Search results

This paper focuses on social innovation dynamics in extreme contexts where institutional volatility is deeply rooted and enduring. In other words, the authors focus their discussion on the challenges that social innovators are facing in their endeavor of solving wicked social problems within an extreme institutional environment. This research is guided by the following question: How does an extreme institutional environment influence social innovation processes?

This qualitative research builds on the unique case of the Palestinian non-governmental organization (NGO) sector, a rarely studied context in organizational studies. The authors combine archival sources with 24 semi-structured interviews with Palestinian NGOs.

The authors theorize three barriers that hinder social innovation in such contexts: institutional trap, effectiveness trap and sustainability trap. The authors also theorize five mechanisms through which these barriers influence each other dynamically: mingling, surviving, undermining, binding and reinforcing. Taken together, these barriers and mechanisms shed light on social innovation processes taking place within extreme institutional environments.

The main limitation of this study is the methodological design, based on an extreme single case-study which, on a bunch of features, is quite unique in the world. The authors argue that the results are all the same transferable to other relatively similar contexts.

By theorizing the institutional barriers to social innovation in an extreme institutional context, the research thus sheds light on how social innovation could be sustained and stimulated in Palestine and other contexts that face similar institutional challenges.

From an engaged scholarship perspective, studying Palestine cannot be more relevant than today considering the turmoil in which Palestinians are. The research thus provides a deeper understanding of organizational and institutional dynamics with crucial social repercussions.

The social innovation literature has overemphasized success stories to the detriment of the struggles that hinder social innovations in extreme institutional environments. By focusing on the barriers that social innovators experience in these contexts, the authors provide novel empirical insight. Furthermore, this study enriches the understanding of the institutional dynamics of social innovations by proposing a process model that elucidates how an extreme institutional context can influence social innovations.

This study investigates the drivers of social innovation in disability services with specific reference to the context of nonprofit organizations of social farming. In addition, it highlights the role of stakeholder networks in enhancing the social innovation process and the characteristics of stakeholders and networks driving and supporting social innovation.

Following a qualitative methodology, research was conducted through a case study survey with interviews to 13 nonprofit organizations of social farming for people with disability located in the northeast of Italy.

Insights gained from the interviews revealed that individual, organizational and contextual factors drive social innovation in disability nonprofits. In addition, networks play a key role in enhancing the three drivers of social innovation through the social innovation journey, from opportunity recognition to implementation of the innovation, to its consolidation phases. Characteristics of the networks and the stakeholders involved are also outlined.

Practical implications for social entrepreneurs include the need to establish cross-sectoral partnerships with diverse stakeholders, including private companies.

Implications for policy makers stress the need for ongoing support for nonprofit disability organizations. Social implications are not limited to the inclusion of socially weaker groups; rather, the entire community benefits from the social innovation process.

Social farming represents a valuable solution to meet the needs of disadvantaged people. While much research has investigated the topic of social innovation in social entrepreneurship, only a few studies have addressed social innovation in the context of disability nonprofits involved in social farming.

The purpose of this study is to develop a dual-functional university-enabled social innovation process model on the subject of low-cost houses that addresses the distinct elements of social obligation and university teaching–learning.

This study has predominantly adopted a longitudinal single case study approach, where data have been collected through interviews, survey, participant observation, direct observation and document review. The case study details on the social innovation processes, which was conducted by Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia.

This study has demonstrated the social innovation processes toward addressing the issue of insufficient low-cost houses, concurrently benefitting the teaching–learning dimension. Three sub-innovations have been highlighted in the developed social innovation process model, which are collaboration process, teaching–learning and design-construct innovation.

Because the study has been based on a single prototype project, further investigation is necessary to confirm the applicability of the full-fledged model. The established social innovation process model is also suggested to be tested in other social fields.

The established social innovation process model has created a new perspective that enables universities to contribute in providing shelter for low-income families, simultaneously enhancing the teaching–learning dimension through experiential learning.

The dual-functional social innovation process model provides a synergistic relationship between the university and the society. Ultimately, the model could address social issues pertaining to low-income families with the built of low-cost houses, concurrently preparing graduates who are highly marketable, which could reduce the rate of graduate unemployment in the country.

The development of the social innovation process model for low-cost houses through university-enabled initiative is a novel establishment, particularly for developing nations, as limited studies have been conducted in this regard. The significant insights into how university could play a role in addressing major social issues, along with their core focus (teaching–learning and research development), is a breakthrough for further diffusions of social innovation by universities.

Identify the drivers of social innovation (SI) that bring together the main management tools and approaches associated with the creation of SI in social enterprises (SEs).

A systematic review was developed in the Web of Science, Scopus and EBSCO databases, using the keywords: social innovation, social enterprise and management. After analysis of quality and application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 54 articles were selected for full analysis.

SI process was systemised into four steps: mapping and development, consolidation, scaling up and evaluation. The drivers of SI were mapped and classified into three main factors: contextual, organisational and managerial.

In organisational factors, business model was emphasised, as well as partnerships, participatory culture and intrapreneurship, adequate levels of bricolage and continuous learning. The management factors included the characteristics of the entrepreneur/innovator and managerial practices, where those that facilitate teamwork and the participation of all involved are best suited. In contextual factors, the highlight was the need for support from policy makers; community participation and demand for innovations that consider local context and usability.

This study connects previously scattered knowledge in a generic model of SI, highlighting routines and processes used, and provides a starting point for innovators and social entrepreneurs in the complex, uncertain and often unknown process of SI. Additionally, several research gaps were identified to be addressed by future research in the context of SI management.

This study aims to offer an empirical analysis to identify the relation between the adoption of knowledge management practices and the improvement of social innovation capabilities as an outcome of the knowledge sharing. Specifically, social innovation capabilities are triggered by knowledge-sharing enablers, such as intrinsic and extrinsic socially driven motivations.

Based on a sample from 300 nonprofit organizations, the study explains causal relationships in terms of the multiplicity of triggers that act on a social innovation capability. The research applied the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) method through SmartPLS 3.3 software. Data are collected from an online survey and highlight the employees’ and volunteers’ boost in nonprofit organizations to seek positive social change as a priority goal of their business model.

The results support the existence of a direct and positive relationship between knowledge-sharing enablers (i.e. intrinsic and extrinsic socially driven motivations), the mechanism of the formation of knowledge-sharing behaviors (an inside-out and outside-in process) and social innovation capabilities.

The study combines the open innovation framework with social innovation activities and investigates the role of knowledge sharing in the building of social innovation capabilities. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the paper is the first attempt to describe a synergic framework, including open innovation literature, social innovation capability and knowledge-sharing processes.

This paper is a part of the research stream that focuses on the processes of distribution of knowledge flows along the boundaries of the organization. Thus, this study broadens the field of knowledge management and social innovation initiatives.

The purpose of this paper is to offer pointers to local government executives on the qualities of leadership that drive social innovation (SI) as well as locate the roles of leadership and participation in the output and outcome of SI. Further, the findings of the study can hopefully contribute to the discourse on leadership for a sustainable future.

The purpose of the study was to highlight the forms of participation among the actors in the different stages of SI, the qualities of the leaders that drove SI and the roles of leadership and participation in the output and outcome of SI. To answer the research questions, the researcher applied the case study research design and employed the grounded theory approach for data analysis and interpretation.

The cases showed leadership that encourages, as leadership qualities of the governors. These were manifested in terms of being empowering, giving the freehand, being goal-oriented, resource mobilizer, consultative and practicing both bottom-up and top-bottom approaches to make sure that the outputs are achieved, as well as having the qualities of a supportive leader. The cases showed all three employed forms of participation, as categorized by Lowndes et al. (2001). Government can indeed foster innovation when there is close involvement and participation of the workforce in innovation. Leadership and participation play a big role in achieving output and outcome of SI.

The study is a review of the unpublished dissertation by Gallardo (2014) at the National College of Public Administration and Governance, University of the Philippines.

Responsible innovation (RI) and social innovation (SI) are two fields of innovation study experiencing burgeoning policy, practice and research interest. Despite this rapid rise in popularity, the scholarly literature in these two related areas of innovation study remains quite separate, stymieing the growth of shared research insights. The purpose of this paper is to propose a pragmatic, process-based framework that lends itself to advancing systematic research in both fields while retaining their distinct identities.

This conceptual paper outlines an analogy-inspired framework that builds on the logical thinking put forward by Philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine in 1962. It focusses on key processes that cross-cut both fields.

Reflexivity, collaboration and design are identified as three broad core processes that span both the RI and SI fields and form the basis of an integrative framework that highlights the scope for cross-field research pollination.

The literature that draws these two fields together is virtually non-existent. The paper uses analogy to facilitate awareness of the parallels between these two areas of innovation study. The integrative framework put forward in the paper is of value for advancing cumulative research in innovation fields of critical importance to the society.

This paper aims to explore the role of university in promoting, generating and sustaining social innovation (SI). It aimed to understand how higher education institutions have extended their contribution beyond the traditional function of teaching and research to perform in socio-economic problem-solving. It looks at the kinds of contributions which universities potentially make to SI processes, and the effects that this has on the direction and magnitude of SI, and by implication social development. This was done by drawing lessons from a SI project that the University of the Western Cape has been involved in, i.e. Zenzeleni Networks Project.

To address the research question with this framework, the author adopted an exploratory research design using a case study. This research is qualitative, exploratory and descriptive, based on a case study built with secondary data.

This paper submits that universities can potentially function as key role players in promoting SI initiatives and fostering social transformations. Universities contribute with different kinds of resources and inputs to foster new SI ideas.

The paper suggests that socially innovative university projects may contribute to community social sustainability maintaining social cohesion by increasing social capital and providing resources for the empowerment of the marginalised communities. In so doing, they contribute to overcome social exclusion and promote more sustainable forms of development at community level. More research is needed on how universities can build community networks with local community partners, who can use the insights of academic research to replicate interventions and move to scale.

Social innovation (SI) has been promoted by policymakers for addressing all kinds of social issues in the context of diminishing government resources. It is, however, difficult to assess the efficiency of SI-based public policies, as the process of SI itself remains largely nebulous. The purpose of this paper is to better understand this process with a focus on its early stage, until the point of identifying a socially innovative idea and in the context of disadvantaged rural communities in India.

Co-creation workshops were facilitated to generate socially innovative solutions in villages, using co-design technique. Following an action research approach, qualitative data was collected to produce case studies.

This study found that SI was appropriate for addressing development challenges in rural India. Facilitated co-creation was successful in involving all citizens and effective in generating SI. The authors developed a framework of generating SI through co-creation that gives a more precise understanding of the SI process.

The authors propose a method for co-creating SI that can be of significant use for practitioners. Findings can help design better and more socially impactful public policies.

This paper focusses on understanding the process of generating SI, using a participatory approach. It is the first work that has been conducted of this sort in the context of Indian rural villages.

Recently, social innovation (SI) has captured the imagination of a range of actors globally, including in the higher education (HE) sector. This study explores the conceptual domain of SI leadership in HE. Drawing on the insights of 22 experienced practitioners in Canada, it provides a concept map to help guide leadership practice and research.

The study adopted Group Concept Mapping (GCM), a mixed methods approach that provides a structured way to map the “conceptual domain” of a topic from the perspectives of those with close knowledge of it. Using online GCM software, one group of participants generated statements in response to a prompting question about SI leadership. Another group sorted statements into conceptual groups, rating them for importance. The authors then produced a preliminary map using cluster analysis. A third group interpreted that map. The authors analyzed interpretation data to produce a final concept map, which is discussed in light of relevant literature.

GCM methodology resulted in 108 statements about SI leadership, with the vast majority ranked as highly important. The analysis produced a map consisting of nine “clusters” of conceptually related ideas about SI leadership, encapsulated under three interacting areas of focus: individual, relational, institutional/system. Participants confirmed the map reflected key dimensions of practice, noting it indicated important tensions and paradoxes core to their practice. Their interpretations highlighted how the map represented iterative dynamics of leadership over time and across levels; and how different theoretical and practice traditions in SI communities affect conceptualizations of leadership.

The study suggests that an area ripe for study is the navigation of micro-level systems in pursuit of meso-level and macro-level systems change. The map provides an empirically derived set of dimensions for instrument development in future SI leadership studies. The context of conventional academic institutions bounds the results but helps to surface key considerations for researching SI processes in other mature institutions. Comparison of findings with extant leadership theories suggests that, to advance theoretical research on the topic of leadership in SI, bricolage or new theory development will be needed.

The map paints broad themes with concrete, practice-level ideas. It can serve as a touchstone for reflection by experienced practitioners and offers a reference point to orient those new to leading SI.

The scholarly knowledge base about SI has been growing rapidly, but it is still an emerging field of study. There are only a handful of published studies offering perspectives on SI in HE, and none with respect to SI leadership in HE. This study offers original conceptual insights grounded in empirical data gathered through a method aligned with its exploratory purpose.