ArticlePDF Available

Ten types of social innovation – a brief discussion paper

Authors:

Figures

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: 19231935.
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
Radical
change
Social innovation as such is
not something new
... It was developed originally by Herman Dooyeweerd , and later slightly adapted and applied in a wide range of fields related to systems approaches (e.g., Basden 2011Basden , 2017. This includes valuation in relation to ecosystem services (Gunton et al. 2017), evaluating sustainable development in the built environment (Brandon and Lombardi 2010), evaluating enterprise resource planning (Jahanyan et al. 2012), creating systemic perspectives on scaling innovations (Wigboldus et al. 2016), and planning and designing smart grids (Ribeiro et al. 2012). It is a theory which has turned out to be surprisingly practical (de Vries and Jochemsen, 2019). ...
... Table 7 explores the connection between TOMA, MLP and wider transitions thinking as a broader context for applying LPA. Wigboldus et al. (2016) have made an initial attempt to make such connection useful in analysis. TOMA may also be useful for developing appropriate indicators of food system (transitions to) sustainability to evaluate and inform related propositions such as put forward by Béné et al. (2019), IFPRI (2016, and Murray and Koehring (2018). ...
... We also concluded that it has its own limitations, which may be addressed using it interactively with complementing approaches such as LPA and MLP. This has been explored to some extent earlier in relation to scaling innovations for sustainable development (Wigboldus et al. 2016) and it would be good to further explore (methodological) options and opportunities in the context of sustainability transformations. ...
Article
Full-text available
Engaging appropriately with sustainability transformations requires adopting an integral perspective on related system dynamics. This view underpins the sustainable development goals. Informing policy and decision making from a consistently integral perspective, however, remains a key challenge. To some extent, the leverage points approach has proved useful in doing so in terms of providing an encompassing view on related options for intervening in systems. There are, however, a number of points in which it needs to be complemented by other approaches to better address the need for an integral perspective on sustainability transformations as well as to better address the need for being able to articulate normative perspectives on transformation processes and outcomes. We argue that the theory of modal aspects is a good candidate for doing so. To illustrate its potential, we explore its characteristics, we illustrate its application opportunities in the analysis of sustainability in food systems transitions, we systematically compare leverage points and modal aspects, and close with an exploration of ways in which the leverage points approach and theory of modal aspects can be considered complementary perspectives. The authors conclude that the theory of modal aspects offers opportunities for enriching both the leverage points approach and wider approaches in sustainability transformations by offering a consistently integral perspective across scale levels, and by offering a number of ways of engaging with normativity in related processes without resorting to fixed political views. This articulates its potential for playing a useful role in related multi-stakeholder processes and sustainability governance.
... This type is based on the distinction of aspects of capital lines. This theory includes distinguishing between ten types of social innovation [15]. The differences across are about how the 'social' in 'social innovation' is treated and defined. ...
... The differences across are about how the 'social' in 'social innovation' is treated and defined. (Wigboldus, 2016) Social innovations in the Purwodadi's BG are more likely to increase the role of information technology, in addition to the development of environmental education that uses top-down management and public relations. At different levels or scales, the type can be categorized as multiple social innovations [16]. ...
Conference Paper
Botanic gardens are institutions holding documented collections of living plants for the purposes of scientific research, conservation, display, and education [1]. In Indonesia, the Presidential decree No. 93 the year 2011 mentioned five functions of Botanic Garden, namely conservation, research, education, tourism, and environmental services. This study seeks to find out whether the management of botanical gardens that have been running so far can develop networks by applying social innovation to build awareness of the importance of plant conservation so that it can change the view of many people about botanical gardens as just a garden. This paper addresses ecotourism as a template to accommodate botanic gardens' functions equally. The three pillars of ecotourism, the sustainability of ecology, economy and social care are kept by the management but add on one element, namely social networking [2]. Within those pillars, the management of Purwodadi Botanic Garden improves the educational programme. This study examines both qualitatively and descriptively the efforts of the Purwodadi Botanic Garden. The result is obtained networking in ecotourism management is very important to achieve the function of botanic garden equally as well as reaching of the principle of ecotourism. The experience of the Purwodadi Botanic Garden Management, maintaining networking with other stakeholders through social innovation is one of crucial success.
... A társadalmi innováció spektruma széles, magában foglalja az ideológiai, etikai, gazdasági, szervezeti, technikai, ökoszociális és elemzési innovációkat, amelyek a gazdálkodókra direkt módon hatnak, valamint a továbbiakban jelen tanulmányban nem vizsgált jogrendi, értékrendi és politikai innovációt, amely indirekt módon a hazai és az európai jogalkotás döntéseinek függvényében ró feladatot a gazdákra (Wigboldus-Seerp, 2016). A társadalmi innováció ágazati szintű feladatait mihamarabb szükséges megfogalmazni annak érdekében, hogy a mezőgazdaság ne az eseményeket kövesse, hanem a társadalmi innovációs stratégia alakítója legyen és a saját érdekinek megfelelően tudja majd alakítani a hazai folyamatokat. ...
Article
Full-text available
A mezőgazdaság forradalmi vátozáson megy át. Az ipar robbanásszerű technológiai fejlődése oly mértékű, hogy az a 4. ipari forradalomnak tekinthető. Ez a folyamat begyűrűzött az agrárium területére és így már mezőgazdaság 4.0-ról is beszélünk, amelynek az agrárium teljes területén az információs technológiára alapuló innováció jelent a motorját. A mezőgazdaság esetében számos ok miatt elkerülhetetlen, a termelési hatékonyság növelése, amely a K+F+I azaz a kutatás, fejlesztés és innováció eszközeivel érhető el. Az exponenciálisan fejlődő technológia számos pozitív eredménnyel jár, hisz nő a termelés hatékonysága és volumene, emelkedik a minőség, magasabb szintű automatizációt és valós idejű optimalizációt tesz lehetővé. Mindezek ellenére veszélyeket is hordoz magában. A veszélyek közül jelen írásban a hazai gazdálkodókat markánsan terhelő problémák és az abból való kiút elvi alapjai kerülnek megvilágításra. A kevésbé fejlett országok –ideértve a Magyarországot is – agrárgazdálkodói a mezőgazdaság 4.0 által produkált technológiai innovációkat nem képesek megfelelő tempóban a saját gazdaságukba integrálni és hatékonyan felhasználni, mivel még a mezőgazdaság 3.0 vívmányait sem tudta magáévá tenni a gazdálkodók többsége, így a modern technológiához való tényleges hozzáférésük is egyre kétségesebb. Hazánkban az agrár szektor kis és középvállalkozásai különösen kitettek annak, hogy szubjektív és objektív okokból egyaránt megfosztottá válnak a modern technológiáktól. Ez a helyzet nem, vagy rendkívül nehezen oldható fel. Fogalomként az agrár depriváció szóösszetétellel fogalmazható meg legpontosabban a helyzet, mivel a megfosztottság tartós, a kitörés e helyzetből igen nehéz, a szakadék pedig a fejlett gazdaságokhoz képest akkor is nő, ha a deprivált vállalkozás technológiai színvonala stagnál, de sajnos jellemzőbb, hogy az eszközök avulásával inkább romlik, így az megfosztottság – azaz a technológiai fejlődési lemaradás és a gazdaság eszközeinek avulása – is erősödik.
... Limitations for bottom-up forms of organization were still present at the moment of the interview, but some forms of organizations existed and some respondents were actively participating or even leading community groups. Most of the strategies identified in this study, mostly introduced and guided by actors, such as schools, NGOs, or the government, can best be defined as socio-political or socio-organizational innovations derived from the recent possibility of citizens to exercise their rights of free association [65]. Village level organizations promoted grassroots solutions for pressing societal issues (the common mill) and some individuals were willing to organize more systemic innovation involving organizational and institutional frameworks [66]. ...
... The typologies, or types, of SI (Table 1) can be defined in relation to the context of SI. More specifically, Wigboldus (2016) [77] appears to refer more generally to the context within which the innovation occurs: juridical, cultural, political, ideological, ethical, economic, organisational, technical, ecological or analytical. The SI typologies can also refer to new products, services, processes, practices, markets, platforms, organisational forms, business models and new rules and regulations as the focus or outcomes of SI [6,8]. ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper aims to contribute to the understanding of the potential of Social Innovation (SI) for social transformation. Being a popular concept, SI has been discussed for decades, increasingly recognized for its complexity. A systematic review of the literature on SI was undertaken to understand the state-of-the-art, the evolution of the concept and its core underpinnings in order to meet the research aim of this paper. The literature is relatively broad in relation to general characteristics of SI and contexts where it is happening, but the use of the ‘social innovation’ term often reveals semantic problems, generating multiple, interchangeable and mixed understandings. In this paper, we identify and discuss two ways of using SI in the literature: (i) one that favours the materialization of SI, as something tangible that can be observed, measured and systematically analysed; we called this a cartesian approach; and (ii) another that uses systemic thinking focussing on successful factors of SI to enhance its transformative capacity in existing system(s) through change in routines, resources, and beliefs; we called this a disruptive approach. While still emerging in SI literature the academic discussion about SI dynamics and its transformative capacity is increasingly addressed by scholars. We conclude the paper by arguing that more transformative-driven and systemic SI may enhance its potential to lead change, while it only creates transformation when it scales-up or out, and when it has durability and transformative impact.
... Limitations for bottom-up forms of organization were still present at the moment of the interview, but some forms of organizations existed and some respondents were actively participating or even leading community groups. Most of the strategies identified in this study, mostly introduced and guided by actors, such as schools, NGOs, or the government, can best be defined as socio-political or socio-organizational innovations derived from the recent possibility of citizens to exercise their rights of free association [65]. Village level organizations promoted grassroots solutions for pressing societal issues (the common mill) and some individuals were willing to organize more systemic innovation involving organizational and institutional frameworks [66]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Food systems undergo rapid changes in response to economic and market forces, and environmental and dietary changes. This study aimed to disentangle adaptation strategies in farm households balancing interests in the commercial aspects of farming and the consumption of nutritious foods. The area of interest was Central Myanmar, Pakokku region. A literature-based framework was used to identify entry points for adaptation strategies at the farm household level. A purposive sampling strategy was used to select smallholders (<5 acres), engaged in market-oriented agriculture (≥10 years). In 14 households, in-depth interviews were conducted, using a life course perspective depicting the household history in relation to agricultural developments and household food and nutrition security. The narratives of smallholders confirmed that household food and nutrition security was grounded in mixed livelihood strategies, including migration. Diet quality depended largely on income. Supportive strategies were a frugal lifestyle, responsible use of resources, participation in community activities, and different forms of social innovation. The study shows how the understanding of local diets provides insights in entry points for nutrition-sensitive agriculture, and suggests a need for alternative adaptation strategies, replacing those promoting specialization and intensification, for more holistic solutions that reinforce the flexibility and resilience of farmers.
Book
Full-text available
Este segundo libro sobre el tema de Innovación Social se centra en este caso en cómo aplicar y cómo medir el potencial de innovación social y de impacto social de los proyectos o iniciativas que buscan transformar tanto las prácticas cotidianas como a los sujetos participantes en iniciativas innovadoras para la solución de problemáticas de diversa índole en los territorios. Parte de los aprendizajes previos del anterior material, titulado “Construyendo la Innovación Social. Guía para comprender la Innovación social en Colombia.” (2017 ver en https://repository.upb.edu.co/handle/20.500.11912/5464) y acrecentar un poco más el proceso de la innovación en contextos colombianos y por qué no, latinoamericanos. Este libro de investigación es resultado del proyecto “Apropiación y fomento de la Innovación Social: Evaluación de capacidades, seguimiento a transformaciones sociales y medición de impactos” presentado por universidades miembros de la Red de Innovación desde la Educación Superior.
Book
Full-text available
В сборнике представлены научные статьи российских исследователей, аспирантов, студентов и молодых ученых, а также специалистов в области образования и подготовки кадров в сфере управления и социальных инноваций.
Article
Full-text available
This article summarizes the theoretical and applied aspects of the emergence and development of social innovation. The purpose of the study is to identify the factors that influence the development and dissemination of social innovations and specify the mechanism of their occurrence and achieve appropriate effects that are of value to specific groups of stakeholders. The object of the research is the process of creating social innovations, as it generates a scientific problem of identifying the mechanism of the emergence of social innovations with the further pursuit of scientific research in the direction of prediction of social problems and the application of innovative approaches to solving them. The methodological basis of the research is the theory of social evolution and the new social economy. The research was conducted in the following sequence: accumulation of the knowledge base on the subject of research, covering the theory, methodology, practical cases, etc.; holding a round table on social responsibility writing, where a questionnaire was conducted among specialists (2017); discussion of the results of the questionnaire at the seminars on the discipline "Social Responsibility"; generalization of the obtained results by processing the questionnaire, creating a map of the value of social innovation and developing a mechanism for their emergence. The article provides a literature review of the definition of social innovation by various scientists. Being at the intersection of two global phenomena - social relations and innovation, social innovations have accumulated characteristics that detail the value aspects and that can be identified as the ultimate goal of the innovation process. The article presents that the results of research the influence of factors on the process of development of social innovation was distributed as follows: environmental - 21.41%; cultural - 21,21; political-18.21; economic-14.91; social-14.55; legal-9.61. Was developed the map of values of social innovation that is a combination of challenges (problems) that act as a trigger to find the optimal solution and obtain certain values for society. Identifying the value of social innovation is an important step in the process of creating it. This value arises in response to the challenges of the internal and external environment and forms the consumer value of social innovation.
Article
While the adoption of Social Innovation (SI) in the governance and policy domain has fueled a rapidly expanding scholarly literature, this field has become characterized by conceptual ambiguity and a diversity of definitions and research settings. This present situation inhibits the integration of findings. This paper traces the content, scope and relatively short history of modern social innovation research across disciplines by applying network and bibliometric analyses, and explores their relevance to innovation studies. Based on data from 172 publications, we analyze scholarly works that directly address the social innovation topic, allowing us to identify the precedence, dynamics and the current map of social innovation research as an emerging field of study. Our analysis suggests that the SI field is grounded in four distinct intellectual communities arising through a somewhat organized diffusion process: 1) Community Psychology; 2) Creativity research; 3) Social and societal challenges; 4) Local development. The interest of SI in the areas of management and entrepreneurship is only very recent and is currently reflected within existing communities. We forge conceptual bridges between the two (currently very separate) domains of social innovation and innovation studies, and the implications of our finding for further research and policy are also discussed.
Evaluating sustainable development in the built environment Social innovation research: An emerging area of innovation studies?
  • P Brandon
  • P Lombardi
  • Chichester
  • R P Van Der Have
  • L Rubalcaba
Brandon P, Lombardi P., 2011. Evaluating sustainable development in the built environment. 2nd edn. WileyBlackwell, Chichester, UK Van der Have, R.P., Rubalcaba, L. 2016. Social innovation research: An emerging area of innovation studies? Research Policy 45: 1923-1935.