STREAM 12: THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FUTURES FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION

Description:  

The field of social innovation and social entrepreneurship research has rapidly developed into one of the most exciting and fast-growing areas of scholarly activity. Interdisciplinary by nature and grounded in a spirit of openness toward different theoretical and paradigmatic assumptions and approaches, social innovation and social entrepreneurship have evolved from being the object of niche discussion to becoming mainstream topics in various academic disciplines (Sassmannshausen & Volkmann, 2018; Vedula et al., 2019). Inspired by classical entrepreneurship theories, technological theories of innovation and a broad range of social science approaches dealing with, among others, imitation, networks or creativity, there is a voluminous and extremely detailed body of research providing granular and nuanced insights into different aspects and levels (micro, meso, macro) of social innovation and social innovation.  

While social entrepreneurship research in its early days has mostly focused on the individual agency of the entrepreneurial actor, recent years have witnessed a noticeable shift toward issues pertaining to collective and shared agency. This shift has perhaps been nowhere more pronounced than in research on collective and community-based entrepreneurship which has put into sharper relief how the collective dimension of the subject matter is related to social change (Branzei et al., 2018; Meyer, 2020; Murphy et al., 2020). On the other hand, social innovation research, which historically has been wedded to linear (and thus overly static and reductionistic) models of innovation, has increasingly heeded the dynamic, shifting, and multilevel nature of innovation processes in which heterogeneous social agents (and not only companies) are involved (Wijk et al., 2018). Contemporary research has thus paved the way for understanding the increasingly networked nature of social innovative change efforts. Indicative in this regard is Moulaert et al.’s (2005) seminal work which viewed social innovation as a set of radical practices leading to greater social inclusion and social justice via the changing of existing social (and particularly power) relations. Also, social innovation scholars led the way in exploring how technological innovations – including open innovation platforms, blockchain technology or social crowdfunding – can be used to solve grand social challenges (Cangiano et al., 2017).  

Despite the richness and rigor of current research on social innovation and social entrepreneurship, there is ample space for development – in both theoretical and paradigmatic terms. This field thus invites innovative and groundbreaking research that will help us break new methodological and theoretical ground. For instance, we invite research drawing on visual, aesthetic and multimodel theories (Barberá-Tomás et al., 2019; Höllerer et al., 2019) to better understand the role of images, artifacts, color, and smell in social innovative and entrepreneurial endeavors. Another avenue of research we deem valuable could use participatory research approaches, such as action research, to offer guidance in how the actors we study (e.g., social entrepreneurs and their beneficiaries) can receive greater voice, authority and ownership in our epistemological endeavors (Sadababi et al., 2021). What is more, we would be interested in research offering grounded reflections on the paradigmatic orientations of social innovation and social entrepreneurship research, using paradigmatic frameworks – such as Burrell and Morgan (1979) or Hassard and Wolfram Cox (2013) – to better understand which meta-theoretical assumptions are dominant in our research (such as functionalism) and which ones may still be underrepresented (such as critical approaches; Dey & Steyaert, 2018). Finally, we see great potential in expanding and deepening our understanding of the transformative potential of digitization by studying how actors from different sectors (NGOs, government agencies and social entrepreneurs) leverage digital technologies to create positive social change (Qureshi et al., 2021). 

With these preliminary considerations, the possibilities for expanding our understanding of social innovation and social entrepreneurship are far from exhausted. This stream hence likes to harness the pluralistic nature and boundary-spanning spirit of ISIRC by seeking contributions that experiment with, combine, and further develop existing disciplinary traditions.  

​

References  

Barberá-Tomás, D., Castelló, I., De Bakker, F.G.A. & Zietsma, C. (2019). Energizing through visuals: How social entrepreneurs use emotion-symbolic work for social change. Academy of Management Journal, 62, 1789-1817. 

Branzei, O., Parker, S.C., Moroz, P.W. & Gamble, E. (2018). Going pro-social: Extending the individual-venture nexus to the collective level. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(5), 551-565. 

Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. London: Heinemann Educational. 

Cangiano, S., Romano, Z. & Loglio, M. (2017). The growth of digital social innovation in Europe: An open design approach to support innovation for the societal good. The Design Journal, doi: 10.1080/14606925.2017.1352857 

Dey, P. & Steyaert, C. (2018). Critical Perspectives of Social Entrepreneurship. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. 

Gureshi, I., Pan, S.L. & Zheng, Y. (2021). Digital social innovation: An overview and research framework. Information Systems Journal, 31, 647-671. 

Hassard, J. and Wolfram Cox, J. (2013). Can sociological paradigms still inform organizational analysis? A paradigm model for post-paradigm times. Organization Studies, 34, 1701-1728. 

Höllerer, M.A., van Leeuwen, T., Jancsary, D., Meyer, R.E., Andersen, T.H. & Vaara, E. (2019). Visual and Multimodal Research in Organization and Management Studies. London: Routledge. 

Meyer, C. (2020). The commons: A model for understanding collective action and entrepreneurship in communities. Journal of Business Venturing, doi: 106034.  

Moulaert, F., Martinelli, F., Swyngedouw, E. & Gonzalez, S. (2005). Towards alternative model(s) of local innovation. Urban Studies, 42(11): 1969-1990.  

Murphy, M., Danis, W.M., Mack, J. & Sayers, J. (2020). From principles to action: Community-based entrepreneurship in the Toquaht Nation. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(6), doi: 106051. 

Sadabadi, A.A., Fehri, F.S. & Fartash, K. (2021). Social innovation action research for lifestyle improvement of child labour in Teheran. Systematic Practice and Action Research, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-021-09563-y 

Sassmannshausen, S.P. & Volkmann, C. (2018). The scientometrics of social entrepreneurship and its establishment as an academic field. Journal of Small Business Management, 56(2), 251-273.  

Vedula, S., Doblinger, C., Pacheco, D., York, J. & Bacq, S. (2019). Entrepreneurship for the public good: A rview, critique, and paths forward for social and environmental entrepreneurship research. Academy of Management Annals, doi: 10.5465/annals.2019.0143 

Wijk, J., Zietsma, C., Dorado, de Bakker, F. & Marti, I. (2019). Social innovation: Integrating micro, meso, and macro level insights from institutional theory. Business & Society, 58(5), 887-918.