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.
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.
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.
De afgelopen twee decennia is er veel meer aandacht ontstaan bij onderzoekers en beleidsmakers voor het begrip co-creatie. Bijna altijd wordt de rol van co-creatie als positief en essentieel gezien in een proces waarin maatschappelijke of publieke uitdagingen worden onderzocht en opgelost (zogenaamde sociale innovatie). Het meeste onderzoek naar deze twee begrippen is kwalitatief van aard en gebaseerd op ‘case studies’.In zijn promotieonderzoek kijkt Peter Broekema naar de rol van co-creatie binnen sociale innovatie in Europese samenwerkingsprojecten. In zijn eerste artikel heeft hij de begrippen co-creatie en sociale innovatie tussen 1995 en 2018 binnen de EU geanalyseerd en geconcludeerd dat beide begrippen steeds breder gebruikt worden en samen met het begrip impact zijn getransformeerd tot een beleidsparadigma.In het tweede artikel keek Peter Broekema hoe beide begrippen doorwerken in specifieke subsidieoproepen en hoe consortia deze begrippen toepassen en samenwerken. Hierbij bleek dat er weliswaar verschillende typen consortia bestaan, maar dat zij geen specifieke co-creatiestrategie hadden.In zijn laatste twee artikelen zal hij gedetailleerd kijken naar een aantal EU projecten en vaststellen hoe de samenwerking is verlopen en hoe tevreden de verschillende partners zijn met het resultaat. Peter Broekema maakt hiervoor gebruik van projecten waarin hij zelf participeert (ACCOMPLISSH, INEDIT en SHIINE).EU beleidsparadigma van sociale innovatie in combinatie met co-creatie en impact. Co-creatie vindt vaak binnen eigen type stakehodlers plaatsAbstractSocial innovation and co-creation are both relatively new concepts, that have been studied by scholars for roughly twenty years and are still heavily contested. The former emerged as a response to the more technologically focused concept of innovation and the latter originally solely described the collaboration of end-users in the development of new products, processes or services. Between 2010-2015, both concepts have been adapted and started to be used more widely by for example EU policymakers in their effort to tackle so called ‘grand societal challenges’. Within this narrative – which could be called co-creation for social innovation, it is almost a prerequisite that partners – especially citizens - from different backgrounds and sectors actively work together towards specific societal challenges. Relevance and aimHowever, the exact contribution of co-creation to social innovation projects is still unclear. Most research on co-creation has been focussing on the involvement of end-users in the development of products, processes and services. In general, scholars conclude that the involvement of end-users is effective and leads to a higher level of customer satisfaction. Only recently, research into the involvement of citizens in social innovation projects has started to emerge. However, the majority of research on co-creation for social innovation has been focusing on collaborations between two types of partners in the quadruple helix (citizens, governments, enterprises and universities). Because of this, it is still unclear what co-creation in social innovation projects with more different type of partners entails exactly. More importantly however, is that most research has been based on national case studies in which partners from different sectors collaborate in a familiar ‘national’ setting. Normally institutional and/or cultural contexts influence co-creation (for example the ‘poldermodel’in the Netherlands or the more confrontational model in France), so by looking at projects in a central EU and different local contexts it becomes clear how context effects co-creation for social innovation.Therefore this project will analyse a number of international co-creation projects that aim for social innovation with different types of stakeholders in a European and multi-stakeholder setting.With this research we will find out what people in different contexts believe is co-creation and social innovation, how this process works in different contexts and how co-creation contributes to social innovation.Research question and - sub questionsThe project will answer the following question: “What is the added value of co-creation in European funded collaboration projects that aim for social innovation?” To answer the main question, the research has been subdivided into four sub questions:1) What is the assumed added value of co-creation for social innovation?2) How is the added value of co-creation for social innovation being expressed ex ante and ex post in EU projects that aim specifically for social innovation by co-creation?3) How do partners and stakeholders envision the co-creation process beforehand and continuously shape this process in EU projects to maximise social innovation?4) How do partners and stakeholders regard the added value of co-creation for social innovation in EU projects that that aim for social innovation?Key conceptsThe research will focus on the interplay between the two main concepts a) co-creation and b) social innovation. For now, we are using the following working definitions:a) co-creation is a non-linear process that involves multiple actors and stakeholders in the ideation, implementation and assessment of products, services, policies and systems with the aim of improving their efficiency and effectiveness, and the satisfaction of those who take part in the process.b) social innovation is the invention, development and implementation of new ideas with the purpose to (immediately) relieve and (eventually) solve social problems, which are in the long run directed at the social inclusion of individuals, groups or communities.It is clear that both definitions are quite opaque, but also distinguish roughly the same phases (ideation/invention, development, implementation and assessment) and also distinguish different levels (products/services, policies and systems). Both concepts will be studied within the policy framework of the EU, in which a specific value to both concepts has been attributed, mostly because policymakers regard co-creation with universities and end-users almost as a prerequisite for social innovation. Based on preliminary research, EU policies seem to define social innovation in close reation with ‘societal impact’, which could defined as: “the long lasting effect of an activity on society, because it is aimed at solving social problems”, and therefore in this specific context social innovation seems to encompasses societal impact. For now, I will use this working definition of social innovation and will closely look at the entanglement with impact in the first outlined paper.MethodologyIn general, I will use a qualitative mixed method approach and grounded theory to answer the main research question (mRQ). In order to better understand the added value of co-creation for social innovation in an EU policy setting, the research will:SubRQ1) start with an analysis of academic literature on co-creation and social impact. This analysis will be followed by and confronted with an analysis of EU policy documents. SubRQ2) use a qualitative data analysis at nineteen EU funded projects to understand how co-creation is envisoned within social innovation projects by using the quintuple helix approach (knowledge flows between partners and stakeholders in an EU setting) and the proposed social innovation journey model. By contrasting the findings from the QDA phase of the project with other research on social innovation we will be able to find arachetypes of social innovation in relation with the (perceived) added value of co-creation within social innovation. SubRQ3) These archetypes will be used to understand the process of co-creation for social innovation by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.SubRQ4) The archetypes will also be used to understand the perceived added value by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.ImpactThe project will contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between co-creation and social innovation on different levels:a) Theoretical: the research will analyse the concepts of co-creation and social innovation in relation to each other by looking at the origins of the concepts, the adaptation in different fields and the uptake within EU policies;b) Methodological: a model will be developed to study and understand the non-lineair process of co-creation within social innovation, by focusing on social innovation pathways and social innovation strategies within a quintuple helix setting (i) academia, ii) enterprises and iii) governments that work together to improve iv) society in an v) EU setting);c) Empirical: the project will (for the first time) collect data on behavioural interactions and the satisfaction levels of these interactions between stakeholders and partners in an EU project.d) Societal: the results of the research could be used to optimize the support for social innovation projects and also for the development of specific funding calls.
In our increasingly global society, organizations face many opportunities in innovation, improved productivity and easy access to talent. At the same time, one of the greatest challenges, businesses experience nowadays, is the importance of social and/or human capital for their effectiveness and success (Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004; Mosley, 2007; Theurer et al., 2018; Tumasjan et al., 2020). High-quality employees are crucial to the competitive strength of an organization in the global economy, as these employees have a major influence on organizational reputation (Dowling at al., 2012). An important question is how, under these global circumstances, organizations and companies in the Netherlands can best be stimulated to attract and preserve social capital.Several studies have suggested the scarcity of talent and the crucial importance of gaining competitive advantage with recruitment communication to find the fit between personal and fundamental organizational characteristics and values for employees (Cable and Edwards, 2004; Bhatnagar and Srivastava, 2008; ManPower Group, 2014; European Communication Monitor (ECM), 2018). In order to become an employer of choice, organizations have to not only stand out from the crowd during the recruitment process but work on developing loyalty and a culture of trust in their relationship with employees (ECM, 2018). Employer Branding focuses on the process of promoting an organization, as the “employer of choice” to a desired target group, which an organization aims to attract and retain. This process encompasses building an identifiable and unique employer identity or, more specifically, “the promotion of a unique and attractive image” as an employer (Backhaus 2004, p. 117; Backhaus and Tikoo 2004, p. 502).One of the biggest challenges in the North of the Netherlands at the moment is the urgent need for qualified labor in the IT, energy and healthcare sectors and the excess supply of international graduates who are able to find a job in the North of the Netherlands (AWVN, 2019). Talent development, as part of the regional labor market and education policy, has been an important part of government programs and strategies in the region (VNO-NCW Noord, 2018). For instance, North Netherlands Alliance (SNN) signed a Northern Innovation Agenda for the 2014-2020 period. SNN encourages, facilitates and connects ambitions focused on the development of the Northern Netherlands. Also, the Social Economic council North Netherlands issued an advice on the labour market in the North Netherlands (SER Noord Nederland, 2017). Knowledge institutions also contribute through employability programs. Another example is the Regional Talent Agreement (Talent Akkoord) framework issued by the Groningen educational institutions, employers and employees’ organizations and regional authorities in which they jointly commit to recruiting, training, retaining and developing talent for the Northern labor market. Most of the hires with a maximum of five year of experience at companies are represented by millennials. To learn what values make an attractive brand for employees in the of the North of the Netherlands, we conducted a first study. When ranking the most important values of corporate culture which matter to young employees, they mention creative freedom, purposeful work, flexibility, work-life balance as well as personal development. Whereas attractive workplace and job security do not matter to such a degree. A positive work environment and a good relationship with colleagues are valued highly (Hein, 2019).To date, as far as we know, no other employer branding studies have been carried out for the North of the Netherlands. Further insight is needed into the role of employer branding as a powerful tool to retain talent in Northern industry in particular.The goal of this study is to provide a detailed analysis of the regional industry in the Northern Netherlands and contribute to: 1) the scientific body of knowledge about whether and how employer branding can strengthen the attractiveness of a regional industry in the labor market; 2) the application of this knowledge and insights by companies and governments in local policy development in the North of the Netherlands.
Het doel van dit interdisciplinaire SIA KIEM project Fluïde Eigenschap in de Creatieve Industrie is te onderzoeken of en hoe gedeelde vormen van eigenaarschap in de creatieve industrie kunnen bijdragen aan het creëren van een democratischer en duurzamer economie, waarin ook het MKB kan participeren in digitale innovatie. Het project geeft een overzicht van beschikbare vormen van (gedeeld) eigenaarschap, hun werking en hoe deze creatieve professionals kunnen ondersteunen bij de transitie naar de platformeconomie. Dit wordt toegepast op een concrete case, dat van een digitale breimachine. Naast het leveren van een goede praktijk, moet het project leiden tot een groter internationaal onderzoeksvoorstel over Fluid Ownership in the Creative Industry, dat dieper ingaat op de beschikbare eigendomsoplossingen en hoe deze waarde zullen creëren voor de creatieve professional.
