STREAM 23: SOCIAL INNOVATION FOR SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND EPISTEMIC JUSTICE (LE CRISES)

In the face of environmental problems and growing socioeconomic inequalities, social innovation (SI) seems to have become an inescapable theoretical and empirical concern for dealing with these issues. Interest in social innovation (i.e., new responses by various actors to societal problems, Phills et al., 2008, Andion et al., 2017) has developed significantly, to the point that social innovation has become a "buzz word" (Moulaert & al., 2013, Pol & Ville, 2009). There are different conceptions of social innovation, accompanied by sometimes contrasting approaches to transformation. Tello-Rozas (2016) identifies two main approaches on SI based on previous studies (Bouchard, 2012; Levesque et al., 2014; Pol & Ville, 2009). The first approach, instrumental, can be seen as a functionalist vision of social innovation. In this individualistic perspective, SI is carried by individual entrepreneurs, philanthropy, and businesses through market-oriented initiatives (e.g. social business, social entrepreneurship, etc.). This practical orientation relies on entrepreneurial strategies and enabling policies (Moulaert & MacCallum, 2019). The second approach, transformative, conceives SI in its collective dimension. SI emerges from collective action, social movements, social or community organizations (Tello-Rozas, 2016). It takes on a critical analysis that focuses on institutional dynamics, power relations, social justice, and emancipation (Moulaert & MacCallum, 2019). To have a transformative effect, SI must mobilize populations concerned by the various problems generated by environmental and social issues. It is this conception of social innovation that we want to reflect upon.    

​

This strong conception of social innovation takes roots in the experience, aspirations, and actions of the groups, populations, and territories concerned by the problems provoked by environmental and social crises. It includes a democratic dimension in both research and intervention, to guarantee its sustainability in a given situation and its appropriation by the greatest number of people for environmental justice. Thus, action research, partnership research, and the establishment of living labs, all based on processes of co-construction of knowledge, have a crucial role in enabling and supporting the capacities of collectives, collaborative SI processes, and social innovation ecosystems.  In a strong conception of social innovation that emphasizes the collective dimension, it is thus a matter of paying attention to the effects of social innovations in terms of social, environmental, and epistemic justice.  

References: 

Andion, C.; Ronconi, L.; Gonsalves, A, K. R.; Moraes, R. L and Serafim, L.B.D.S (2017 Forthcoming) “Civil society and social innovation in the public sphere: a pragmatic perspective”. Revista de Administração Pública.   

Bouchard, M. J. (2012). Social innovation, an analytical grid for understanding the social economy: the example of the Québec housing sector. Service Business : An International Journal, 6(1), 47-59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-011-0123-9   

Bouchard, M. J. (2013). Innovation and the Social Economy: The Quebec Experience. Toronto University Press.   

Levesque, B., Fontan, J.-M., & Klein, J.-L. (2014). L’innovation sociale. Les marches d’une construction théorique et empirique. Presses de l’Université du Québec.   

Magalhãesa, T., Camus, A., Andion, C. & Sonia Tello-Rozas (2021). Laboratoires vivants en innovation sociale et coconstruction des connaissances dans les villes : les cas du TIESS (Montréal) et de l’OBISF (Florianópolis), Organisations et territoires.   

Moulaert, F., Martinelli, F., Swyngedouw, E. and Gonzalez, S. (2005). “Towards Alternative Model(s) of Local Innovation.” Urban Studies, 42(11), 1969–1990.  

Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D. and Hillier, J. (2013), “Social innovation: intuition, precept, concept, theory and practice”, In Moulaert, F. The International Handbook on Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.  

Phills Jr.  J. A.;  Deiglmeier,  K. and  Miller,  D.  T. (2008).  “Rediscovering  social innovation”. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(4): pp.1-18.  

Pol, E., & Ville, S. (2009). Social innovation: Buzz word or enduring term? The Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(6), 878-885. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2009.02.011  

Pozzebon, M., Tello-Rozas, S. & I. Heck. (2021). Nourishing the Social Innovation Debate with the ‘‘Social Technology’’ South American Research Tradition Marlei Pozzebon, Voluntas.   

Tello-Rozas, S. (2016). Inclusive Innovations Through Social and Solidarity Economy Initiatives: A Process Analysis of a Peruvian Case Study. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(1), 61-85.  

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9606-y