Search results

This paper aims to provide a nuanced understanding of philosophies underpinning social innovation based on the action research strategies applied in the field.

Literature review was conducted to identify action research strategies referred to in the social innovation literature. Through stratified purposive sampling, the authors then selected nonprofit organizations, each closely associated with one of the strategies. Qualitative content analysis was applied to documents published by these organizations for an in-depth exploration of how the action research strategies frame the three dimensions of social innovation, namely, the product, process and empowerment dimensions.

The authors identified four broad action research strategies referred to in the social innovation literature. Each strategy inspires four distinct narratives of social innovation centered around key concepts: prototyping, evidence, asset-building and co-creation.

The methodology used is characterized by depth rather than scope. Although diverse types of documents were used, the documents are limited to publications by four institutions. A deductive approach using the categories should be used in future empirical research.

The paper contributes to the discussion about different schools and research agendas in the field of social innovation. In particular, the authors examine the action research strategies adopted in the field, shedding light on incompatible views and strategies within certain research clusters while identifying common ground between authors belonging to different schools.

This paper aims to examine how the fields of social enterprise, social entrepreneurship and social innovation have theorised and applied the concepts of narrative and storytelling.

A literature review and subsequent thematic analysis were used. A keyword search of three databases identified 93 relevant articles that were subsequently reviewed for this paper.

Four main roles for storytelling and narrative were found in the literature: to gain support for social innovation, to inspire social change, to build a social-entrepreneurial identity and to debate the meaning and direction of social innovation itself.

Following the literature review, capacities and applications of storytelling and narrative in other, related fields are discussed to highlight practical use cases of storytelling that might currently be underdeveloped in the social enterprise and innovation sectors.

The paper argues that the social innovation and enterprise literature predominantly views storytelling as a form of mass communication, while often overlooking its ability to foster communal debate and organise intrapersonal dialogue as possible aspects of strategic thinking and innovation management in social enterprise, social entrepreneurship and social innovation.

This chapter explores a pathway towards achieving a sustainable and inclusive future through the implementation of systems innovation, systems leadership and systems change. The author highlights the importance of understanding complex systems and identifies several models that can be employed to drive systems change, including the iceberg model and multi-level perspective. The author stresses the significance of systems leadership and innovation in creating a sustainable and inclusive future. This means that leaders and managers need to shift their mindset from reductionism to systems thinking. Reductionism views complex systems as a collection of separate parts that can be studied independently. In contrast, systems thinking acknowledges the interconnectedness of all parts and how they influence each other. When they embrace systems thinking, leaders and managers can make systems innovation and drive systems change to achieve sustainable and inclusive growth. Achieving a sustainable and inclusive future requires a collective effort from individuals, organizations and governments. It demands a comprehensive understanding of the interdependencies and interactions within complex systems, as well as a willingness to adopt new ways of thinking and leading. This chapter presents a compelling case for adopting systems innovation, systems leadership and systems change as critical components in building a sustainable and inclusive future.

The construction industry has shown an inherent inability to adopt advanced technological innovations. The construction innovation literature is highly fragmented and outlines an overwhelming number of factors that arguably influence the transfer of technological innovations in construction. Factor-based research in the construction innovation literature tends to set out technological innovations and their adoption as socially neutral events, overlooking the role of context in the adoption process. Hence, the authors’ understanding of how technological innovations are transferred and implemented in the construction industry remains limited by the constraints of reductionist approaches adopted by factor-based research. This paper aims to advance the authors’ understanding of the actual experiences of technological innovations transfer in construction. Instead of introducing another set of factors, the research, through empirical investigation, develops a comprehensive and holistic framework to re-interpret the existing factor-based literature taking into consideration the role of the construction context and the socially constructed nature of technological innovations.

This research uses a participatory exploratory multiple case study design strategy, which has much in common with action research. The factors that could influence the transfer of technological innovations were investigated in three selected case studies over an extended period of time. During the research, a prototype system application of construction integration was used as a basis to discuss the adoption of technological innovations.

The findings suggest moving from the commonly held beliefs in the rational school of technological innovation and the functionalist paradigm towards constructivist approaches to capture the role of context and the stoically constructed nature of technological innovations. It is suggested that construction companies need to develop management capabilities to manage the changing political environments of the adoption process. The research supports the emerging view of technological innovations in construction as a collaborative-based innovation, which is a function of relationships and context.

The research is limited by the settings of the action research design and the use of an interpretive approach. Because the focus was on investigating the “why” question, little attention was given to the “how” question. Accordingly, the findings provide little insights into the way organizations can manage the changing political and social environment of the adoption process. The authors also acknowledge that in spite of their best efforts to build a theoretically grounded framework of factors, they may have overlooked some relevant studies. However, the objective of this research was not to conduct a systematic literature review or to come up with a framework that quantitatively captures all previous research studies; instead, the objective was to build a holistic framework that can be used as a base to analyze the role of construction context and the socially constructed nature of technological innovations in the adoption process.

The research offers several practical insights. First, it suggests that construction companies need to develop management capabilities to be able to lead the changing political environment of the adoption process successfully. Second, the research supports the emerging view of technological innovations in construction as a collaborative-based innovation that is a function of relationship. From a policy perspective, the research provides the basis to reconsider the effectiveness of federal and provincial policies that promote advanced technological Initiatives. The majority of these policies focus on the technical aspects in assessing the adoption of technological innovation, providing little incentives to companies to manage the changing political and social environment of the adoption process.

This research offers several theoretical and methodological contributions. First, it advances the authors’ understanding of the actual experiences of the transfer of technological innovations in construction organizations. Second, instead of introducing another set of factors, the research develops a framework to re-interpret the existing factor-based literature, considering the role of construction context and the socially constructed nature of technological innovations. The research uses the theoretical lens of the social construction of technology framework to analyze the adoption process. The existing literature suggests that such research is scarce and highly needed. Third, unlike the mainstream reductionist approaches, this research adopts an exploratory action research inquiry design that uses both inductive and deductive inquiry approaches to understand the socially constructed nature of innovation transfer in construction. The adopted research design offers a valuable methodological contribution to the existing body of knowledge.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how, in a context of economic, political, social and environmental transitions, SMart, a cultural and artistic social enterprise (CASE), has developed a relevant cooperative model to contribute to mitigate the structural labour precariousness of artists and creators.

The research design includes a mixed-method approach that combines qualitative and quantitative methodologies with emphasis on the former. Namely, the organisation is SMartbe and its replication across nine European countries was studied as a revelatory case study. Five main types of techniques were deployed in the course of this research, including desk review, direct (participant) observation, interviews, focus group and questionnaire (Likert-scale survey).

CASEs constitute a specific institutional arrangement that offers innovative labour arrangements for cultural workers and artists to fight against precariousness. Social enterprises are embedded in the social and solidarity economy and stand at the crossroads of markets, civil society and the public, which places them in a critical position: depending on the logic, actors and contexts at play, social enterprises can ensure to varying degrees the general interest through their social mission, their sustainability via the real participation of all their stakeholders and the carrying out of economic activities that are fully consistent with their mission.

It is within this type of sustainability and participation that transformative social innovation can emerge within CASEs. Their potential to contribute to transformative social innovation is based on its four objectives: cultural (to imagine human, participative and sustainable alternatives); social (to achieve a social –including the environment – mission and join the ecosocial transition); participatory (empowering and impacting the public sphere); and economic (being financially sustainable and fair).

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 identify global trends in disruptive technological change and map the social and policy implications, particularly as they relate to the educational ecosystem and main stakeholders across all levels of education.

The authors conducted a two-stage meta-analysis of 1,155 scholarly, peer-reviewed articles. The investigation involves a systematized literature review for data identification and collation adhering to defined selection criteria, and a network analysis to scrutinize data, consolidate information and unveil correlations and patterns from the literature review to produce a set of recommendations.

The study unveiled educational trends related to disruptive technologies and delineated four principal clusters representing how these technologies are transforming the education ecosystem. Additionally, a series of transversal aspects that reveal a societal vulnerability toward future prospects in the realms of ethics, sustainability, resilience, security, and policy were identified.

The findings spotlight an enlarging chasm between industry (and society at large) and conventional education, where many transformations triggered by disruptive technologies remain absent from teaching and learning systems. The study further offers recommendations and envisions potential scenarios, urging stakeholders to respond based on their positions concerning disruptive technologies.

Expanding from the meta-analysis of pertinent literature, this paper offers four collections of curated resources, four mini case studies and four scenarios for policymakers and local communities to consider, enabling them to plot courses for their optimal futures.

The purpose of this study is to reveal the influence mechanism of social innovation education (SIE) on sustainability learning outcomes and analyze the roles of intrinsic learning motivation and prosocial motivation.

A sample of 322 undergraduates from one higher education institution in Tianjin was used to test the hypotheses.

This study found that SIE positively affected sustainability learning outcomes, and intrinsic learning motivation mediated the relationship between them. The results showed that prosocial motivation positively moderates the positive effect of SIE on intrinsic learning motivation and the overall mediation model.

The findings have important practical implications for higher education institutions to carry out SIE. Higher education institutions should focus on integrating social innovation and sustainability into top-level design. Furthermore, higher education institutions should focus on stimulating students’ intrinsic learning motivation and cultivating their prosocial motivation.

This study identified the relationship between SIE and sustainability learning outcomes and clarified the influence mechanism of SIE on sustainability learning outcomes. Moreover, this study emphasized the importance of prosocial motivation as a key boundary condition of SIE.

In societies marked by inequality, organizations use management techniques and business strategies for sustainability, social impact and ethical activities, with stakeholders often promoting education to effectively address these challenges. This paper establishes an original relation between the development of social entrepreneurship and a deep philosophical comprehension of human existence. Going beyond conventional management theories, the authors demonstrate that specific existential ideas and other philosophical underpinnings provide powerful guiding principles, portraying entrepreneurship as a method to address the underlying social and environmental issues driving inequality.

This study is based on an analysis of relevant articles and is supported by qualitative research on social entrepreneurship. The stories of social entrepreneurs represent good practice in applying the values and insights discussed in modern approaches.

Social entrepreneurs are relentlessly seeking innovative pathways to develop their enterprises. Their intrinsic drive for social entrepreneurship and their unwavering commitment to solidarity are undeniably more aligned with philosophical approaches to management than with the confines of traditional positivist foundations.

Leveraging philosophical approaches that intricately resonate with the ethical and value-driven compass of social entrepreneurs, as opposed to the constraints of conventional managerial methods, holds immense potential in shaping the training and skill development of these impactful visionaries.

The authors' study unveils fresh insights into how social entrepreneurs adeptly navigate interpersonal connections, handle uncertainties and address the paradoxical situations intrinsic to their entrepreneurial efforts to confront social issues.

In this viewpoint article, the authors recognize the increased focus in health systems on co-design for innovation and change. This article explores the role of leaders and mangers in developing and enhancing a culture of trust in their organizations to enable co-design, with the potential to drive innovation and change in healthcare.

Using social science analyses, the authors argue that current co-design literature has limited focus on interactions between senior leaders and managers, and healthcare staff and service users in supporting co-designed innovation and change. The authors draw on social and health science studies of trust to highlight how the value-based co-design process needs to be supported and enhanced. We outline what co-design innovation and change involve in a health system, conceptualize trust and reflect on its importance within the health system, and finally note the role of senior leaders and managers in supporting trust and responsiveness for co-designed innovation and change.

Healthcare needs leaders and managers to embrace co-design that drives innovation now and in the future through people – leading to better healthcare for society at large. As authors we argue that it is now the time to shift our focus on the role of senior managers and leaders to embed co-design into health and social care structures, through creating and nurturing a culture of trust.

Building public trust in the health system and interpersonal trust within the health system is an ongoing process that relies upon personal behavior of managers and senior leaders, organizational practices within the system, as well as political processes that underpin these practices. By implementing managerial, leadership and individual practices on all levels, senior managers and leaders provide a mechanism to increase both trust and responsiveness for co-design that supports innovation and change in the health system.