Chemistry. In Emerging Technologies and Work-Integrated Learning Experiences in Allied Health Education (pp. 1236). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-3850-9.ch002 Kasri, N. S., & Hilmi, M. H. (2020). International Best Practices in Existing Corporate Waqf Models. In Challenges and Impacts of Religious Endowments on Global Economics and Finance (pp. 223-253). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-1245-6.ch011 Kehal, M. (2019). Assurance of Learning and Accreditations Through Assessment in Business Schools. In Handbook of Research on E-Assessment in Higher Education (pp. 53-67). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-52255936-8.ch003 Khadimally, S. (2019). Blended Unified Design (BUD). In TechnologyAssisted ESL Acquisition and Development for Nontraditional Learners (pp. 188-210). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-3223-1.ch008 Khan, N. I. (2020). Social Work in Islam, Socio-Religious Revelations, and Conflicts. In Working With Muslim Clients in the Helping Professions (pp. 187-200). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-0018-7.ch010 Killedar, M. S., & Kamlaskar, C. H. (2018). Emerging Trends in Skill-Based Education With MLearning and ERP. In Optimizing Open and Distance Learning in Higher Education Institutions (pp. 313-335). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-2624-7.ch015 Knight, J., Jones, R., Sayar, D., Copeland, D., & Fitton, D. (2020). Do It Fluid. In Smart Systems Design, Applications, and Challenges (pp. 238-258). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-2112-0.ch012

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Kotsanis, Y. (2018). Models of Competences for the Real and Digital World. In Handbook of Research on Educational Design and Cloud Computing in Modern Classroom Settings (pp. 52-80). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/9781-5225-3053-4.ch004 Krishnasamy, H. N. (2019). Effective Leadership Style for Indigenous Schools in the Malaysian Context. In Predictive Models for School Leadership and Practices (pp. 143-166). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5858-3. ch008

248

Related Readings

Kumar, A. V., & Sundar, P. V. (2018). Impact of Student Engagement in Online Learning Environments. In Optimizing Student Engagement in Online Learning Environments (pp. 1-27). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-15225-3634-5.ch001 Kumar, D. P. (2018). Education for a New Age. In Handbook of Research on Examining Global Peacemaking in the Digital Age (pp. 284-302). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-3032-9.ch020 Kutschke, L. (2020). Social Life-Cycle Assessment for Building Materials. In Examining the Environmental Impacts of Materials and Buildings (pp. 217-250). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-2426-8.ch008 Ladbrook, D. E. (2020). Focusing Effective Feedback Practices on Developing Students’ ‘Assessment Literacy’. In Inclusive Theory and Practice in Special Education (pp. 81-98). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-79982901-0.ch005 Lancaster, S. J., & Topper, A. (2019). Designing and Implementing a Student-Centered Online Graduate Program. In Student-Centered Virtual Learning Environments in Higher Education (pp. 157-184). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5769-2.ch007 Lauzon, A. (2017). Building Adaptive Community Capacity to Meet the Challenges of Global Climate Change. In Encyclopedia of Strategic Leadership and Management (pp. 1326-1336). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-15225-1049-9.ch092 Lawrence, J. E. (2019). Designing a Unit Assessment Using Constructive Alignment. International Journal of Teacher Education and Professional Development, 2(1), 30–51. doi:10.4018/IJTEPD.2019010103

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Lawrence, J. E. (2019). Teaching Large Classes. International Journal of Teacher Education and Professional Development, 2(1), 66–80. doi:10.4018/ IJTEPD.2019010105 Leasure, D. E., Apple, D. K., Fulton, A. P., & Kavlie, L. B. (2018). Adult Learner-Centered and Scalable Online Competency-Based Education. In Handbook of Research on Student-Centered Strategies in Online Adult Learning Environments (pp. 63-101). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/9781-5225-5085-3.ch004

249

Related Readings

Lee, J. (2019). A Training Project to Develop Teachers’ Assessment Literacy. In Handbook of Research on Assessment Literacy and Teacher-Made Testing in the Language Classroom (pp. 58-80). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/9781-5225-6986-2.ch004 Lewis, F., & Sommer, E. K. (2017). Art and Community Capacity-Building. In Handbook of Research on the Facilitation of Civic Engagement through Community Art (pp. 499-523). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-52251727-6.ch023 Li, H., & Chen, H. (2019). Human vs. AI. International Journal of Translation, Interpretation, and Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 43–54. doi:10.4018/ IJTIAL.2019010104 Li, T., & Lin, I. (2019). Design and Evaluation of a Collaborative Learning System for 3D Model Sharing. In Interdisciplinary and International Perspectives on 3D Printing in Education (pp. 262-285). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7018-9.ch013 Liu, X., Li, L., & Wachira, P. (2020). Understanding Web-Based Peer Assessment in Teacher Education. In Handbook of Research on Literacy and Digital Technology Integration in Teacher Education (pp. 245-260). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-1461-0.ch014 Lynda, H., & Bouarab-Dahmani, F. (2019). Gradual Learners’ Assessment in Massive Open Online Courses Based on ODALA Approach. Journal of Information Technology Research, 12(3), 21–43. doi:10.4018/ JITR.2019070102

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Mafu, N. (2020). Counselling Pupils for Social Justice. In Addressing Multicultural Needs in School Guidance and Counseling (pp. 292-338). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-0319-5.ch014 Maldonado, S. I., & Machado-Casas, M. (2019). Sustaining the Sociopolitical Spirit of Bilingual Education. In Handbook of Research on Assessment Practices and Pedagogical Models for Immigrant Students (pp. 1-17). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-9348-5.ch001 Mampane, S. T. (2020). School Inspection for Quality Leadership, Teaching, and Learning in South Africa. In Strategic Leadership in PK-12 Settings (pp. 234-250). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-9242-6.ch014

250

Related Readings

Man, I., & Chung, D. (2020). Creating Unlimited Business Opportunities for an Insurance Sales Force Through Design Thinking. In Cases on Learning Design and Human Performance Technology (pp. 287-304). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-0054-5.ch015 Mariano, G. J., Hammonds, F., Chambers, S., Ammons, G., & Sippel, K. (2018). Using Student Feedback to Help Improve Teaching in the College Classroom. In Handbook of Research on Positive Scholarship for Global K-20 Education (pp. 217-229). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-52255667-1.ch016 Marinelli, E., & Mironov, C. (2019). Higher Education and Smart Specialization in North-East Romania. In Smart Specialization Strategies and the Role of Entrepreneurial Universities (pp. 234-254). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-6152-1.ch010 Mathew, E. (2017). Social Science Education and Outreach as a Tool for Regional Development and Institutional Building. In Handbook of Research on Science Education and University Outreach as a Tool for Regional Development (pp. 93-113). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-1880-8.ch009 Mattar, J., & Goi, V. M. (2019). Digital Games for Diagnostic Assessment of Cognitive Skills and Competences. In Handbook of Research on Immersive Digital Games in Educational Environments (pp. 260-286). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5790-6.ch010 McCarthy, J. (2018). Blended Learning Strategies for Engaging Diverse Student Cohorts in Higher Education. International Journal of Teacher Education and Professional Development, 1(2), 29–45. doi:10.4018/IJTEPD.2018070103

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

McCarthy, J. (2020). Student Perceptions of Screencast Video Feedback for Summative Assessment Tasks in the Creative Arts. In Technology-Enhanced Formative Assessment Practices in Higher Education (pp. 177-192). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-0426-0.ch009 McCarthy, P., Harris, K., & Sithole, A. (2018). Open Educational Resources and Prior Learning Assessment. In Enhancing Education Through Open Degree Programs and Prior Learning Assessment (pp. 1-21). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5255-0.ch001 McKinnon-Crowley, S. (2019). Women Community College Faculty Members. In Challenges and Opportunities for Women in Higher Education Leadership (pp. 238-251). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7056-1.ch014 251

Related Readings

Medhekar, A., & Haq, F. (2019). Promoting Kashmir as an Abode of Peace Tourism Destination by India and Pakistan. In Marketing Peace for Social Transformation and Global Prosperity (pp. 22-49). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7464-4.ch002 Medhekar, A., & Haq, F. (2020). Cross-Border Cooperation for Bilateral Trade, Travel, and Tourism. In Cross-Border Cooperation (CBC) Strategies for Sustainable Development (pp. 168-191). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/9781-7998-2513-5.ch010 Medina, M. A., Murtadha, K. H., & Grim, J. (2020). Community Schools as a Vehicle for Social Justice and Equity. In Emerging Perspectives on Community Schools and the Engaged University (pp. 80-97). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-0280-8.ch005 Mendoza-Macaias, M. M. (2019). Higher Education, Social Welfare, and Corruption. In Handbook of Research on Ethics, Entrepreneurship, and Governance in Higher Education (pp. 54-78). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5837-8.ch003 Meyerhof, N. (2018). Soul Education for Children of the Earth. In Handbook of Research on Examining Global Peacemaking in the Digital Age (pp. 315323). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-3032-9.ch022 Miller, K. L. (2017). Local Government Reform in Jamaica. In Handbook of Research on Sub-National Governance and Development (pp. 520-542). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-1645-3.ch024

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Miraglia, K. M. (2017). Creating Authentic Preservice Art Teaching Experiences through Service-Learning. In Handbook of Research on the Facilitation of Civic Engagement through Community Art (pp. 116-151). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-1727-6.ch007 Misra, P. K. (2019). Introducing Performance-Based Assessment in PreService Teacher Education in India. In Performance-Based Assessment in 21st Century Teacher Education (pp. 205-230). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/9781-5225-8353-0.ch009 Modell, M. G. (2017). Learning to Lead Collaborative Student Groups to Success. In Handbook of Research on Teacher Education and Professional Development (pp. 187-209). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-52251067-3.ch010

252

Related Readings

Morton, M., Varghese, J., Jackson, E., & Levac, L. (2020). Principles in Practice. In Preparing Students for Community-Engaged Scholarship in Higher Education (pp. 322-346). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-79982208-0.ch016 Mupepi, M., Ross-Davis, Y. M., Davis, M., & Vachon, T. S. (2017). How to Effectively Apply Appreciative Inquiry in Developing Talent in Organizations. In Effective Talent Management Strategies for Organizational Success (pp. 20-30). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-1961-4.ch002 Murnen, T. J., Bostic, J., Fordham, N., & Weaver, J. (2019). Adopt-anApprentice Teacher. In Handbook of Research on Field-Based Teacher Education (pp. 367-394). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-6249-8. ch016 Mwageni, R. E. (2020). The Use of Digital Devices in Marketing Library Products in an Inclusively Engaged Academic Library. In Handbook of Research on Digital Devices for Inclusivity and Engagement in Libraries (pp. 25-44). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-9034-7.ch002 Nair, S. R. (2020). To Examine Women Social Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. In Handbook of Research on Smart Territories and Entrepreneurial Ecosystems for Social Innovation and Sustainable Growth (pp. 326-345). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-2097-0.ch018 Ndlovu, S. (2020). Obstacles for Students With Disabilities in the Supervision Process at Postgraduate Level in South Africa. In Postgraduate Research Engagement in Low Resource Settings (pp. 246-263). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-0264-8.ch013

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Neimann, T. (2020). Issues of Developmental Instruction in Higher Education and the Need for Change. In Challenges and Opportunities in Global Approaches to Education (pp. 253-270). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/9781-5225-9775-9.ch014 Ngwenya, T. M. (2017). Future Identities of the Self Among Learners Across Physical and Virtual Spaces. In Integrating an Awareness of Selfhood and Society into Virtual Learning (pp. 257-278). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/9781-5225-2182-2.ch017

253

Related Readings

Ntombela, S., & Setlhodi, I. I. (2019). Transformation and Social Justice in South African Higher Education. In Handbook of Research on Social Inequality and Education (pp. 238-252). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/9781-5225-9108-5.ch013 Odebiyi, S. D., & Elegbe, O. (2020). Human Rights Abuses Against Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) in Nigeria. In Handbook of Research on the Global Impact of Media on Migration Issues (pp. 180-200). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-0210-5.ch011 Oetari, A., & Arifin, Z. (2020). Alliance Strategic and Organizational Form, Managerial and Market Engangement to Improve Performance. International Journal of Project Management and Productivity Assessment, 8(1), 1–17. doi:10.4018/IJPMPA.2020010101 Olivero, M. M., & Oxford, R. L. (2019). Implementing and Assessing Transformative, Multidimensional Peace Language Activities Designed for Future Teachers and Their Students. In Handbook of Research on Promoting Peace Through Practice, Academia, and the Arts (pp. 184-206). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-3001-5.ch010 Orellana, A. (2017). A Framework to Assess Appropriate Interaction to Meet Accreditation Quality Guidelines. In Handbook of Research on Building, Growing, and Sustaining Quality E-Learning Programs (pp. 253-276). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0877-9.ch013 Organista, J. (2019). Machitia. In Advancing Mobile Learning in Contemporary Educational Spaces (pp. 243-264). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-15225-9351-5.ch009

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Osabuohien, E. S., Okorie, U. E., & Osabohien, R. A. (2018). Rice Production and Processing in Ogun State, Nigeria. In Food Systems Sustainability and Environmental Policies in Modern Economies (pp. 188-215). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-3631-4.ch009 Otrel-Cass, K., Agerbo, J. N., Skipper-Jørgensen, A., & Elmose, S. (2018). Tracing Assessment for Learning Capability in Teachers (TACT). In Fostering Reflective Teaching Practice in Pre-Service Education (pp. 46-58). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-2963-7.ch003

254

Related Readings

Ott, M., & Hibbert, K. (2020). Assessment in 21st Century Learning. In Handbook of Research on Formative Assessment in Pre-K Through Elementary Classrooms (pp. 346-367). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-03232.ch017 Otte, S. C., & Best, M. J. (2017). Institutional Culture and Identity. In Student Culture and Identity in Higher Education (pp. 194-212). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-2551-6.ch012 Palmer, S., & Hall, W. (2017). An Evaluation of Group Work in First-Year Engineering Design Education. In Collaboration and Student Engagement in Design Education (pp. 145-168). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-15225-0726-0.ch007 Patronis, M., Ishtaiwa-Dweikat, F. F., Al Awad, M., & Aburezeq, I. M. (2019). Attitudes and Perceptions Towards Summative E-Assessment for FreeText Responses. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 15(1), 13–28. doi:10.4018/IJICTE.2019010102 Peleg-Baker, T. (2019). Dialogue as a Way of Being. In Intercultural and Interfaith Dialogues for Global Peacebuilding and Stability (pp. 50-78). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7585-6.ch003 Perez-Uribe, R. I., Sierra, G., & Clavijo-Olmos, S. B. (2020). Quality Assessment of Higher Education in Latin American University. In Quality Management Implementation in Higher Education (pp. 327-354). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-9829-9.ch016

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Petersohn, S., Biesenbender, S., & Thiedig, C. (2020). Investigating Assessment Standards in the Netherlands, Italy, and the United Kingdom. In Shaping the Future Through Standardization (pp. 54-94). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-2181-6.ch003 Pollard, T. (2017). Garnering Faculty Buy-In to Improve Online Program Quality. In Handbook of Research on Building, Growing, and Sustaining Quality E-Learning Programs (pp. 1-19). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/9781-5225-0877-9.ch001 Popoola, A. A., & Adeleke, B. A. (2020). Unravelling the Conditions and Limitations Impacting the Prospect of Developing Rural Eco-Tourism in Oyo State, Nigeria. In Global Opportunities and Challenges for Rural and Mountain Tourism (pp. 283-305). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-17998-1302-6.ch016 255

Related Readings

Prater, D. E., & Hiller, P. T. (2019). Recognizing the Science of Peace to Build Positive Peace. In Handbook of Research on Promoting Peace Through Practice, Academia, and the Arts (pp. 19-42). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-3001-5.ch002 Pushpangadan, P., & Ijinu, T. P. (2017). Intellectual Property Rights on Traditional Knowledge and their Significance in Sustainable Societal Development. In Handbook of Research on Science Education and University Outreach as a Tool for Regional Development (pp. 157-185). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-1880-8.ch013 Quinn, J. (2020). Building Capacity to Implement Community Schools. In Emerging Perspectives on Community Schools and the Engaged University (pp. 62-79). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-0280-8.ch004 Railean, E. A. (2020). Pedagogy of New Assessment, Measurement, and Testing Strategies in Higher Education. In Assessment, Testing, and Measurement Strategies in Global Higher Education (pp. 1-19). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-2314-8.ch001 Rein, L. M. (2019). Evaluating the Assessment Qualities of Teacher-Created Tests. In Handbook of Research on Assessment Literacy and Teacher-Made Testing in the Language Classroom (pp. 263-282). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-6986-2.ch013 Rezaee, A. A., & Shabani, E. A. (2019). Self- and Peer-Assessments in the Iranian Context. In Handbook of Research on Curriculum Reform Initiatives in English Education (pp. 270-282). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-15225-5846-0.ch016

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Richardson, T., Dann, B., Dann, C., & O’Neill, S. (2018). Positioning Preservice Teacher Formative Assessment in the Literature. IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-2630-8.ch001 Robinson, J. (2019). Reimagining Sustainability Leadership. In Integral Theory and Transdisciplinary Action Research in Education (pp. 357-382). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5873-6.ch016 Rosser-Mims, D., & Maloney, J. (2017). The Historical and Contemporary Relevance of the Interconnectivity of Community, Community-Based Education, and Transformative Education. International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology, 8(1), 47–56. doi:10.4018/ ijavet.2017010105 256

Related Readings

Rouzbehani, K. R., & Araghi, M. (2020). From Resource to Outcome. In Handbook of Research on Optimizing Healthcare Management Techniques (pp. 154-166). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-1371-2.ch010 Royo, E. R., McKay, S. C., Nelson-Santana, J. C., Rodríguez, R. N. D., & OconCarreras, A. A. (2018). Web Knowledge Turbine as a Proposal for Personal and Professional Self-Organisation in Complex Times. Journal of Information Technology Research, 11(1), 70–90. doi:10.4018/JITR.2018010105 Rusliyadi, M., & Jamil, A. B. (2020). Participatory Poverty Assessment Effort in Food Security and Extension Policy. In Handbook of Research on Globalized Agricultural Trade and New Challenges for Food Security (pp. 481-499). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-1042-1.ch024 Saglam, A. L. (2018). The Integration of Educational Technology for Classroom-Based Formative Assessment to Empower Teaching and Learning. In Handbook of Research on Mobile Devices and Smart Gadgets in K-12 Education (pp. 321-341). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-27060.ch020 Sandoval-Lucero, E., Klingsmith, L. A., & Gildersleeve, R. E. (2019). Using Social-Situational Learning to Create Career Pathways Into Community College Leadership. In Competency-Based and Social-Situational Approaches for Facilitating Learning in Higher Education (pp. 48-74). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-8488-9.ch003 Savva, S. (2019). Multiliteracies Performance Assessment Zones (MPAZ). In Cases on Immersive Virtual Reality Techniques (pp. 165-198). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5912-2.ch008

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Scott, F., & Bird, J. (2019). Adults Researching Pre-Schoolers in More-ThanHuman Contexts. In Educational Research in the Age of Anthropocene (pp. 110-143). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5317-5.ch006 Scupin, R. (2017). The Concept of Culture and Higher Education. In Cultural Awareness and Competency Development in Higher Education (pp. 1-20). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-2145-7.ch001 Sewagegn, A. A., & Diale, B. M. (2020). Authentic Assessment as a Tool to Enhance Student Learning in a Higher Education Institution. In Assessment, Testing, and Measurement Strategies in Global Higher Education (pp. 256271). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-2314-8.ch013

257

Related Readings

Shah-Nelson, C., Mayo, E. A., & Ebuwei, P. (2020). Capacity-Building for Sustainability. International Journal of Technology-Enabled Student Support Services, 10(1), 40–54. doi:10.4018/IJTESSS.20200101.oa1 Shanmugam, S. K., Kor, L., & Chinnappan, M. (2019). Operationalizing Computerized Testing in Mathematics Competition. In Redesigning Higher Education Initiatives for Industry 4.0 (pp. 204-220). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7832-1.ch012 Siamak, M., Fathi, S., & Isfandyari-Moghaddam, A. (2018). Assessment and Measurement of Education Programs of Information Literacy. In Digitizing the Modern Library and the Transition From Print to Electronic (pp. 164192). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-2119-8.ch007 Sikulibo, J. (2019). The Role of Non- and Quasi-Judicial Accountability Mechanisms in Addressing a Wide Range of Needs of Victims of Sexual Violence as a Weapon of War. IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-52258194-9.ch006 Silvius, G. (2018). Integrating Sustainability Into IT/IS Project Evaluation Methods. In Green Computing Strategies for Competitive Advantage and Business Sustainability (pp. 17-39). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-15225-5017-4.ch002 Sivanesan, S., Noum, S. Y., & Namasivayam, S. N. (2020). Enhancing Emotional Intelligence (EQ) to Embrace Teach Less, Learn More Initiatives. In Preparing 21st Century Teachers for Teach Less, Learn More (TLLM) Pedagogies (pp. 30-53). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-1435-1. ch003

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Smith, C. (2020). Scientific Realism and the Scholarship of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. In Emerging Methods and Paradigms in Scholarship and Education Research (pp. 96-117). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-1001-8.ch006 Sniad, T., Lessa, T. M., Johnston, E. V., & Rivera, A. W. (2020). Engaging College Students Through Hybrid Learning. In Handbook of Research on Fostering Student Engagement With Instructional Technology in Higher Education (pp. 20-34). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-0119-1. ch002

258

Related Readings

Sousa, B., Fonseca, V., Cordeiro, L., Flamigni, B., Foschini, L., Simoes, P., Sivarajah, U., & Weerakkody, V. (2019). EMPATIA. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 15(2), 58–89. doi:10.4018/ IJEGR.2019040104 Storey, V. A., Anthony, A. K., & Wahid, P. (2017). Gender-Based Leadership Barriers. In Encyclopedia of Strategic Leadership and Management (pp. 244258). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-1049-9.ch018 Svenningsen, L., Bottomley, S., & Pear, J. J. (2018). Personalized Learning and Online Instruction. In Digital Technologies and Instructional Design for Personalized Learning (pp. 164-190). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-15225-3940-7.ch008 Tadlaoui, M., Khaldi, M., & Carvalho, R. (2019). The Combination of Bayesian Networks and Stereotypes to Initialize the Learner Model in Adaptive Educational Hypermedia Systems. IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-15225-7413-2.ch006 Tam, G. (2017). Project Sustainability Impact Assessment. IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-2371-0.ch006 Taole, M. J. (2019). Instructional Leadership as a Model for Leadership in Multi-Grade Schools. In Predictive Models for School Leadership and Practices (pp. 59-77). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5858-3. ch004 Taylor, B., Harris, L. R., & Dargusch, J. (2017). Portfolio Assessment in Engineering. International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education, 6(2), 1–21. doi:10.4018/IJQAETE.2017070101

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Thangavelu, A., Cawthray, T., & Pauley, R. (2020). A Cross-Professional Collaborative Educational Approach to Building Student Feedback Literacy. In Technology-Enhanced Formative Assessment Practices in Higher Education (pp. 262-274). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-0426-0.ch013 Thomas, K., Huffman, D., & Caballero, M. (2019). Critical Thinking and Mathematics Teaching and Learning. In Handbook of Research on Critical Thinking and Teacher Education Pedagogy (pp. 234-253). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7829-1.ch013

259

Related Readings

Thompson, K., Chapman, S. N., & Kanasa, H. (2020). Tools to Mediate Learning and Self-Assessment in a STEAM Unit of Work. In Challenges and Opportunities for Transforming From STEM to STEAM Education (pp. 24-50). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-2517-3.ch002 Topkaya, E. Z., & Çelik, H. (2017). Effects of Teacher Portfolio Construction on English Language Teachers’ Perceived Teaching Competencies. In Facilitating In-Service Teacher Training for Professional Development (pp. 185-207). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-1747-4.ch011 Turner, P. S. (2019). Leading, Managing, and Facilitating Organizational Change. In Evidence-Based Initiatives for Organizational Change and Development (pp. 261-282). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-52256155-2.ch013 Turner, T. W., & Conroy, R. J. (2019). Identifying Blind Spots in Leadership Development. In Handbook of Research on Strategic Communication, Leadership, and Conflict Management in Modern Organizations (pp. 199220). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-8516-9.ch010 Ulker-Demirel, E. (2019). The Features of New Communication Channels and Digital Marketing. In Handbook of Research on Narrative Advertising (pp. 302-313). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-9790-2.ch026 van Egdom, G., Verplaetse, H., Schrijver, I., Kockaert, H. J., Segers, W., Pauwels, J., Wylin, B., & Bloemen, H. (2019). How to Put the Translation Test to the Test? In Quality Assurance and Assessment Practices in Translation and Interpreting (pp. 26-56). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-52255225-3.ch002

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Van Krieken, T., & Pathirage, C. (2019). Factors Affecting Community Empowerment During Disaster Recovery. International Journal of Disaster Response and Emergency Management, 2(1), 15–32. doi:10.4018/ IJDREM.2019010102 van Sluijs, F. R., Gisolf, M. C., & Ambrosius, A. (2019). Marketing for Conflict Transformation. In Marketing Peace for Social Transformation and Global Prosperity (pp. 212-236). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/9781-5225-7464-4.ch011 Van Wingerden, C., Goto, S., & Burstein, M. (2017). Creating Sustainable Communities. In Encyclopedia of Strategic Leadership and Management (pp. 94-110). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-1049-9.ch008 260

Related Readings

Vasilikou, C. (2018). The Doors of Dynamic Thermal Perception. In Handbook of Research on Perception-Driven Approaches to Urban Assessment and Design (pp. 182-205). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-3637-6. ch008 Vaughn, M., & Swanson, K. W. (2018). Fieldwork in Developing Countries. In Curriculum Internationalization and the Future of Education (pp. 273292). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-2791-6.ch015 Vela, L. A., Bocciolesi, E., Lombardi, G., & Urquhart, R. M. (2017). The Social Function of Citizen Science. In Analyzing the Role of Citizen Science in Modern Research (pp. 89-116). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-15225-0962-2.ch005 Venkatesan, S., & Yashodharakumar, G. Y. (2019). Certification and MedicoLegal Aspects of Neurodevelopmental Disorders in India. In Emerging Trends in the Diagnosis and Intervention of Neurodevelopmental Disorders (pp. 281-306). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7004-2.ch015 Venter, M. (2018). Participatory Action Research and Learning in Sustainable Local Economic Development. In Cross-Disciplinary Approaches to Action Research and Action Learning (pp. 241-255). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-2642-1.ch014 Viegas, M. C., & Cruz, E. D. (2019). Understanding the Importance of Students’ Assessment and Feedback With Multimodal Narratives. In Multimodal Narratives in Research and Teaching Practices (pp. 44-63). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-8570-1.ch002 Vinodan, A., & Manalel, J. (2020). Community and Ecotourism. IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-1635-5.ch003

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Virmani, R. K. (2019). Investigating How Rehearsals and Teacher Educator Feedback Influences Preservice Teacher Development. In Handbook of Research on Field-Based Teacher Education (pp. 613-634). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-6249-8.ch026 Wani, Z., & Zainab, T. (2019). Introduction to Research Evaluation. IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5945-0.ch001

261

Related Readings

Wienhold-Leahy, B. (2019). An Integral Analysis of Mindfulness and SelfCompassion Among Adolescents. In Integral Theory and Transdisciplinary Action Research in Education (pp. 134-159). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5873-6.ch007 Witte, M. M., Teel, J. B., Cordie, L. A., & Witte, J. E. (2017). Building Capacity through Student Leadership Development and Practices. In Encyclopedia of Strategic Leadership and Management (pp. 29-41). IGI Global. http:// doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-1049-9.ch003 Yetik, E., Ozdamar, N., & Bozkurt, A. (2020). Seamless Learning Design Criteria in the Context of Open and Distance Learning. In Managing and Designing Online Courses in Ubiquitous Learning Environments (pp. 106127). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-9779-7.ch006 Yilmaz, A., & Yilmaz, H. U. (2019). Social Value and Sociological Perspective on Social Entrepreneurship. In N. Iyigun (Ed.), Creating Business Value and Competitive Advantage With Social Entrepreneurship (pp. 21–47). IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-5687-9.ch002 Zenkov, K., Parsons, S. A., Parker, A. K., Brown, E. L., Groth, L. A., Pytash, K. E., & Pellegrino, A. (2019). From Collaborative Inquiry to Critical, Project-Based Clinical Experiences. In Handbook of Research on Field-Based Teacher Education (pp. 89-116). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-52256249-8.ch004 Zesu, S. (2018). Assessment and Evaluation of Students’ Performance Without Learning Analytics. In Impact of Learning Analytics on Curriculum Design and Student Performance (pp. 96-112). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/9781-5225-5369-4.ch007

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Zhou, Z. (2020). Critical Reflections on Pro-Poor Tourism and Local Communities` Participation at Grass-Roots Level. In Global Opportunities and Challenges for Rural and Mountain Tourism (pp. 228-244). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-1302-6.ch013 Zizka, L. (2020). Reflection and SoTL. In Evidence-Based Faculty Development Through the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) (pp. 96-120). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-2212-7.ch006 Zygmunt, E. M., & Cipollone, K. (2018). A Pedagogy of Promise. In Handbook of Research on Service-Learning Initiatives in Teacher Education Programs (pp. 333-354). IGI Global. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-4041-0.ch018 262

263

About the Authors

Chamindika Weerakoon is an Early Career Researcher and Lecturer in the Department of Business Technology and Entrepreneurship at Swinburne University of Technology, Australia. Her research focuses primarily on social enterprises, social innovation and business model innovation. She has published in the Journal of Small Business Management, Knowledge Management Research and Practice, and the Social Enterprise Journal. Dr Weerakoon’s international teaching career spans across 11 years including Sri Lanka and Australia. She has won numerous awards including the Inspirational Teaching Award from the School of Management, RMIT University Melbourne. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8695-5865

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Adela McMurray has extensive experience researching in public and private sectors and implementing organizational change and development. She has published over 300 refereed publications. Her research is internationally recognized, and she is the recipient of four Australian Research Council grants, two industry Collaborative Research Centre grants and various other grants totalling over AUD$5million. Adela has won teaching and leadership awards, chaired numerous USA Academy of Management Committees and is a member of various journal Editorial Advisory Boards. Adela’s research expertise addresses: Workplace Innovation, Organizational Culture and Climate, Cultural Diversity, and Sustainability. ORCID ID: https://orcid. org/0000-0001-7686-6474

264

Index

A

E

Actor Network Theory (ANT) 145 adaptation 194, 197, 201, 209-210, 213, 215-216, 222, 224, 227, 229

Experimental Design 193 Experimental manipulation 193 ex p e r i m e n t a l s o c i a l i n n ova t i o n dissemination 65, 200, 206

B Bibliometrics 18, 28-30, 33, 35, 38, 41, 65

C

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Case Modelling 193 citation threshold 41, 69, 97, 101, 127 co-citation 3, 7-8, 16, 21, 23-25, 31-32, 36-37, 39-42, 45-46, 49, 51, 53-54, 63, 65, 87, 197-198 Co-Citation Analysis 7, 16, 21, 23-24, 3132, 36-37, 39-40, 63 co-citation networks 7, 42, 45-46, 49, 65 Community Psychology 50, 58-59, 63, 194-202, 205-210 co-occurrence analysis 24, 31 Corporate Social Innovation 11-12, 14, 16-18, 24 Creative Cognition 170-171, 189, 193

D design for social innovation 147, 149, 151, 154-156, 158, 162-168 design thinking 147-153, 156-162, 164-168

F Fidelity 197, 209-210

G grassroots innovation 1, 10, 43, 55, 119, 129-133, 137, 145

H Human-centered design 149, 168

I inclusive design 153-154, 168 Innovation Milieu 105, 116 Institutional Logics Approach 175, 193 Integrated Area Development 18, 51, 60, 98-99, 105, 113-114, 116

M Mixed-method research 42

Index

N nature-based solutions 218-221, 224-225, 229 Neighborhood Management 108-109, 115-116 Neo-Endogenous Strategies 104, 117

O Ontology 28, 36-37, 42

P participatory design 147, 149, 153-156, 158, 166, 168 Place-Based Approach 229

R resilience 1-2, 9-10, 22, 70-71, 121, 127, 129, 139, 142, 146, 156, 211-217, 219-229

S

Copyright © 2020. IGI Global. All rights reserved.

Social Enterprise 1, 10, 14, 16, 18, 22, 24, 29, 31, 35, 38, 54, 57, 68, 70-73, 76-85, 87, 89-97, 140, 157-158, 164, 175, 191, 223 social entrepreneur 18, 29, 31, 60, 67-68, 71, 76-77, 87, 92-93, 97, 160 Social Entrepreneurship 6, 8-10, 12, 15-18, 20-22, 24, 31, 36, 38-39, 43, 48, 53-57, 60, 62-63, 66-79, 84-94, 96-97, 102104, 112, 140, 168, 191, 224

Social Extrapreneurship 69, 97 social innovation 1-31, 33-41, 43-79, 8495, 98-114, 116, 118-120, 125-131, 134-137, 139-140, 142-145, 147-149, 151-168, 170-207, 209, 211-229 social mission 8, 55, 67, 70, 73, 77, 80-83, 96-97, 136 Social Movement Theory (SMT) 129, 145 Social Refnement Process 176, 193 social transformation 6, 13, 44, 65, 87, 103, 106-107, 128, 187, 200, 206-208 socially responsible design 147, 149, 154156, 162, 164-165, 167, 169 Socio-Ecological Traps 216, 229 Socio-Technical Systems 119-120, 140, 145 strategic niche management 72, 76, 130131, 138, 141, 143, 145 Systematic Literature Review 65

T technological innovation 44, 65, 131, 175, 179 Territorial Embeddedness 117 Transformative Design 153-154, 169 Transformative Social Innovation Theory 128, 145 transition management 1, 9-10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 72, 76, 88, 118-121, 123-128, 133-135, 137-138, 140-141, 143-144 Transition Towns 118, 129-130, 134-135, 143, 146

265