Search results

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.

The purpose of this chapter is to analyze the evolution in the provision of public services’ delivery, with a specific focus on housing policies. New practices are being implemented, thanks to the cooperation of the public sector, private, and nonprofit actors. Rather than just providing assistance to households with income levels falling below specific thresholds, social housing addresses the broader and more complex areas of vulnerability that affect several categories, such as single parents, young students and professionals, and temporarily unemployed people. Co-production also comes into the picture, since many social housing projects require that beneficiaries contribute to the implementation of the project itself, for example by managing the buildings and common areas or by creating communities.

The chapter will start from considerations on the emergence of new housing needs. It will then review the literature on the concept of co-production of public services and provide a definition of social housing. Then, examples of social housing will be analyzed based on specific criteria derived from the literature and the theoretical framework. The methodology is qualitative and based on descriptive case analysis.

The chapter analyzes the evolution of public housing policies by taking into account the social and economic changes that have determined greater and more complex areas for public intervention, adopting a twofold approach of partnership and collaboration between the three sectors, and of co-production of public services by directly engaging the users.

This chapter aims to further the conceptual clarity of co-creation, by classifying and exploring the spectrum of non-government actor–led governance arrangements for the co-creation of nature-based solutions (NBS) across different European contexts. Case studies from pilot demonstrators in current Horizon 2020 projects (proGIreg, CLEVER Cities, and EdiCitNet in Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom) are used to illustrate collaborative governance arrangements within the operating space of co-creation, delineate respective actor roles, and identify lessons learnt.

Public service ethos (PSE) is traditionally associated with public administration, bureaucracy and frontline response. Thinkers such as Aristotle and Weber embedded ideas of public virtue and vocation, yet new managerialism, as well as changes to public services management challenge traditional notions of PSE. Recent events such as the COVID-19 pandemic, counter terrorism and government austerity agendas have put PSE back into the public eye. In this chapter we examine the context for a renewed PSE as a crucial aspect of resilience for workers in public services and public management. We focus on three areas that we feel are important for PSE: policy, purpose and pedagogy, and how a renewed PSE can inform pedagogy in the discipline, renewing ideas of vocation in public administration training.

This chapter is an appreciation of and a critical reflection on Sarasvathy's work on the causation and effectuation models of entrepreneurship. While Sarasvathy has made significant contributions to the field, it is suggested that more fruitful results can be achieved if two modifications are made. First, it is argued that the six dimensions on which the two models differ are independent and therefore it is more fruitful to focus on the dimensions rather than on the two models. Second, it is argued that a pragmatic view of entrepreneurship is most fruitful when it is not applied at the level of the entrepreneurial process, but at the level of underlying human actions.

Business incubators (BI) have been established worldwide as tools for company creation and small businesses support. BIs claim to help their tenants by providing them with the optimal conditions for increasing early stage survival and long-term performance. Practitioners and researchers agree that business support is a crucial feature of incubating businesses. Yet this is seldom researched. In this study we theoretically relate business support to help in solving problems and further investigate to what extent business incubators support their tenants overcome their developmental problems. Results show that tenants do not experience many problems and when they do business support is not necessarily sought. Furthermore, our data suggests that business support is not preferentially sought within incubator environments. When this happens, support provided by the BI does not contribute to problem solving. Finally, we discuss the impact of the type of BI on helping their tenants.

This volume brings together empirical and conceptual papers that investigate the challenges of organizing creativity in the innovation journey in and across different empirical contexts. Seen as the basis for innovating new products, processes or services, organizing creativity is studied as intentional efforts that occur in teams, organizations, and fields. What creativity is, how it is defined, negotiated and recognized is hereby co-constructed with different audiences and in different economic and societal spheres. The papers in this volume extend our understanding of these contextualized social dynamics of organizing creativity in four directions. The first direction sheds light on the temporal dynamics of organizing creativity in artistic fields. The second direction compares creative processes in arts and science, thereby examining tensions and uncertainties in the creative process unfolding in two distinctive contexts of creativity. The third direction examines identity struggles of creative agents in organizations with clashing roles, professional norms, and ambiguities in creativity assessment. The fourth and final direction unravels the communicative journey of ideas from pitching to feedback, revealing how ideas are challenged, enriched, and acquire meaning in communicative interaction. Overall, the papers in this volume contribute to a situated view of creative processes in innovation which goes beyond questions of idea generation to account for dynamics of idea development, judgment, and dissemination which involve identity struggles, evaluation, and communication – processes which are at the heart of organizing for innovation.

Technological innovation in context has been studied by economists and sociologists of technical change and innovation. I shall present the insights and perspectives from this body of literature (including some of my own work), in order to highlight the dynamics of technological innovation processes and the possibilities to influence them — by managers, as well as governmental and societal actors. These actors often work with a limited view of the complexities of technological change and innovation, and they might do better if they were to use recent insights, as I have argued previously (Rip, 1995). Thus, a further topic, visible between the lines of my main exposé, is the relation between the “theory” — i.e., insights from social scientific studies — and the “practice” of policy or action.