Content uploaded by Seerp Wigboldus
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Seerp Wigboldus on Sep 18, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Ten types of social innovation – a brief discussion paper
December 2016
Seerp Wigboldus, Wageningen Centre for Development Innovation (CDI)
Contact: seerp.wigboldus@wur.nl
Introduction
There appear to be a number of different interpretations regarding what “social innovation” is about (van
der Have and Rubalcaba, 2016). This brief discussion paper intends to contribute to a demystification of
the term. First of all, it suggests to define social innovation
quite simply as innovation which is social in nature. In other
words, innovation which emerges in the social realm of
experienced reality. The social dimension is about human
interaction and about interaction of people with their
environment. Social innovation is then about new ways in
which people interact and about new ways in which people
interact with their environment. Such interaction relates to
both thinking and acting (behaviour). This way of
understanding social innovation implies that social innovation comes in many shapes and forms,
connecting the social realm to different realms of experienced reality.
A theoretical typology of social innovation
Figure 1 provides an overview of different types of social innovation as they may be distinguished along
the lines of the theory of modal aspects. This theory encompasses a systemic framework developed by
Dutch philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd and was popularised by e.g. Brandon and Lombardi (2011) when
applied in evaluation of sustainability in the built environment. The figure distinguishes between ten
types of social innovation, briefly characterising those and providing one example as illustration.
Figure 1: A typology of ten different types of social innovation
Socio-political
innovation
Socio-ethical
innovation
Socio-ideological
innovation
Socio-technical
innovation
Socio-cultural
innovation
Socio-ecological
innovation
Socio-juridical
innovation
Socio-economic
innovation
Socio-
organisational
innovation
Types of
Social
Innovation
Innovation of
ideological
frameworks, mind-sets,
paradigms, etc.
Innovation of ethical/
normative
frameworks, etc.
Innovation of legal
frameworks and laws, etc. Innovation of governance,
policies, etc.
Innovation of non-
formal institutions, etc.
Innovation of
human-
environment
interaction, etc.
Innovation of
human-technology
interaction, etc.
Innovation of
organisational
arrangements, etc.
Innovation of economic
models, business
models, etc.
Typical example:
corporate social
responsibility
Typical example:
the Reformation in the
16th and 17th century
Typical example:
inclusive business/
value chains
Typical example:
See Stockholm
Resilience Centre
Typical example:
use of social media
Socio-analytical
innovation
Innovation of
analytical and
sense-making
frameworks, etc.
Typical example:
“het nieuwe werken”
Typical example:
More citizen involvement
through referenda
Typical example:
Citizen science
Typical example:
If citizen jury would be
introduced in Dutch courts
Typical example:
Change in Sinterklaas
celebrations
A broad and diversified interpretation
of social innovation
This paper suggest that there are many
other types. Social innovation is not the
prerogative of certain groups in society.
This broader interpretation of social
innovation helps to see how the potential
of social innovation can be put to use in all
spheres of life and in all corners of society.
This is an initial overview which may be further elaborated and linked to different types of social
innovation practice. In many cases of social innovation, different
types of social innovation will be involved e.g. because one leads
to another, or one requires another. New thinking may be needed
before new practice becomes possible and new practice may trigger new thinking.
Discussion and conclusions
So what is the use of such typology? First of all it helps to prevent a limitation of the concept of social
innovation to just certain types of social innovation. By doing so, it broadens our understanding of social
innovation, leading to the realisation that social innovation has happened since the beginning of society
and is in no way ‘the new kid on the block’. Certain types
of social innovation may be new, but not social innovation
as such. This interpretation also acknowledges that all
Wageningen UR staff have been involved in social
innovation in one way or another.
Also, this interpretation points out that the key question in
research on “social innovation for value creation” is not
about how to introduce social innovation to Wageningen
UR, but rather about finding out what types of social
innovation (both in general terms and in concrete
examples) have helped and could help create (enhanced)
value for society and how this interplays with other types
of innovation. This is about doing things in different ways
which is primarily about what people (in knowledge
institutes, government, private sector, and civil society)
do and how they do it (e.g. in terms of interaction,
collaboration, participation) and only secondarily about
what they use in the process (e.g. devices and
technologies).
The above sketches a rather complex picture of what is involved in innovation. It is much easier to focus
on technical innovation over which we can exert much more control. And that is why knowledge
institutes may focus on technical innovation capacity. A plea for taking social innovation seriously has
everything to do with taking value for society seriously since such value cannot be based on the
introduction of technologies alone. Even more, capitalising on the potential of technologies often requires
social innovation, hence the reference to the role of socio-technical innovation.
Finally, social innovation is not something which is good by nature. It depends. It depends because it
often involves agendas, interests and preferences which are motivated by theories of change about
which people may (strongly) disagree. Social innovation in all its diversity and with all its potential to
contribute to creation of value for society will therefore often involve a considerable amount of discussion
and debate.
This is a discussion paper which means it is meant to stimulate critical thinking about the topic at hand.
Critical responses to suggestions put forward in this paper are welcome.
References
Brandon P, Lombardi P., 2011. Evaluating sustainable development in the built environment. 2nd edn. Wiley-
Blackwell, Chichester, UK
Van der Have, R.P., Rubalcaba, L. 2016. Social innovation research: An emerging area of innovation studies?
Research Policy 45: 1923–1935.
Social innovation, as any innovation, may
be more or less ‘radical’
Social innovation may be about a new
management arrangement in which e.g. a
number of employees start playing a more
significant role than was the case before (which
is about socio-organisational innovation). But it
may also be about new ways of doing research
which affect scientific practice much more deeply
such as is the case in getting involved in e.g.
transdisciplinary research, action researching,
and citizen science.
Some social innovation proponents equate social
innovation with radical social innovation. In this
discussion paper, we stick to a broader
interpretation.
Depth of change involved
Types of
social
innovation
Slight
change
Significant
change
Radical
change
Social innovation as such is
not something new