Content uploaded by Julia Wittmayer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Julia Wittmayer on Jan 09, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Editorial Synthesis: Methodological Challenges in Social Innovation Research
Abstract
In recent years, there have been substantial efforts towards theory-building and conceptual clarification in social innovation (SI) research further contributing to its consolidation as a research field. Taking a different angle, this special issue aims to contribute to such consolidation by introducing greater reflexivity about the underlying methodologies and logics of inquiry. It features eight contributions from the main methodological orientations in SI research, namely systematic knowledge development and action-oriented research that discuss particular methodological challenges and advances. This editorial synthesis serves to take stock and elicit their broader significance for SI research along the normative, temporal and comparative dimensions of methodology choices. Dimensions, which are salient to SI research without being tied to any specific methodological tradition. As such, they reflect our aim to transcend the methodological fragmentation of the SI research field and open up a methodological discussion through a methodologically pluralist stance.
... There are typical methodological difficulties and limitations that arise when studying innovation systems and IPs, such as identifying appropriate levels of analysis, defining system boundaries [50,51] or handling the processual, dynamic character of systems [48]. To address this, an iterative research design [52] that uses five methodological steps that chronologically build on each other was developed. ...
... The study explores system-related barriers for development and implementation of eco-innovations (such as energy efficient technology) into the sector and derives conclusions on how these barriers can be addressed. System frameworks are powerful tools in describing system arrangements; yet, they exhibit limitations in terms of explaining the processual, dynamic character of innovation [41,50,51]. This shortcoming was addressed by adding 'innovation processes' as a component to the analytical framework to illuminate the often-overlooked process dimension that is described as "black-box" of IPs [76]. ...
The implementation of eco-innovations can be a strategy to combine economic benefit and reduce negative environmental impact. German greenhouse production is highly energy intensive, as heating and energy account for the second largest cost factor. Thus, the sector wants to develop and implement eco-innovations to speed up the process towards increased sustainability. In this paper, a sectoral systems of innovation (SSI) analysis is presented to identify and describe interrelated systemic barriers for developing and implementing such innovations into the sector. The SSI was used as an analytical framework, which enabled covering different system levels and components in the research in order to draw a comprehensive picture of this specific innovation environment. A mixed-methods, explorative approach was used: a literature analysis, followed by an expert workshop and semi-structured expert interviews, was conducted to understand the barriers for development and implementation of such innovations. A SWOT workshop assisted in generalizing results from selected innovation examples. A complementary two-wave Delphi study was used to identify innovation activity, important actors, policies and drivers within horticulture. Based on these data, we were able to identify different barrier-types, showing how they are interconnected and affect innovation processes increasing ecological modernization of the sector
... There are typical methodological difficulties and limitations that arise when studying innovation systems and IPs, such as identifying appropriate levels of analysis, defining system boundaries [50,51] or handling the processual, dynamic character of systems [48]. To address this, an iterative research design [52] that uses five methodological steps that chronologically build on each other was developed. ...
... The study explores system-related barriers for development and implementation of eco-innovations (such as energy efficient technology) into the sector and derives conclusions on how these barriers can be addressed. System frameworks are powerful tools in describing system arrangements; yet, they exhibit limitations in terms of explaining the processual, dynamic character of innovation [41,50,51]. This shortcoming was addressed by adding 'innovation processes' as a component to the analytical framework to illuminate the often-overlooked process dimension that is described as "black-box" of IPs [76]. ...
The implementation of eco-innovations can be a strategy to combine economic benefit and reduce negative environmental impact. German greenhouse production is highly energy intensive, as heating and energy account for the second largest cost factor. Thus, the sector wants to develop and implement eco-innovations to speed up the process towards increased sustainability. In this paper, a sectoral systems of innovation (SSI) analysis is presented to identify and describe interrelated systemic barriers for developing and implementing such innovations into the sector. The SSI was used as an analytical framework, which enabled covering different system levels and components in the research in order to draw a comprehensive picture of this specific innovation environment. A mixed-methods, explorative approach was used: a literature analysis, followed by an expert workshop and semi-structured expert interviews, was conducted to understand the barriers for development and implementation of such innovations. A SWOT workshop assisted in generalizing results from selected innovation examples. A complementary two-wave Delphi study was used to identify innovation activity, important actors, policies and drivers within horticulture. Based on these data, we were able to identify different barrier-types, showing how they are interconnected and affect innovation processes increasing ecological modernization of the sector.
... This article is based on action research conducted between February 2016 and August 2017 with Blossom Liverpool. Action research is a popular approach to enabling SI researchers and stakeholders to co-produce knowledge and action that addresses urgent problems, builds capacities and resources for learning and change, and promotes sustainability transitions Wittmayer et al. 2017;Bartels, 2020). Like experiential learning, action research is grounded in classical pragmatism and revolves around a cycle of collaboratively identifying a problematic situation, reflecting on shared experiences and knowledge, and planning, carrying out and evaluating interventions (Greenwood and Levin 2007). ...
Community-led social innovations have great potential to drive sustainable change but often struggle to sustain themselves in urban governance systems. Social learning is a prevalent strategy for sustaining social innovation, but limits understanding of, and abilities for transforming its relational dynamics. Drawing on classical pragmatism, I explain how experiential learning offers a relational framework for facilitating an interactive, holistic and embodied process of learning to transform engrained relational patterns and hegemonic forces that constrain personal and social potentialities. Based on action research conducted with an impactful community-led social innovation struggling to sustain itself, I conceptualize experiential learning as learning-in-relation-to-others-and-the-world: cultivating capacities and resources for growing individually and together in relation to hegemonic forces. I conclude that learning should not be treated as an internal responsibility of social innovations but as a key condition for ecosystems that sustain social innovation and transform urban governance.
... Because of the dynamic and complex nature of the area, there is a need for broadening the methodological "toolbox" by theory development and the use of multiple, mixed, and iterative empirical methods in the future. [57][58][59]. Moreover, our study relied on interviews and participatory observations as the primary method of data collection. ...
Social innovations and social enterprise have been seen as innovative measures to achieve sustainable development. Drawing on an evaluation of a development project on creating social enterprises in Sweden, this article analyzes social innovations as a policy area. The policy area is often described as loaded with ideological contradictions. The aim of the article is to explore underlying premises and discourses in policy implementation aimed at creating social innovations in a comparison between two ideal types on social sustainability—(1) an individual activation strategy (responsibilization of the individual) and (2) a societal equilibrium strategy (balancing social values). The research question is inspired by Carol Bacchi’s policy theory and asks what is the problem represented to be? The analysis is carried out at the micro-level as a context-sensitive approach to explore articulations made among actors creating the policy and entrepreneurs participating in a locally organized project. The article contribute with a better understanding of how societal problems and their solutions are discursively determined, with implications for policy makers and project managers active in this policy area. The analysis and findings indicate a significant policy shift during the implementation process. Initially, the policy idea consisted of well-considered ambitions to create a long-term sustainable development. During the implementation of the project, the problem’s representation changes gradually in the direction towards individual activation. This transition is driven by pragmatic difficulties of defining the policy area, problems of separating means from ends, and the need to make decisions based on a limited range of information. We conclude by emphasizing the need for reflection on how the social dimension is defined when implementing social innovation strategies. Furthermore, there is a lack of studies of how this policy area can be linked to policies for social sustainability.
... clear needs for theoretical advancement can be identified on three distinct fronts. First, there are calls to move beyond anecdotal and fragmented empirical evidence (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2015;McGowan and Westley, 2017;Wittmayer et al., 2017), towards the development of generic insights on mechanisms and processes underlying SI dynamics and agency. Second, there is a challenge of scrutinizing the assumptions and claims regarding the empowering potentials of SI, as found in policy discourses (e.g. ...
This paper responds to the need in innovation research for conceptual clarity and solid theory on social innovation (SI). The paper conceptualizes SI as changing social relations, involving new ways of doing, knowing, framing and organizing, and theorizes transformative social innovation (TSI) as the process of SI challenging, altering, or replacing dominant institutions in a specific social-material context. Three advances towards TSI theory are proposed. First, we reflect epistemologically on the challenges of theory-building, and propose an appropriate research design and methodology. Middle-range theory is developed through iteration between theoretical insights and comparative empirical study of 20 transnational SI networks and about 100 associated initiatives. Second, we synthesize various innovation theories and social theories into a relational framework that articulates the distributed agency and institutional hybridization involved. Third, we formulate twelve propositions on the emergence of SI initiatives, on the development of SI ecosystems, on institutionalization processes, and on the historical shaping of SI. The paper ends with a critical assessment of the advances made, also identifying further challenges for TSI theory and practice.
... The first author conducted the data collection and analysis, while co-authors contributed to the methodological design and the editing and reviewing of the results and discussion. Generally, the methodological design was guided by considerations in previous research on TSI, regarding units of analysis and methods of inquiry and analysis [41,42]. ...
This article empirically applies, tests, and refines a conceptual framework that articulates three dimensions of transformative impact and transformative capacity: depth, width, and length. This responds to the need for a more precise conceptual language to describe these terms and operationalize them in a way that is useful for practitioners in social innovation networks. By applying this framework in diverse cases of social innovation networks, we demonstrate how the framework can serve to identify and assess transformative impacts and the capacities needed to bring about these impacts. Our findings include 1. empirical substantiations, 2. refinements, and 3. interaction effects among the elements of the framework. We also subjected the framework to an appraisal by practitioners in social innovation networks regarding the recognizability of the framework elements and usefulness for practice. The framework was generally perceived as very meaningful and valuable for social innovation practitioners as a way to understand, assess, strategically design and evaluate their transformation efforts. Drawing on feedback by practitioners, we offer recommendations for further research and development of the framework to improve its usefulness in practice.
On account of superapps' novelty (as both a product and a form of organizing value), and the global impact of emblematic superapps such as WeChat and Alipay, this paper seeks to understand the superapp phenomenon as a meta organizing principle of value, and how its innovation trajectories may be curated such that its value architecting processes contribute to both private profit and societal well-being. Via an integrative literature review, this research proposes three conceptual linkages (complexity, interactivity, responsibility) that paradigmatically reframes the relationship between the superapp phenomenon, the corporate social innovation construct, and the value (co-)creation framework. Such a reframing affords (i) academics phenomenologically grounded entry points to more thoughtfully investigate various aspects of the superapp; (ii) practitioners tool to better facilitate more responsible means of harvesting the generative tensions inhered in the networked relationalities embedded within the superapp's ecosystem; and (iii) policy makers guidance vis-à-vis the creation of regulations that nurtures superapps' potential for the greater good.
To shed light on heritage-based social innovation as a neglected area of research, this article presents the results of a multi-sited case study of innovative work within the Swedish cultural heritage sector. A theoretical framework on social innovation is applied to analyse how museums and other cultural heritage organisations work in novel ways to create social change. The six social initiatives selected as case studies addressed a diverse range of social needs: education, integration, health care, employment, urban development, conflict management and peacebuilding. The analysis focuses on the innovative aspects of the initiatives by examining and comparing the central components of the innovation processes. The study shows that the cultural heritage organisations are innovative in many ways, through new objectives, target groups, methods, activities and collaborations and also through new uses of heritage. The article also highlights some of the possible implications for heritage and heritage management when heritage is used as a means to achieve social goals and suggests some directions for further study.
The aim of this paper is to make a critical and theoretical review of the concept of social innovation by analysing the unresolved controversies that have accompanied its success. Social Innovation has become a fashionable concept, described as an accessible resource for organisations or governments to solve social problems and used as an antidote to resort to in any kind of situation. In these cases, social innovation becomes rhetoric void of content, working as container concept, and reducing its theoretical, empirical, and analytical possibilities and practical proposals. This article stresses the need to rescue the concept for scientific purposes, by establishing a direct linkage between social innovation studies and the main problems and challenges of social research, with a particular emphasis on the methodological and analytical approaches provided by social theory and the need for an empirical verification of everything social innovation claims to be and provide.
Design Thinking (DT) is becoming a mantra in the different areas of innovation: including SI and Public sector (Manzini&Rizzo, 2011; Deserti&Rizzo, 2015). But despite its large success in literature, DT is still applied in peripheral areas of Public sector where it is in place as methodology to conduct research and innovation pilots.
The article focus on the interaction between DT, public sector innovation and SI as both: an emergent trajectory of innovation in Public sector (that under the umbrella of the “co” paradigm puts together the need to develop complex co-design processes with the need to face public societal challenges) and as a framework for designing processes of learning within public organisation that could eventually lead to the introjection of new competences on how to lead innovation in public sector and ultimately to organisation change.
In this paper, we discuss our methodological challenges we encountered in creating our multi-case volume, The Evolution of Social Innovation. In applying social innovation to eight different historical periods and problem domains, we needed to justify our choices according to our hypothesis of the crucial role of new social phenomena in sparking transformative change; we also utilized visualization techniques to further our comparison and theoretical explorations, and; embracing the ambiguity of social innovation. Resolving these methodological challenges confirmed the importance of a research journey that is responsive to the initial question or hypothesis, not limited by conventional, or discipline boundaries, when exploring social innovation.
‘Civic innovation is about focusing on what is positive, creative and imaginative in the face of a world that seems beset by crisis narratives’ (Biekart, Harcourt, Knorringa, 2016: 3). In exploring the term civic innovation, as it is used in Development Studies, ‘we are not looking for a new theory and practice that will lead to a grand transformation of neoliberal capitalism but rather at how to build a mosaic of responses by looking at what is happening on the ground where people are living the contradictions of development. It is argued that we need to question pre-determined ideas of what measures to take and go beyond universal policy solutions, in order to look with openness at the actions on the ground’ (Ibid.). In that sense, civic innovation can be perceived as the ‘political sister’ of social innovation as it directly assesses dominant power relations. The paper explores a different and trans-disciplinary approach to researching change: by descending from the academic ivory tower, respecting and deploying multiple knowledges for civic innovation, as well as approaching change with the ideas and tools of Participatory Action Research. Examples from knowledge dialogues with Central American social movements are used to explore this methodology further, including the downsides and the dilemmas. The paper concludes that carefully planned dialogues, reflexivity of facilitators, and awareness about potential power issues are probably key features of a knowledge generation process that may embody progressive social change.
This paper seeks to outline a methodological approach that can be used in order to help understand such movements, and more fundamentally, the role of community in Social Innovation (SI). The article offers an overview of Participative Action Research (PAR), and outlines its strengths and weaknesses in studying community-based social innovation, in this case the Transition movement. PAR is not an ‘off the shelf’ kit, or a ‘conforming of methodological standards’, but rather a series of approaches that ought to inform the research. The paper argues that these approaches, rather than techniques, are essential to get right if the intangible, granular, and incidental-but-fundamental aspects of community are to be grasped by researchers. Given the small-scale nature of community low carbon transitions a granular analysis is preferred to a more surface, superficial overview of such processes. Qualitative research is preferred to quantitative aggregation of initiatives, due to the need to understand the everyday, more phenomenological aspects of community, and the specific tacit relations and subjectivities enacted through their capacity to cut carbon.
The article discusses and analyses challenges, constraints and prospects of a theory driven empirical research methodology in the thematic field of Social Innovation. Based on the experiences made while conducting a global mapping of social innovation initiatives, it reflects challenges such as the different
understandings and definitions of the research field and contexts related to different policy and world regions. Starting with the approach of the EU funded international project SI-DRIVE, the challenges of theory development and its methodological operationalisation and limitations in an iterative improvement by sequential empirical mappings are discussed - combining quantitative and qualitative research and results for proving and elaborating the theoretical frame (building blocks of a Social Innovation Theory). Empirical evidence shows that the theoretical development of such a ubiquitous phenomenon needs an iterative interrelation of theory and empiricism and a multi-method approach, giving leeway for the whole variety of social innovations by simultaneously developing a common understanding and concept of Social Innovation.
This paper argues that there is currently a need for new theory on transformative social innovation that is able to provide empowering insights to practice, especially in terms of how social innovation interacts with transformative change processes. It identifies three ‘pitfalls’ that such theory-building needs to confront, and presents middle-range theory development, together with a focus on social relations and the processes of social innovation, as three elements of a theory-building strategy that responds to these pitfalls. In describing the implementation of this strategy in successive iterations between empirical case study research and integrative analysis, critical reflections are drawn on each of the three elements of the theory-building strategy. Taken together, these reflections underline the importance of maintaining a reflexive approach in developing new knowledge and theory on new social innovation.
Considering that it is important for the social innovation research field to confront its methodological challenges, this contribution addresses the challenge of choosing appropriate units of analysis. Invoking insights from actor-network theory, it is demonstrated that this challenge is pervasive: the agency in social innovation processes is distributed and therefore fundamentally difficult to detect and ascribe. This elusiveness becomes particularly pressing in attempts towards systematic comparison of cases. Critically evaluating the three main unit of analysis choices that guided an international comparison of 20 transnational SI networks and their local manifestations, methodological lessons are drawn on the agents that SI can be ascribed to, on the transnational agency through which it spreads and on the relevant transformation contexts involved.
