Although the contribution of social entrepreneurship to social innovation is becoming increasingly acknowledged in theory and practice, it is less apparent in relation to social work. This chapter aims to contribute to a better understanding of social entrepreneurship in relation to issues of social innovation and social work. We will do this by focusing in particular on work integration of vulnerable groups, one of the most dominant impact areas in which many social enterprises are active and which most directly relates to the traditional domain of social work. The chapter analyses specific examples from the UK and the Netherlands to discuss how social enterprises have contributed to systemic change in the social domain, and what its possible implications could be for the future of social work.
LINK
This open access book states that the endemic societal faultlines of our times are deeply intertwined and that they confront us with challenges affecting the security and sustainability of our societies. It states that new ways of inhabiting and cultivating our planet are needed to keep it healthy for future generations. This requires a fundamental shift from the current anthropocentric and economic growth-oriented social contract to a more ecocentric and regenerative natural social contract. The author posits that in a natural social contract, society cannot rely on the market or state alone for solutions to grand societal challenges, nor leave them to individual responsibility. Rather, these problems need to be solved through transformative social-ecological innovation (TSEI), which involves systemic changes that affect sustainability, health and justice. The TSEI framework presented in this book helps to diagnose and advance innovation and change across sectors and disciplines, and at different levels of governance. It identifies intervention points and helps formulate sustainable solutions for policymakers, administrators, concerned citizens and professionals in moving towards a more just and equitable society.
MULTIFILE
Uit het vooronderzoekvan het project Duurzamelearning communities: Oogstenin de Greenportblijkt dat12 factorenhierbijvan belangrijk zijn. Deze succesfactoren staan centraal in de interactieve tool Seeds of Innovation. Ook komen uit het vooronderzoek, aangevuld met inzichten uit de literatuur en tips om de samenwerking door te ontwikkelen en meer gebruik te maken van de opbrengsten 12 succesfactoren met toelichting, belangrijkste bevindingen en tips voor ‘hoe nu verder’, Poster, Walk through, De app die learning communities helptde samenwerkingnaareenhogerplan te tillenen innovatieveopbrengstenoptimaalte benutten.
MULTIFILE
The model of the Best Practice Unit (BPU) is a specific form of practice based research. It is a variation of the Community of Practice (CoP) as developed by Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002) with the specific aim to innovate a professional practice by combining learning, development and research. We have applied the model over the past 10 years in the domain of care and social welfare in the Netherlands. Characteristics of the model are: the interaction between individual and collective learning processes, the development of (new or better) working methods, and the implementation of these methods in daily practice. Multiple knowledge sources are being used: experiential knowledge, professional knowledge and scientific knowledge. Research is serving diverse purposes: articulating tacit knowledge, documenting the learning and innovation process, systematically describing the revealed or developed ways of working, and evaluating the efficacy of new methods. An analysis of 10 different research projects shows that the BPU is an effective model.
DOCUMENT
Social innovation acknowledges that alternative arrangements between state, market and civil society are called for if innovations are to be sustainable. This chapter examines grassroots-led processes of social innovation in the field of poverty in Flanders, inspired by Ibrahim’s model of grassroots-led development. Inspired by it, we discuss the paradoxes for a politicising approach in the practice of the Flemish grassroots-led social innovation practices, Where People in Poverty Speak Out (WPPSO). We address two central questions. First, we demonstrate that social innovations such as WPPSO that aimed to improve the voice of people in poverty cannot trust only in the quality of the process of grassroots-led social innovation. A process-oriented approach might be a necessary condition for social innovation, but the democratisation of policy processes such as WPPSO do not necessarily create the conditions for concrete enhancements of the living conditions of people in poverty. Our second question was if other factors, outside of the innovation process, also need to be considered. A key external factor was that of encapsulation tendencies in policy production. The participative way of policy making about poverty with the grassroots organisations of people in poverty has brought about a separate domain of poverty policy.
DOCUMENT
Co-creation and social innovation are currently linked concepts in both policy and academic research. Almost always, the attitude towards these concepts is intrinsically positive, although evidence of their added value is lacking. In my research, I looked at the development of social innovation and co-creation in theory and practice. By analysing the use of these notions in EU policies, EU grants and awarded EU projects, I was able to show that both concepts are not only unclear, but are also mutually strengthen and add value to each other. For example, co-creation is seen as an integral part of social innovation and therefore stakeholder involvement is sufficient to qualify as good social innovation, without further evidence. A systematic literature review supports these findings.Because of the ambiguity of both concepts and the fact that they reinforce each other, there is hardly any attention to the quality of co-creation as such within social innovation. We witness this not only in social innovation projects, but also, for example, in so-called living labs. In order to monitor and improve the quality of co-creation within social innovation, an evaluation framework was developed based on a systematic literature review. This framework can be used by both policy makers and participants in social innovation projects.
DOCUMENT
Social innovation is the renewal of labour organisation that leads to improved performance by the organisation. The innovations that are promoted under the heading of social innovation often require substantive behavioural change on the part of employees and managers. However, in many organisations there are hidden, often unconscious forces at work that make it difficult to implement these new ways of working. In this paper Maslow‟s hierarchy of needs and transactional analysis theory are used to identify possible barriers for the implementation of social innovation. A case study is presented to show how potential barriers can be identified.
DOCUMENT
This article focuses on the hybridity of social enterprises, organizations that strive to create social and economic value simultaneously. It analyses how social entrepreneurs and local government deal with the hybridity resulting from mixing these two opposing values and what it means for social enterprises’ contributions to processes of social innovation, e.g. new ways of dealing with societal problems using innovative constellation of organizations and other actors. The article discusses the results of a study of social enterprises in and around the cities of Rotterdam, The Hague and Dordrecht in the Netherlands and by doing so looks at an urban subset of social enterprises engaged in social innovation. In the underlying study, document analysis, interviews and a survey were used to identify what drives social entrepreneurs to engage in processes of social innovation, how they generate results and how they deal with the tensions due to hybridity. The article discusses the positive and negative effects of hybridity affecting social enterprises and describes avenues for further research on the subject.
DOCUMENT
While the concept of Responsible Innovation is increasingly common among researchers and policy makers, it is still unknown what it means in a business context. This study aims to identify which aspects of Responsible Innovation are conceptually similar and dissimilar from social- and sustainable innovation. Our conceptual analysis is based on literature reviews of responsible-, social-, and sustainable innovation. The insights obtained are used for conceptualising Responsible Innovation in a business context. The main conclusion is that Responsible Innovation differs from social- and sustainable innovation as it: (1) also considers possible detrimental implications of innovation, (2) includes a mechanism for responding to uncertainties associated with innovation and (3) achieves a democratic governance of the innovation. However, achieving the latter will not be realistic in a business context. The results of this study are relevant for researchers, managers and policy makers who are interested in responsible innovation in the business context.
DOCUMENT
In the last two decades, co-creation and social innovation have become important concepts in academic research and public policy. The two concepts are conceptually linked, but this relationship has hardly been problematized in academic literature. In addition, social innovation and especially co-creation are not defined in EU policies, but merely included because they support policy aims. The lack of problematization and definition not only hampers progress in the academic field, but is also constringing co-creation into an exercise of merely including stakeholders therefore neglecting the full potential of co-creation. The key question addressed in this article is therefore: how can we evaluate the application of co-creation in EU-funded social innovation projects? A literature review revealed that co-creation and social innovation have become connected only very recently in academic literature. In this publication, we analyse the meta narratives of this emerging body of literature and conclude that we can distinguish three distinct segments with their own characteristics. We used these insights to develop an adaptive evaluation framework. This framework can be used to assess the application of co-creation within social innovation in, for example, EU-funded projects. This could push the emerging academic field forward and open up new research themes and designs. We also suggest that the framework could specifically support policymakers in their efforts to evaluate processes of co-creation instead of focusing on the dominant impact evaluations.
DOCUMENT
