Search results

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.

This research paper aims to explore how social intrapreneurs use serious games to generate social innovation. In particular, the study depicts the coproduction process between caregivers acting as intrapreneurs, patients and other stakeholders, and unveils the contributions of serious games and their key features in producing social innovation within healthcare facilities.

Through an original case study, the article analyzes a social innovation initiated by caregivers in the French care eco-system. Primary and secondary data were used to observe and examine the successful implementation of a serious game. Specifically, caregivers in hospital designed a game that helps children overcome the stress and anxiety inherent to their hospital journey.

Results unveil the role of social innovations as catalyst of social intrapreneurship and the coproduction of services. In the healthcare setting, serious games both participate in improving the stay of child in hospitals, and in facilitating the working conditions of caregivers.

This article brings together the theoretical background of social intrapreneurship, social innovation and serious games. The successful implementation of social innovation depends on the intrinsic features of social intrapreneurs, coupled with those pertaining to serious games. The positive outcome of social innovation benefits both internal and external stakeholders. Such innovation improves the end users' experience, as the latter participate in the coproduction of their own care.

This paper discusses how service design can be used to activate a transition of textile artisan communities towards a sustainable future.

Two participatory case studies were undertaken with textile artisans in the UK and South Africa. These led to the development of an original methodological framework for “crafting situated services” – services designed to be meaningful to the local communities within which they are embedded. An evaluation study assessed the originality of the framework, its relevance for tackling real-world problems, its extensibility and the rigour of the research process.

The framework brings together a variety of roles, methods and tools that designers can adopt in order to enter communities, make sense of sustainable futures, facilitate the co-design of situated services and activate legacies within communities. Building on emerging anthropological approaches, the framework makes a bridge between service management and service design for social innovation, advancing the field towards design for social entrepreneurship.

Arguing against the idea of the designer “parachuting” into communities to create services regardless of the local context, the concept of “situated services” is proposed in this paper, alongside a process for “crafting” meaningful social innovations. This requires the service designer to adopt a more situated and embedded approach to designing with communities in order to align with their needs and aspirations, interweave places, time, people and practices within the process, and co-design contextually better services.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the conceptual construct of social innovation in business as distinct from social innovation implemented by civil society and the state. The general absence of sustained research and analysis of this phenomenon, and the dominance of grey and policy-oriented literature, mean that a broadly accepted definition of how social innovation theorises the changing role of business in society is missing

An integrative review of the representative literature on social innovation was conducted. The analysis focused on the key arguments made about the involvement of business actors in processes of social innovation and interweaved in this study to build a logically coherent definition of what social innovation in business means for the bulk of those who write and speak about it today. The scope of the literature review was expanded by integrating insights from the extant “business in society” and social innovation literatures, thereby adding clarity to the authors' conceptualisation.

The findings indicate that social innovation is best understood as a process driven by human relations, morality and creative capacity breaking routines and path dependencies. It fundamentally relies on the socially constructed dynamics between business and social actors who carry ideas, focus their energies, mobilise competences and create new complementarities to tackle social problems. Economic gain, in this approach, is at best an outcome of social innovation, not its engine.

What this literature review unveils that is unique about social innovation, and contributes to an enrichment of the “business in society” debate beyond the business case and win-win scenarios depicted by most scholars in this field, is that it best manifests itself as an informal social process that comes into existence at the margins of conventional ways of thinking and organising business activities. Business actors involved in social innovation are framed as self-directed and self-organised around the moral purpose of fostering social progress.

The purpose of this paper is to resolve a tension in understanding how universities contribute to knowledge-based urban development (KBUD).

The paper is a conceptual paper, which analyses the tension as emerging between the university and the wider societal activity. The paper creates a framework for combining insights from both those theoretical frameworks to better understand why universities might choose to contribute to KBUD.

The paper argues that it is important to understand the benefits that the universities get from participating in the KBUD. This can be through the unique tacit knowledge that emerges in the social innovation process, but their might also be value for the university in terms of two other variables, material resources and symbolic legitimacy.

The paper is a literature review and therefore is limited to raising a series of future questions and directions for research in the field, as well as to providing a lens and context for existing work.

There are clear implications for those seeking to improve universities contributions to KBUD. It is not merely enough for strategic leaders to come together and agree that promoting the university will promote KBUD: it is necessary to modify a range of processes within the university to ensure that a wide range of actors are able to benefit from participating in KBUD activities, and that it facilitates their own teaching and research activities.

For universities to make a substantive contribution to promoting KBUD, policy-makers must ensure that they do not create disincentives through universities’ teaching and research activities.

This is the first time that a paper has sought to bridge between theories of urban development and social innovation, and universities’ internal institutional and organisational dynamics.

This chapter attempts to advance our understanding regarding social innovation with a focus on public sector organizations. The aim is to answer the following question: “How does a manager’s novel knowledge gained from decisional interventions act as a resource to achieve social innovation?” The study employed a qualitative research approach. Findings have stemmed from secondary sources such as officially published reports and media releases of three local councils of Victoria, Australia. The data were first contextually positioned and then analyzed by following the Gioia methodology. Research findings indicate that tacit knowledge gained by public managers helps them to make better decisional interventions. In different situations such as handling disturbance, negotiating with other parties, allocating resources, or being an intrapreneur, the decisions and its quality will be improved if public managers enhance their personal knowledge. This study also offers policymakers a new approach to deal with the social problems innovatively. It, therefore, provides insights on topics such as sustained social transformation through public reforms, navigation of resources, and wise leadership.

This paper aims to reflect on the facilitative factors that contribute to a shift in focus to social innovation for social justice in a higher education institution. The study provides lessons learned that can be takeaways for others interested in shifting their conceptualization of social innovation toward social justice.

Relying on a case study of social innovation at Ryerson University, the paper begins with a brief history and the later development of the Office of Social Innovation. Through a reflection on three key initiatives, the study discusses strategic planning and partnerships, student programming and communications strategy.

The reflection process provides ingredients that have facilitated the intentional grounding of social innovation offerings and practices in social justice values, including creativity, collaboration, adaptability, voice and shifting the spotlight to alternate stories and ways of understanding social innovation. The authors also discuss the role of generative conflict and contradictions.

This study presents a reflective case study from a public research university, which holds a prominent reputation in entrepreneurial incubators and curricular offerings. With candid reflections from faculty and staff central in strategizing the direction of social innovation, the authors present experiences, perspectives and conflicts encountered when challenging the language and application of social innovation. The result is a unique contribution on what it means to ground post-secondary social innovation in social justice, why this shift was necessary and what has come from this work.

This paper aims to illustrate how dispersed institutes of social innovation operating as intermediary actors within higher education institutions (HEIs) may help overcome many of the institutional bureaucracies and structures that inhibit social innovation in higher education.

This paper reviews core conditions for social innovation, along with the opportunities, challenges and tensions that emerge as HEIs work to apply these conditions in practice. It then describes how dispersed institutes enact principles of decentralization, localization and collaboration in pursuit of social innovation.

Five main ways that dispersed institutes enable social innovation were identified in this review, including bridging academic–practice divides, enabling co-creation and co-production with users, facilitating experiential and co-curricular education, supporting interdisciplinary collaborations and generating customized and place-based solutions.

Findings suggest four strategies that HEIs can use to support dispersed institutes, including prioritizing social purpose organizations as institutional partners, incentivizing public engagement and collaboration, leveraging their convening power to strengthen global networks among dispersed institutes and using budgeting models that reflect the importance of creating both economic and social value.

Although innovation labs in HEIs have long been a feature of natural sciences and technology services, they are still comparatively new for the social sciences and humanities. This paper addresses a gap in the literature on the value contributed by dispersed institutes of social innovation operating within HEIs such as living labs, makerspaces, incubators and excubators, social innovation parks, cooperation accelerators and technology transfer offices.