Upload
monica-edwards-schachter
View
700
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Presentation in the Social Frontiers Conference organized by NESTA, Glasgow Caledonian University and the TEPSIE project, with support from the Social Innovation Exchange, The Rockefeller Foundation and the University of Oxford. Looking for research that will push knowledge and practice of social innovation, and set a collective research agenda for the next ten years.
Citation preview
How Empowering is Social Innovation?Identifying Barriers to Participation in Community-driven Innovation Dr. Mónica Edwards-Schachter Dr. Svenja Tams
www.ingenio.upv.eswww.bath.ac.uk/management/faculty
Social Innovation Research Conference‘Social frontiers: the next edge of social innovation research’14th-15th November 2013, London (UK)
2
Building the collective intelligence(on-line & off-line …)
Means?
Ends?
OBJECTIVE
To explore knowledge generation and
power dynamics in collaborative
innovation between private, public and
civil actors in Living Lab (LLs) contexts
Growing diversity of societal experiments and ‘innovation labs’: Living Labs, Change Labs, Rural Labs, Urban Labs, Social Spaces of Research and Innovation (SSRI), social clusters …
CROSS-SECTOR PARTNERSHIPS IN NEW INNOVATION SPACES
Bajaj Rural Development Lab (India)http://www.cmu.edu/bajaj/
LLs are new models of organizing collaborative innovation
involving a plurality of actors from business, government and civil
sectors, named as cross-sector partnerships (XSPs) and Private-
Public-People Partnerships (PPPPs )
LLs are real-life test and experimentation environments where users and producers co-create innovations
LLs have been characterised by the European Commission as PPPPs for user-driven open innovation
Openess Co-creation Exploration Experimentation Evaluation
LL: The European Network of LL (ENoLL) definition
Livi
ng
Lab
Soci
al
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
How do actors in community-based innovations
perceive empowerment and participation in the
knowledge generation process?
Which conditions enable, or constrain, empowerment
and participation in community-driven innovation?
Bridging divides in knowledge generation
Collaborations can take place in an environment marked by
competition, conflict and imbalance of power among multiple actors
7
Reproduction of ‘hidden’ power, ‘embodied dispositions’ and socially stratified spaces (‘natural order of things’)
(Bordieu, 1989; Hayward 2000)
Sets of rules and resources that actors draw upon as they act and produce knowledge and power in the social system
Social practices reproduce mechanisms of exclusion at the bottom and the top
(DiMaggio, 1988; Heiskala, 2001, 2007; Scott, 2008; Alasuutari, 2010)
Power and knowledge are constructed in relations and social practices with use, struggle and negotiation of conscious and unconscious strategies
(Foucault, 1977; Giddens 1982, 1984)
Knowledge generation and power dynamics in PPPPs: theoretical approach (‘practical lens’)
RELATIONS
STRUCTURE/AGENCY
CULTURE
Image: Untitled, Alexander Calder (1898 1976)‑
METHODOLOGY
Literature review and empirical study of Living Labs
(N= 120) using both quantitative and qualitative
data
Qualitative methodology: Case study, including in-
depth interviews and a focus group meeting
FINDINGS: The role of users and communities in LLs
0
20
40
60
80
10085
70.8
25.8%
Multiple interpretations and purposes of ‘community’ and ‘users’/based-centred-driven-led’ innovations
Power dynamics are ignored in LL s and collaborative innovation
N = 120 LLs
LLs for social innovation # the social impact of LLs
User centred(detection needs)
User driven(co-creators)
User centred (testing)
CASE STUDY: CVIDA VILA-REAL LL
Informal LL emerged as a PPPPs organization with support of the municipal government
Generated in a dialogic process with
intermediation of CVida Vila-real, a non-profit association (2008 to 2010)
People-centered model focused in
identifying needs favouring community-driven
innovations increasing the neighbours’
participation and collaborative governance processes in the city
ITC SYSTEM
PEOPLE NEEDS
LOCAL RESOURCES
PEO
PLE
LOCAL COMPANIES AND AUTHORITIES
Quality of life
•Innovation opportunities•Improvement opportunities•Governance support
http://www.cvida.comhttp://es-es.facebook.com/CvidaVilareal
Source: Institute of Biomechanics of Valencia (IBV)
FINDINGS: How do actors perceive empowerment and participation in community-based innovations?
‘Co-creation’ is seen as a non-problematic mechanism which implicitly contributes to social cohesion and SIs
Collaboration is perceived throughout different ‘lens’: ‘Instrumental/efficiency’ versus ‘transformative’ discourses
‘Political manoeuvrings and open conflicts’ can have both positive and negative outcomes on effective empowerment and participation
Community leaders act as ‘knowledge’ brokers/mediators with an important role in the ‘stabilization’ of the social relations
Inequalities and lack of skills and capacities
Knowledge perceived as a power struggle to compete for funding opportunities
Conflicting interests (e.g., actors don’t expect that collaborative innovation be a win-win situation for participants if some of them have ‘knowledge’/expertise and privileges in the access to information)
FINDINGS: Which conditions enable, or constrain, empowerment and participation in community-driven innovation?
The ‘place’ to collaborate matters (physical and social spaces that enable or constrain dialogue, trust, transparency, reciprocity, identity …)
CONCLUSION
Governance of LLs and alternative models of collaborative innovation
needs to consider how the power dynamics (relational, structural and
cultural potential barriers) can enable or constrain the participation of
people as ‘users’ and ‘co-creators’ of knowledge
Empowerment and participation can be affected by knowledge
asymmetries and struggles between different rationalities (e.g.,
‘instrumental’ versus ‘transformative’)
Community leaders have a relevant role to improve participation, acting as
‘mediators’ in the social interactions, enabling confidence, identity
recognition and self-worth
A critical and reflective attitude and a new
research agenda are required to understand
power dynamics and the meaning of
knowledge and ‘co-creation’ beyond the
current ‘traditional knowledge bases’ in
collaborative innovation processes
A FINAL COMMENT
innovation
ethnographic knowledge
critical knowledge
symbolic and artistic knowledge
synthetic knowledge
Diversity of LIVING LABS – Multiple actors
indigenous knowledge
analytic knowledge
SOCIAL innovations
TECHNOLOGICAL innovations
scientifc knowledge local
knowledge
technological knowledge
tacitknowledge
tacitknowledge