D1.1 NEMESIS social innovation learning framework]€¦ · (HealthApp), Kostapanos Miliaresis, (Ethelon), Melina Taprantzi, (Wise Greece), Esther García Garaluz (ENESO), Angela Catley,

NEMESIS project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 770348.

D1.1 The NEMESIS social innovation learning framework

[D1.1 NEMESIS social innovation learning framework] 2 www.nemesis-edu.eu

Document details

Project Acronym: NEMESIS

Project Name: New Educational Model Enabling Social Innovation Skills

development

Project URL: www.nemesis-edu.eu

Project Type: Innovation Action (IA)

EU CALL: CO-CREATION-01-2017

Grant Agreement No.: 770348

Project Start Date: October 2017

Project End Date: January 2021

Deliverable: D1.1 The NEMESIS social innovation learning framework

(v1)

Due date of Deliverable: 30/06/2018

Actual Submission Date: 29/06/2018

Name of Lead Beneficiary for

this deliverable:

STIMMULI

Report Author(s): Main authors: Irene Kalemaki, Ioanna Garefi, Sofia

Kantsiou (STIMMULI), Dr Aristidis Protopsaltis (ILI – FAU)

Contributors: Ivan Diego (Valnalon), Jen Wall and Dr Rory

Ridley- Duff (SEI), Felipe Gonzales (ASOCCE)

Reviewed by: Dr. Aristidis Protopsaltis (ILI- FAU)

Dr. Rory Ridley- Duff (SEI)

Revision: 0.9

Dissemination Level: Public

Document History

Version Date Comment Modifications made by

0.1 20/10/2017 1st draft STIMMULI

0.2 15/1/2017 2nd draft All consortium partners

0.3 5/2/2018 3rd draft – updates after project meeting and

first validation workshop

STIMMULI

0.4 27/5/2018 4th draft – updates after partners review STIMMULI, ILI-FAU,

VALNALON, SEI

http://www.nemesis-edu.eu/


0.5 18/6/2018 5th draft – updates after the teacher

training workshop

STIMMULI, ILI-FAU

0.6 22/6/2016 6th draft – final refinements STIMMULI

0.7 29/6/2018 Final version STIMMULI, ILI-FAU

0.8 4/3/2019

In section 7, a new sub-section was added (7.1 the three core elements of the NEMESIS model) to provide a better description of the co-creation labs bottom up approach, and the different target groups involved. (pages 62 -66)

Updated section 6.1 by adding more H2020

projects and other initiatives and networks

for creating synergies, page 59

Section 7.2 was renamed to “the NEMESIS

learning outcomes” to provide a more

detailed description of the expected

learning outcomes and the SI

competences (pages 66-71)

New section (7.3) was added to present

the inclusive education elements of the

NEMESIS model pages: 73-74

STIMMULI

0.9 7/3/2019 Final review Aristos Protopsaltis, Ioanna

Garefi, SEi

Disclaimer

Any dissemination of results reflects only the author's view and the European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

Copyright message

© Partners of the NEMESIS Consortium, 2017

This deliverable contains original unpublished work except where clearly indicated otherwise.

Acknowledgement of previously published material and of the work of others has been made through


appropriate citation, quotation or both. Reproduction is authorised provided the source is

acknowledged.

Acknowledgements

This document was made possible by the individuals who kindly agreed to be interviewed by us and to

provide feedback and comments on early drafts. We are very grateful to the following people for their

input:

Social Innovation Practitioners: Peter Mangan, (The Freebird Club), Edoardo Zaffuto, (Addiopizzo

Travel), Alexander Theodoridis (Boroume), Natasha Athansiadou (Generation Generous), Jordina Arcal,

(HealthApp), Kostapanos Miliaresis, (Ethelon), Melina Taprantzi, (Wise Greece), Esther García Garaluz

(ENESO), Angela Catley, (Community Catalysts), Giouli Doksanaki, (xorafaki)

Representatives from relevant educational programmes: Rachel Collier (Young Social Innovators),

Georgia Gleoudi, (Junior Achievement Greece, Social Innovation Relay Greece), Paz Fernández de la

Vera, (co-ordinator of Bottled Stories project), Maxime Verbeij, (Ashoka Netherlands), Emer Beamer,

(Designathon) Kate Druhan, (Green School Bali), Mirna Karzen (Social Innovation Laboratory)

Finally, we would like to thank our colleagues at Valnalon, Social Enterprise International, ASOCCE, and

European School Heads Association (ESHA) for their considered comments, contributions and support

on this deliverable.

Glossary and abbreviations

SI Social Innovation

SIE Social Innovation Education

SIPs Social Innovation Practitioners

The NEMESIS

social innovation

learning

framework (SILF)

The NEMESIS SILF presents the philosophy behind the NEMESIS model and

provides the conceptual and theoretical underpinning for the

development of high quality social innovation teaching practices under the

specific framework of the NEMESIS model.

The NEMESIS

educational

model

The NEMESIS educational model provides the teaching and learning

practices for introducing SIE at schools.


Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 7

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 9

Purpose of the NEMESIS learning framework ........................................................ 9

Methodology .......................................................................................................... 10

Defining Social Innovation Education ...................................................................... 12

What is Social Innovation? .................................................................................... 12

How Social Innovation Education is perceived? ..................................................... 14

NEMESIS competence framework ........................................................................... 18

Relevant competence frameworks .......................................................................... 18 Entrepreneurship Competence Framework ............................................................................. 19 Changemakers Attributes ........................................................................................................ 20 OECD Learning framework 2030 ........................................................................................... 21 Competences for democratic culture ....................................................................................... 22

Insight from teachers and SIPs .............................................................................. 24

NEMESIS competences ......................................................................................... 26 Vision for a better world.......................................................................................................... 29 Responsible and critical thinking ............................................................................................ 30 Empathy .................................................................................................................................. 30 Self- efficacy ........................................................................................................................... 31 Collective and creative problem solving ................................................................................. 31 Embracing diversity ................................................................................................................ 31 Collective efficacy ................................................................................................................... 32 Social resilience ....................................................................................................................... 32 Digital Social Innovation skills ............................................................................................... 33 Take the leap for social value creation .................................................................................... 33 Organisation and mobilization of resources ............................................................................ 34 Social Communication skills ................................................................................................... 34 Reflective learning .................................................................................................................. 34 Collaborative planning and democratic decision making ........................................................ 35

Relevant learning theories and pedagogies ............................................................... 37

NEMESIS educational approach ........................................................................... 37

Relevant pedagogies ............................................................................................... 38 Experiential Learning .............................................................................................................. 38 Social Constructivism .............................................................................................................. 39 Active Learning ....................................................................................................................... 40 Problem-Based Learning (PBL) .............................................................................................. 41 Project-Based Learning (PjBL) ............................................................................................... 43 Discovery-Based Learning (DBL) ........................................................................................... 44 Collaborative Learning ............................................................................................................ 45 Service Learning...................................................................................................................... 46 Design thinking ....................................................................................................................... 47 Critical learning theory ............................................................................................................ 48 Entrepreneurship education ..................................................................................................... 48


Social reconstructionism ......................................................................................................... 49 Expanded Education ................................................................................................................ 50

Concluding remarks .............................................................................................. 50

Relevant educational programmes ........................................................................... 52

Mapping and selection of relevant educational programmes .................................. 52 Focus on innovation towards sustainability ............................................................................. 53 Focus on socio/political activation and social change ............................................................. 56 Focus on collective relations building, embracing diversity and community interaction ........ 58

Key findings ........................................................................................................... 61

The NEMESIS social innovation educational model ................................................. 63

NEMESIS Co-Creation labs: a bottom up approach to SIE .................................................... 64 SIPs community ...................................................................................................................... 67 NEMESIS Social Innovation online learning platform ........................................................... 68

The NEMESIS learning outcomes.......................................................................... 68 Building students’ knowledge, ability and attitudes towards identifying opportunities for

social value creation .............................................................................................................................. 69 Building students’ knowledge, abilities and attitudes towards forming collaborations and

build relations ........................................................................................................................................ 70 Take action both individually and collectively ........................................................................ 71

The inclusive education elements of the NEMESIS model ...................................... 74

Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 76

Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 77

List of Tables Table 1: Changemaker Attributes ....................................................................................................... 20 Table 2: Key elements of the NEMESIS competence framework ...................................................... 27

List of Figures Figure 1: EntreComp Competences .................................................................................................... 19 Figure 2: OECD Learning Framework 2030 ...................................................................................... 22 Figure 3: Democratic Culture Competence Framework ..................................................................... 23 Figure 4: The process of Social Innovation ........................................................................................ 25 Figure 5: NEMESIS Social Innovation Competences ........................................................................ 29 Figure 6: NEMESIS approach ............................................................................................................ 63 Figure 7: Key stages of the NEMESIS model .................................................................................... 64


Executive Summary NEMESIS is an H2020 funded project that brings together social innovation (SI) and education with the aim to develop a novel model for empowering students from primary and secondary education to become the changemakers of tomorrow. The project comes as a response to the emerging and ever-increasing needs for educating and empowering the younger generation to cope both with the challenges and the opportunities that will form our futures. We are living in a rapidly changing world. Technological advancements are impacting our every-day life by introducing unprecedented changes. Complexity is accelerating while societal challenges are becoming pressing and require innovative solutions for a sustainable future. In this respect, we often face the question of how to educate the young people to thrive in such an uncertain context, to be able to adapt to the new and emerging needs of the world in which we live (or that we will live in) and to be able to actively contribute to a better society. In NEMESIS we try to provide an answer on these questions by considering the key role that education on SI could play. Particularly, we consider social innovation education (SIE) as the vehicle for the empowerment of young people to drive positive social change. It is the vehicle we propose for the development of the future changemakers of Europe who will be able to put their knowledge and skills into practice in order to solve the critical problems that our societies are facing and will face in the future. In this context, this deliverable presents our first attempt to design the “NEMESIS Social Innovation Learning Framework” (SILF) that aims to frame an approach to social innovation (SI) teaching and learning. The main elements of the NEMESIS framework are: i) the conceptualisation of SIE given that as a term and as a research field is new, ii) the definition of a set of competences (a combination of skills, knowledge and attitudes) related to SIE and iii) the pedagogical basis of the NEMESIS model together with the expected learning outcomes. To define SIE, we first turn to a discussion of some broader concepts and definitions of SI that help us understand how SI is perceived by different stakeholders such as academics, educators and social innovation practitioners (SIPs). By combining different insights, we then unfold our understanding on SIE and suggest a concrete working definition according to which: “Social Innovation Education is a collaborative and collective learning process for the empowerment and socio/political activation of students to drive social change no matter what their professional pathways. It builds their competences to identify opportunities for social value creation, to form collaborations and build social relationships and take innovative action for a more democratic and sustainable society”. Based on this definition and by exploring relevant competence frameworks and stakeholders’ opinions we define a flexible set of competences that we deem essential for Social Innovators. Particularly, the competences defined by NEMESIS fall under three categories: 1) the ability to identify opportunities to create social value, 2) the ability to build collaborations and form relationships and 3) the ability to take innovative action (both individually and collectively) for the benefit of society. Under these three categories, we focus on specific individual and collective competences that we regard as essential for driving social change, transforming lives and activating people for societal betterment. We also highlight the importance of specific values that should underpin all competences since values are essential for shaping a social innovation culture and thus framing our model’s knowledge, skills and attitudes.


Then we concentrate on presenting and analysing the NEMESIS educational model. In a nutshell, learning in NEMESIS is based on collective relations and processes and the establishment of links and collaborations within the learning and social innovation community. Our model builds on a combination of innovative pedagogies and exploits open technologies to bridge theory and practice and facilitate learning on social innovation. The NEMESIS model is activated through Co-creation Labs. These are open innovation and learning environments where different stakeholders such as teachers, students, parents, SIPs or any other member of the local community can collaborate towards a common goal: to co-create new knowledge, achieve a clear understanding of social innovation and develop relevant competences by participating in the design and development of social innovation projects. Through co-creation labs, NEMESIS redefines existing hierarchical relations and empowers students to become equal co-creators of the educational process. This inter-generational and multi-stakeholder collaborative work enriches the learning experience and promotes collaborative mindsets. In this respect, social innovation competences are cultivated through real life experimentation and the establishment of links between classroom learning and local communities. Through a critical review of relevant pedagogies and learning theories that fit well with SIE and also by mapping and analysing relevant educational programmes and initiatives, we connect theory to practice and elaborate further on the pedagogical aspects and the learning outcomes of our approach, so as to present and summarise at the end of this deliverable the NEMESIS model. Finally, it should be noted that this report presents the first step towards the development of the NEMESIS social innovation learning framework (SILF) which will be tested and validated through real life pilot implementations in primary and secondary schools around Europe. The results from the pilots will be used to update the NEMESIS framework whereby all respective outcomes will be reformulated according to feedback from stakeholders who will be both directly and indirectly involved. Therefore, in the conclusions of this document, there is a timeline indicating when the activities that will update the learning framework will take place.


Introduction The mission of the NEMESIS project is to act as catalysts for social innovation education (SIE) in Europe. Together with teachers, social innovation practitioners, researchers and policy makers we co-design an innovative educational model that will empower students from all backgrounds to develop social innovation (SI) competences and encourage them to become the future changemakers of Europe. In this respect this document aims at providing the learning framework that underpins the NEMESIS model, which consists of three following elements:

A working definition of SIE. Particularly in section 3 we present the conceptual model of

NEMESIS. We critically review the academic literature on SI and combine insights both from Social

Innovation Practitioners (SIPs) and educators towards the conceptualisation of the NEMESIS

working definition on SIE.

A set of competences that can be cultivated through SIE and are important for social innovators.

Section 4 presents the learning opportunities that can be generated through NEMESIS and defines

a set of competences related to them. The NEMESIS competences reflect our working definition

on SIE although being inspired by other relevant competences framework and insights coming

both from educators and SIPs.

The NEMESIS educational model with a particular focus on its pedagogical aspects and learning

outcomes. Section 5 and 6 elaborates on the pedagogical basis of the NEMESIS model. Through

a review of relevant learning theories and a mapping of existing educational programmes that

encompass aspects of SIE, we present and elaborate further on the NEMESIS model. A direct link

is created with “D1.3: A guide for organising a co-creation lab” which provides practical

instructions for the implementation of the NEMESIS model.

In order to avoid any nuances over the course of the project, it is important to distinguish between the NEMESIS social innovation learning framework (SILF) and the NEMESIS model and explain in brief of what each one entails. Hence, the NEMESIS SILF presents the theoretical background that has been thoroughly investigated around SI and SIE and provides the conceptual underpinnings of the project together with the key competences related to SIE. Towards the end of the project (after piloting and testing it with a variety of schools around Europe) we will attempt to explain how these competences could be achieved in any educational setting, including those with disadvantaged backgrounds. The NEMESIS model complements the SILF by providing the practical process and steps that can be followed, enabling the facilitation and fostering of relevant competences. Again, the model and the way it is presented can be tailored according to the context in which it will be utilised and the needs it will aim to cover.

Purpose of the NEMESIS learning framework

The Social Innovation Learning Framework (SILF) is designed to serve as a catalyst for innovative, engaging and interdisciplinary SIE. Hence, we have endeavoured to make this framework accessible, flexible and open to all so that it enables educators to deliver SIE in an innovative way and thus integrate it into their own teaching styles and methods. Given that frameworks tend to have different intentions, the main purpose of the SILF is to provide educators with a starting point and therefore, inspire them into delivering SIE in their contexts and learning environments. The value of the NEMESIS learning framework is perfectly expressed through


Inamorato dos Santos et al quote, that “the trick is to use the framework without getting trapped in it and approach it as a supporting tool for the development of strategies” (2016, p.22). The wide range of educational settings in which we hope the NEMESIS model will be used is diverse with numerous stakeholders, so we know the framework must be versatile to be effective, flexible and easily adapted and adjustable, whilst also being open to development over the course of the project. We need a framework that users will find useful now and in the future. It is also important to note that the SILF does not aim to provide a fixed and structured solution or definitive answers on how SIE could be delivered. It rather provides key pointers that need to be taken into account to give its prospective users the flexibility to adapt it to best fit their needs, educational foci and learning contexts. According to Inamorato dos Santos et al (2016, p.24), “the answers come from the insights generated by the process of interacting with the framework”. Hence, this framework shall be seen as a supporting tool that will enable educators into delivering SIE in a more innovative and empowering way while paying particular attention to its underpinning philosophy and values. This highlights the transformative power of SI to foster society’s capacity to drive social change and value creation for a better, more democratic and sustainable world. In our effort to make it more practical and less complex, we have developed a special guide (D1.3) which provides practical instructions for the implementation of the NEMESIS model, using innovative co-creation methodologies to pull theory together with invaluable knowledge and insights from the frontlines of social business and education. We have thus developed it in a way to be easily adopted by all, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds. This will help educators relate it and easily visualise how they might put it into action in their own educational setting. On a final note, we need to stress out that this is the first version of the framework and it will thus be further piloted and tested so as to provide a more complete, concrete and straightforward picture of it. Hence, this version as it is currently drafted aims towards:

- Providing a common ground for the project consortium in terms of definitions, meanings and approaches that will be utilised throughout the different activities and steps of the project, so that all the work currently being developed is perfectly aligned;

- Providing pilot schools with a guiding background paper that will enable them to get to grips with the SILF and its conceptual underpinnings, thus enable them to further critique it while they pilot test the NEMESIS model within their schools;

- Serving as a basis for informing the design of the evaluation methodology that is being developed as part of the project; and also,

- Serving as a starting point for further research in the field of SIE. The research work presented in this document is ground-breaking since SIE is a new concept and has been relatively under-investigated. The final version of the SILF that will be developed after the pilot implementation of the NEMESIS model will provide evidence-based results and research opportunities to investigate further the potential and impact of SIE. It will also stimulate future research into the concepts, tools and practices that foster SIE both at a practical and policy level.

Methodology

In order to provide a SILF that provides useful guidance, we decided to undertake a rigorous approach that involved theoretical research combined with empirical evidence. Hence, we undertook a literature review whereby we encapsulated the various definitions given to SI


highlighting different aspects of the term (output related, process related and underlying philosophy), so as to be able to pinpoint the variety of definitions around this theme and relate them to the NEMESIS conceptualisation of SI that emerged. In this framework and in our effort to bridge SI with education, we have also investigated how SI can be connected to education. Hence, in our attempt to find some definitions that fit the goals of education, we focused on those highlighting the transformative power of SI to foster society’s capacity to drive social change. In parallel, we interviewed SIPs to glean insights from their experience in SI and we have also consulted schools regarding their delivery of SIE, their understanding of SIE as well as their opinion on the most important competences that can be cultivated at school to empower young people to become the social innovators of the future. A combination of insights enabled us to unfold our understanding on SIE and ultimately suggest a working definition that will guide and frame our work on the NEMESIS model. These combined insights also gave us grounds to examine relevant existing competence frameworks in order to further investigate those competences that may be aligned to our working definition on SIE. This enabled us to narrow down those that are related to SI. Finally, we have reviewed the different learning theories and investigated existing European and worldwide educational programmes which encompass interesting and relevant practices to SIE, so as to complement our research. This has enabled us to position the NEMESIS model within the current educational landscape. In this process, we interviewed representatives from different programmes to elicit more in-depth information and insight on the different learning methods (practices and tools) they utilised in their programme. We related their programmes to SI as well as their understanding of SIE, learning outcomes and key competences. Hence, this theoretical and empirical exploration of concepts and meanings has inspired us towards providing a first version of the NEMESIS SILF, including our philosophy, underpinning values and relevant competences.


Defining Social Innovation Education

What is Social Innovation?

During the last decades, Social Innovation (SI) has gained a lot of momentum and interest among policymakers, foundations, researchers and academic institutions around the world. Even though, there are a large number of different definitions in circulation, there is no common definition of the term. Its multi-disciplinary nature and the fact that it cuts across different sectors, has undoubtedly contributed to the diversity and variety of its meanings and uses since many of those writing about social innovation tend to do so with a specific sector in mind (The Young Foundation, 2012). Particularly, social innovation happens in all sectors of the economy (voluntary, social, public and private), whereby social innovators can come from many different backgrounds, including civil society, entrepreneurs, government, public institutions, commercial companies, trade unions, informal citizen networks, social movements and cooperatives. According to a systematic and comprehensive review of the various social innovation definitions that have been formulated (Caulier-Grice et al, 2012), it is evident that social innovation has been used to describe:

the development of new products, services and programmes, by referring to public sector

innovation and the provision of public services by social enterprises and civil society

organisations.

the process of social change and the transformation of society, by emphasising the role of civil

society and social economy in social change.

a model of organisational management, which relates to changes in human, institutional and

social capitals leading to organisational efficiency and improved competitiveness.

social entrepreneurship and social enterprise: SI is usually used to describe social

entrepreneurship and social enterprises, although it is much broader than both terms. The idea

of social entrepreneurship became popular during the 90s when Leadbeater in the UK and Dees

in the USA were the first to theorize on social entrepreneurship. Dees emphasised particularly

the need to combine an entrepreneurial mind-set with social activism (Dees, 2013), combining

the “passion of a social mission with an image of business-like discipline, innovation, and

determination” (Dees, 1998). Social enterprise is about a way of doing business; mainly for a social

purpose but also many social enterprises emphasise their democratic structure and/or the ethics

and values that drive them. They are often set up by innovative ideas, but more often their

innovation is around the way they do business and make decisions, aiming for inclusiveness and

fairness. The overlap between SI and social enterprises usually happens in the sense that a social

enterprise may deliver a socially innovative programme (or not).

a model of governance, empowerment and capacity building, focusing on the competences and

assets developed through the interaction among various actors.

From the large variety of definitions that exist, most of the time, social innovation is generally seen as the process of finding novel and imaginative solutions to solve social problems. According to Mulgan (2007) social innovation is about:

“innovative activities and services that are motivated by the goal of meeting a social need and that are predominantly developed and diffused through organisations whose primary purposes are social”.


An output-oriented definition that is commonly used sees SI as:

“A novel solution to a social problem that is more effective, efficient, sustainable, or just than existing solutions and for which the value created accrues primarily to society as a whole rather than private individuals. A social innovation can be a product, a production process, or technology, but it can also be a principle, an idea, a piece of legislation, a social movement, an intervention, or some combination of them (Deiglmeier et al, 2008)”.

A similar but more universal definition that doesn’t only focus on the outputs of SI but also on its transformative and empowering effect on the creation of new social relations and dynamics has been developed by the Young Foundation (2012), according to which:

“Social innovations are new solutions (products, services, models, markets, processes etc.) that simultaneously meet a social need (more effectively than existing solutions) and lead to new or improved capabilities and relationships and better use of assets and resources. In other words, social innovations are both good for society and enhance society’s capacity to act” (Caulier-Grice et al, 2012) 1

This definition emphasizes the potential of SI to empower people, build capabilities and create new relations and collaborations, highlighting the transformative power of SI to foster society’s capacity to drive social change. The creation of new relations can happen in a number of ways – a new form of governance, a better form of collaborative action, or entirely new relationships for example, by enabling users to become producers or students to become teachers. These new roles and relations often enhance the capabilities of people to better satisfy their needs over the long term. The focus on capabilities highlights a sense of agency and participation where people are seen as active, creative, and able to act on behalf of their aspirations. In this sense, the capabilities approach is based on the notion that people are both individually and collectively in control of their own lives and the source of their own solutions (Caulier-Grice et al, 2012). Considering further the aspect of social innovation to improve and increase people’s capacities to act, it is evident that there are significant links between the social innovation and the education world since both encompass similar goals.

“Education is a means to empower children and adults alike to become active participants in the transformation of their societies”. (UNESCO, 2017)

To elaborate further on this aspect of SI, we want to highlight a critical definition of social innovation according to which:

1 A typology of social innovations was developed providing practical examples of social innovations where a new product can be an assistive technology developed for people with disabilities, a new service can be mobile banking, a new process like crowdsourcing, a new market such as Fair Trade or time banking, a new platform like Tyze which helps older people track informal and formal care, a new organizational form such as Community interest companies, or a new business model such as social franchising.


"Social Innovation as a concept and a practice holds a great socio-political transformative potential and warns against reducing the meaning of Social Innovation to mere social problem mending as a response to state and market insufficiencies. " (Moulaert et al. ,2017)

By embracing this definition,

“…we consider SI as a combination of at least 3 dimensions: collective satisfaction of unsatisfied or insufficiently met human needs, building more cohesive social relations and, through socio-political bottom-linked empowerment, work toward more democratic societies and communities (also called the socio-political transformation dimension of SI).” (Moulaert et al. ,2017)

“The two crucial common elements in social innovation are new social relationships (process related) and new social value creation (outcome related). The changes in social relationships that emerge as “process elements” are an important part of the innovation process and may even be the most important part in some cases." (Haxeltine et al., 2013)

Similarly, Neumeier defines social innovation as the transformation of attitudes, behaviours and perceptions of people which leads to new ways of collaborative action. Nicholls and Murdock also focus on the processes of social change in social relations highlighting a process of re-contextualisation within socially (re)constructed norms and social values such as the public good, justice and equity. They also argue that ‘social innovation is never neutral but always politically and socially constructed’ (Caulier-Grice et al, 2012). All the above can be considered as a set of concepts, processes and outcomes that seem reasonably well aligned with goals and values espoused by education systems across Europe. Therefore, in our attempt to define Social Innovation Education (SIE) we will focus on the empowering and transformative power of social innovation to improve the individual and collective capabilities of people to build new relations and produce collective outcomes and social value. In this light, the next sections aim to define how we conceptualise social innovation education in the specific framework of the NEMESIS educational model.

How Social Innovation Education is perceived?

Although social innovation has been studied from different spectrums and angles, a consolidated literature on social innovation in education does not exist and there is no clear definition explaining what SIE is. The main reason for this is related to the diverse meanings and conceptions that exist on social innovation and also to the fact that SIE is a relatively new area for research. Therefore, in our attempt to understand and conceptualise what SIE is, i) we initially searched for literature which explicitly seeks to address SIE, ii) we then consulted educators to explore their perceptions on SIE and iii) finally we searched for relevant literature that implicitly touches upon SIE. The intention of this section is not to provide a systemic review of relevant literature but to summarise the most relevant findings from three different sources of information that influenced our conceptualisation on SIE education. Literature explicitly addressing SIE


Despite the increasing development of both graduate and undergraduate education programs on SI, the topic of social innovation education is still under-investigated. The only published study that explicitly focuses on social innovation education has been developed by the University of Northampton, which was recently recognised as an AshokaU “Changemaker Campus”. The University of Northampton developed this study in order to design a theoretical framework for embedding SIE in academic programmes. According to this study, SIE is defined as:

“the complex process of developing graduates who aspire to change the world for the better, regardless of career path. These individuals are knowledgeable, socially and ethically responsible, as well as emotionally intelligent innovators, leaders and communicators.” (Rivers et al. 2015)

Summarising the main principles that guided the development of this definition, it’s worth mentioning that SIE is conceptualised by the authors of this study as a systemic and sustainable approach to improve society through positive social change; it aims to develop qualities for positive changemaking; it subsumes the development of employability skills and 21st century skills, while working towards a more sophisticated set of competences; it promotes learning on a more critical and socially impactful plane than traditional undergraduate education. The definition on SIE developed by the Northampton University mainly focuses on the outcomes of social innovation (“change the world for the better”) and the related competences needed (i.e. changemaking, employability and 21st century skills), while not touching upon the empowering aspects of SI to increase civic engagement and accelerate collective outcomes, which is a core element in our understanding and perception on SIE, as presented earlier. Educators conceptions on SIE To develop a working definition on SIE, we deemed it essential to seek educator’s opinions about how they understand and conceptualise SIE. This happened as part of the cross-cultural training needs analysis that was conducted during the project and was targeted at teachers of primary and secondary education across five European countries (D2.1 Cross cultural needs report). According to the main findings, first, it is worth mentioning that the majority of teachers stated that they have never heard about the term “social innovation education” or that they know just a few things. Second, summarising their answers, it was apparent that they conceptualise SIE as a learning experience that should empower and enable students to create new responses to pressing problems in the different areas of society.

“SIE helps to change pedagogical practices to improve society by helping children to become enlightened citizens and involved in the life of the city” (Primary School Teacher, France)

“The aim is to encourage the use of enterprising skills for the benefit of society rather than the individual, but in a way which goes beyond the setting up of social enterprise businesses” (Secondary school teacher, UK)

The conceptualisation of SIE from teachers appeared inclined towards learning theories related to collaborative learning and experiential learning and a social reconstructionist view of the world. Social reconstructionism is a philosophy that emphasizes addressing social issues through education to create a better society and worldwide democracy. Social Reconstructionism focuses on the potential of schools and educators who, with the help of other cultural agencies, could become agents of reconstruction and reform in society. In this light, reconstructionist educators focus on a


curriculum that highlights social reform as the aim of education. It is centred around students experience and enables them to take action on real social problems thus fostering community-based learning and bringing the real world into the classroom. Teachers said that SIE involves preparing children for the world around them to make the world a better place for themselves and others through collaborative education that helps co-create innovative and creative solutions to existing problems. (D2.1) Looking at SIE from the eyes of teachers, it is evident that the focus is on the empowering aspects of education to develop conscious, socially engaged, collaborative and self-determined individuals able to solve problems both individually and collectively for the benefit of their societies. Literature implicitly addressing SIE In our attempt to develop a comprehensive definition on SIE that reflects our understanding on the empowering and transformative effect of SI on individuals and society at large we searched for relevant work across different literatures and disciplines although not explicitly focusing on SIE. There is actually an entire stream of relevant literature that connects civic/youth activism, participation and engagement in educational contexts which deserves our attention. Considering SIE as a subset of Youth Activism, we build on an important body of research exploring young people’s involvement in attempts to achieve change within their communities (whether local, national or global) (Davies et al, 2014). In its interrogation of youth activism as a context for learning and development, Kirschner (2007) sets the scene by making a clear distinction between “community service programs where youth clean parks, tutor children, and serve food to the homeless and youth activism groups where youth seek to influence public policy and change institutional practices, often with a social justice focus” (Kahne & Westheimer, 1996). In youth activism, a critical form of civic engagement is created in which young people are encouraged to question the status quo and envision better alternatives for themselves and their peers (Watts & Guessous, 2006). In his study, Kirshner highlights four distinctive qualities of youth activism as a learning environment, which we consider as essential components of SIE and also very relevant to the NEMESIS educational model. These are: a) collective problem solving, b) youth–adult interaction, c) exploration of alternative frames for identity, and d) bridges to academic and civic institutions. To elaborate further on these qualities, youth activism shifts the focus from individual to collective action; embodies cross-generational interactions that provide an important venue for students to develop relationships with adults in the context of task-oriented activities, exposes students to socio-political viewpoints that enables them to see themselves as active producers of society thus fostering a belief in the power of ordinary people to accomplish social change and finally connects youth to civic institutions and engage them in authentic learning experiences that demonstrate the relevance of academic skills to everyday life (Kirshner 2007). Having in mind the dynamics of social innovation for the socio-political empowerment and activation of people, (with the term “political” going beyond constitutional politics by including broader activities associated with citizenship such as social responsibility and community involvement) we regard the youth activism literature as a very relevant and valid framework to further build upon towards the definition of SIE and the refinement of the NEMESIS learning framing.


On this basis, in the next sections we present the main components of the NEMESIS social innovation learning framework which is consisted of:

Our working definition of SIE.

The NEMESIS learning framework in terms of the competences it entails and learning

opportunities generated.

The pedagogical basis of NEMESIS as well as the learning outcomes that are expected to be

generated contributing to the socio/political activation and empowerment of students.

The key features of the NEMESIS model paying specific attention to its inter-generational

elements.

Combining aspects from relevant academic work with educator’s conceptions on SIE, we concluded

on our working definition on SIE which is presented below:

“Social Innovation Education is a collaborative and collective learning process for the empowerment and socio/political activation of students to drive social change no matter their

professional pathways. It builds their competences to identify opportunities for social value creation, to form collaborations and build social relationships and take innovative action for a

more democratic and sustainable society”.

At this point, it should be clarified that for the development of this definition we were guided by the following principle:

First, it should be mentioned that it is a working definition which aims to bring together

social innovation and education, or in other words both research and practice-led

perspectives. In this light, our aim was to produce a definition which makes sense for

educators, researchers as well as social innovation practitioners. Therefore, we have tried

to include and combine perspectives from all target groups.

Second, we do not aim at developing a universal definition on social innovation education.

Although for developing this definition we have drawn from international experiences, we

also recognise that SIE is context dependent and can be influenced by various cultural,

economic, legislative factors.

Third, this definition is based on our research, interpretation and understanding and aims to

serve the specific objectives of the NEMESIS educational model.


NEMESIS competence framework The development of the NEMESIS working definition on SIE provides the basis from which we investigated the learning opportunities that are created by the NEMESIS model and the related competences that could be cultivated to make students the future social innovators of Europe. With the term competences we refer to a combination of skills, knowledge and attitudes which may empower and enable people both individually and collectively to create value for the society through social innovation. Given that social innovators can come from various sectors of economy and social innovation can take various forms, it is very challenging to define a specific set of competences that can be associated with them. For example, a social innovator may or may not require entrepreneurial skills or in the case of digital literacy although it may be helpful, extensive digital skills may or may not be essential. In this line of reasoning, and having in mind the transformative, collaborative and empowering aspects of Social Innovation, we regard as essential for the NEMESIS social innovation learning framework to not only focus on competences related to innovation and entrepreneurship (such as creativity and vision) but to also pay attention on both individual and collective competences that can empower people to take action and achieve collective outcomes towards social value creation, such as collective efficacy, democratic decision making etc.). In this light, for defining the competences necessary for social innovators, i) we examined relevant existing competence frameworks in order to investigate competences that may be well aligned to our working definition on SIE and find further inspiration, ii) we interviewed a number of Social Innovation Practitioners in Europe in order to get first-hand information that reflect real life experiences, and iii) we explored educators opinions on the most important competences that can be cultivated during school in order to empower children to become the social innovators of tomorrow.

Relevant competence frameworks

The majority of the existing educational programs that may considered as encompassing aspects of social innovation education due to their focus on activating student’s creativity and problem-solving skills, focus on entrepreneurship education and most recently on social entrepreneurship (rather than explicitly taking a more specific orientation towards social innovation). In this respect European and international competence framework have been developed to support the design of such programmes by explicitly and excessively focusing on the development of skills for employable citizens. The 21st century skills framework (P21), the European reference framework of key competences for lifelong learning (EC, 2018), the European Entrepreneurship Competence framework (Bacigalupo et al, 2016), are among those frameworks that provide valuable insights for the promotion of employability competences which are important for the future employees, entrepreneurs or intrapreneurs. In our attempt to define a set of competences related to social innovation, we build on some of the existing competence frameworks that seem to be well aligned to the objectives of the NEMESIS model, but also go beyond them by conceptualising a set of competences that best reflect our definition on SIE.


Entrepreneurship Competence Framework

The Entrepreneurship Competence Framework (EntreComp) was developed to be utilised as a reference point for any initiative aiming to introduce entrepreneurial learning. EntreComp defines entrepreneurship as a multidimensional competence that applies to various spheres of life: from personal development, to participation in the job market and society at large and also to starting up ventures of different types such as commercial, environmental, digital and also including social enterprises. Figure 1: EntreComp Competences

“Entrepreneurship as a competence is defined as the capacity to act upon opportunities and ideas to create value for others. The value created can be social, cultural, or financial. EntreComp recognises the opportunity to be entrepreneurial in any situation: from school curriculum to innovating in the workplace, from community initiatives to applied learning at university. In the EntreComp framework, entrepreneurship competence is both an individual and collective capacity”. (EntreComp, 2018)

Despite the similarities that someone may observe among the mission of both entrepreneurship and social innovation education, there are also some key differences that reflect deeper distinctions in the values that entrepreneurs on the one hand and social innovators on the other bring while starting their endeavours.

“In terms of skills and temperament, social and business entrepreneurs are strikingly similar. But their primary objectives are different.” (Bornstein 2010)

According to Dees (1998), the main difference between a traditional entrepreneur and a social innovator is the focus on social mission and not only on the prospect of a financial profit. Therefore,


the social innovators main measure of success is not only wealth creation but “mission-related social impact”. Also, Mulgan (2007) differentiates social innovation itself from business innovations per se as the latter are “generally motivated by profit maximisation and diffused through organisations that are primarily motivated by profit maximization”. Hence, the main difference between social innovation and other innovations lies in the motivation behind them. Another difference between an entrepreneur and social entrepreneur highlights that social entrepreneurs want to fundamentally solve the problem that their solution is designed to address, thus being more analytical in a sense that they are more interested in getting to grips with the social, economic, political, and cultural underpinnings of the problems they are trying to solve (Simons, 2013) whereas commercial entrepreneurs focus on profit by setting a business model which despite solving a social problem, have as their main goal to “satisfy customer needs, provide growth for shareholders, expand the influence of their business, and to expose their business to the greatest number of individuals as they are able to” (Reyes, 2016). According to the Social Innovation Practitioners that we interviewed during the project, it was apparent that the main differences lie in their mission (profit vs social impact) and also on their mind-sets with SIPs to be more open to share knowledge and collaborate for a common goal.

“Entrepreneurs take an idea and start a new venture. Social Innovators seek to address a social need or social problem and their idea is actually the solution to it. They have an idea that can improve society. It doesn’t matter if it is for profit, or not for profit. They have a core mission and there is always a very clear point”.

Peter Mangan, Founder of the Freebird Club

“Social innovators’ mindset is much more fluid than traditional businesses - it’s not that they dislike more traditional forms of authority but it involves more collaborative working rather than just one manager and you can renegotiate repeatedly to get the best outcome.” Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Co-Founder of FairShares Association, Professor of Cooperative

Social Entrepreneurship, Director of Social Enterprise International

Summing up, although most of the competences provided by EntreComp are essential both for traditional entrepreneurs and social innovators, the differences in their mission, mind-sets and culture lead us to search for additional inspiration in alternative competence frameworks paying more attention to collective outcomes and values, and not only to entrepreneurial competences.

Changemakers Attributes

In their theoretical framework for embedding social innovation education in curricula, the Northampton University builds on AshokaU’s “unifying principles for changemaking” and suggests a set of 14 changemakers attributes as presented in the following Table 1. Table 1: Changemaker Attributes

1. Self-confidence in having and sharing one’s point of view; in challenging others’ assumptions; in being able to instigate change

6.Innovation and creativity be original and inventive; apply lateral thinking; be a future-thinker

11.Emotional and social intelligence be socially aware; understand the role of emotions when working with others; use emotion in positive ways

2. Perseverance 7. Critical thinking 12. Problem solving


be optimistic; have resilience to engage in ill-structured tasks; adapt in positive ways to change; work to thrive in adversity

be skilled to interpret and evaluate evidence; understand knowledge as uncertain; question assumptions

recognise problems; develop and evaluate a strategy for problem solving

3. Internal locus of control be self-regulated in monitoring progress against a plan; work in a self-directed way.

8. Empathy be motivated to consider and understand others’ perspectives

13. Leader inspire others and secure commitment; make decisions; look for the big picture; implement change

4. Self-awareness of own strengths and weaknesses; believe that personal attributes are not fixed; be willing to learn and develop

9. Reflective be motivated to engage in active reflection for problem solving

14. Values driven be ethical; be a global citizen; be an environmental steward; be an advocate for social justice and wellbeing

5. Action orientation take action unprompted; engage in action planning; have ambition

10. Communication share findings and good practice; influence, persuade and negotiate; be a networker; learn cooperatively

Although there is a significant overlap with other competence frameworks such as EntreComp, the 21st century skills, and the employability skills framework, the 14 changemaking attributes present a stronger orientation towards a more socially impactful level by including key skills and values such as empathy, critical reflection, civic responsibility which have a central position within the NEMESIS educational model and therefore provide a useful source of inspiration. However, both EntreComp and the Changemakers attributes only examine individual capabilities and not collective capabilities which is a key element in the NEMESIS model.

OECD Learning framework 2030

Another notable inspiration for the NEMESIS model was taken by the learning framework that is currently being developed by OECD, the so-called OECD Learning Framework 2030 (OECD, 2018). Even though still a work in progress this framework gives a clear idea of how competences will look in the years to come. What is needed not only to grow individuals into becoming active in the world of work but how we could further empower them into being proactive, engaging and responsible members of society who will be working towards a more sustaining future. The overarching concept of this learning framework is:

“the mobilisation of knowledge, skills, attitudes and values through a process of reflection, anticipation and action, in order to develop the inter-related competences needed to engage with the world”.

In this respect, the stakeholders involved (from policy makers to school heads, policy makers, etc.) have co-developed a “learning compass” that shows how young people can navigate their lives and their world. They have identified three main competency categories, the so called “Transformative Competences” which may be complex on the one hand, but on the other, they are intricately inter-related and all together address the growing need for young people to be innovative, responsible and aware. These fall under three categories: a) Creating new value; b) Reconciling tensions and dilemmas; c) Taking responsibility. They propose that a broad range of skills are needed, from cognitive and meta-cognitive ones to social and emotional and also, practical and physical skills. The transformative aspect of this learning framework is what made us embrace it and get further inspiration from. We see clear areas of alignment as both our framework and OECD’s one, are looking into creating value and taking responsible action for being able to engage with the world and make responsible decisions for a more sustainable and democratic future. Although equipping young


people with a minimum set of competences is important for individually thriving and engaging in and with the world where inequalities and challenges are quite evident and pressing, however, according to NEMESIS and a key differentiator is that it is not only about building individual competences but also and most importantly learning about how to thrive and be adept on a collective basis. So, it is not only young people having the individual ability to engage with the world in its broader term but proactively and collectively working together so as to achieve mutual benefits for collective societal betterment and value creation. Figure 2: OECD Learning Framework 2030

Competences for democratic culture

An alternative framework that pays more attention to collective outcomes and values is the competence framework for Democratic Culture (Barrett, 2016) developed by the Council of Europe (2016) which defines the competences which need to be acquired by learners if they are to participate effectively in a culture of democracy and live peacefully together with others in culturally diverse democratic societies.

“An education system which equips people with such competences empowers them, endowing them with the capacities which they need to become active participants in democratic processes, in intercultural dialogue and in society more generally. It also endows them with the ability to function as autonomous social agents capable of choosing and pursuing their own goals in life” (Barrett, 2016).


Figure 3: Democratic Culture Competence Framework

The set of competences defined by the Council of Europe constitute an inspiring model for the NEMESIS social innovation learning framework for the following reasons:

The model brings values to the forefront and stresses their normative prescriptive quality. To put

it in simple terms, values are essential to frame the knowledge, skills and attitudes included in

the model. As the document states “without a specification of the particular values that underpin

these competences, they would not be democratic competences but would instead be more

general political competences which could be used in the service of many other kinds of political

order, including anti-democratic orders. For example, one could be a responsible, self-efficacious

and politically well-informed citizen within a totalitarian dictatorship if a different set of values

were to be employed as the foundation for one’s judgments, decisions and actions”. The same

principle applies in learning. When we are aiming for social change, learning competences need

to be integrated with values. When students develop critical thinking, the skills can be used in a

wide spectrum of learning activities however; when this skill is not accompanied with the “right”

values it will not contribute to social change for the betterment of the society. In this respect,

values are also essential in SI. They are actually an intrinsic part of social innovation. Values shape

the underpinning beliefs and mindset of social innovators that affect their decisions, activities

and generally their approach to the world. For example, without specific values, such as valuing

cultural diversity, a social innovator wouldn’t be able to work effectively across sectors and

contexts and developing new partnerships with people from diverse backgrounds no matter how

good collaboration and communication skills he or she might have.


The model goes beyond competences and points at contextual factors. So, while the “document

focuses only on the competences which citizens require, the need for appropriate institutional

structures and for action on inequalities and structural disadvantages should be borne in mind

throughout”. This is also important for NEMESIS and generally for creating a continuous culture

of social innovation at school. The existence of an enabling environment where collective

relations can flourish is equally important to the development of the competences.

The framework for democratic competences provides valuable inspiration to the conceptualisation and design of the NEMESIS competences that will be presented in the next pages. Particularly, we embrace the values defined by the Council of Europe and highlight their importance for the characterisation of the social innovation competences. A final remark includes that although the framework for democratic competences is definitely more social in its orientation, it still understates the development of collective competences which are at the core of the NEMESIS model. Therefore, it should be noted that although the NEMESIS set of competences builds on all three frameworks presented in this section, it also moves beyond them by combining different aspects that best reflect our working definition on SIE and by stressing the collective competences which are less examined by other existing frameworks.

Insight from teachers and SIPs

By understanding the different ways that SIPs on the one hand and teachers on the other, understand SIE and the competences that underpin it, we were able to reflect upon the multiple and varied approaches that SIE can take in their contexts in terms of building and strengthening the competences needed to drive social change in a fast growing and fast changing world. The cross-cultural training needs analysis (D2.1 Cross cultural needs report) shows that teachers have varying ideas about which competences could be important in SIE. This could be attributed to numerous cultural elements from their personal experience, the area their school is and existing educational and life philosophies in their schools and in their countries. However, some overarching themes identified are that they believe that SIE constitutes people working together effectively for mutual benefit through a critical, collective, creative and innovative approach to problem solving. In view of that, they advocate the empowering and transformative aspects that SIE can bring in developing conscious, accountable, empathetic and socially engaged individuals, adept at working towards more democratic societies and communities. In order to investigate the set of competences needed by a social innovator in more depth we conducted a number of interviews with SIPs around Europe and asked them to explain to us what they do and what are the competences needed for doing it. From their answers its was evident that although administrative, management, communication and collaboration skills are essential (like in all professions) there are some more intrinsic elements that make the difference in social innovation. They emphasised the importance of empathy, generosity, social sensitivity, passion, self-confidence, altruism and integrity as the main values and attitudes that form the basis of a social innovation culture.

“We should encourage the next generation to do good work and be not just entrepreneurs but socially minded entrepreneurs. When you can combine social thinking with innovation and entrepreneurship is a very powerful mix”

Peter Mangan, the free-bird club


In terms of skills they also emphasised the ability to spot a social need, see the full picture of a problem and connect all of its aspects, to be able to network with different people, to share leadership and responsibilities and value different ideas and feedback and finally to be able to turn ideas into action, while being open-minded, resilient and persistent to learn from mistakes and try again. SIPs responses were well aligned with existing competence frameworks but also remind us the six stages of Social Innovation (Murray et al, 2010) that explain how ideas are taken from inception to impact. Particularly, the figure below presents the process of Social Innovation in six stages. It starts with “prompts” which include all the factors which highlight the need for a social innovation. The second stage is “proposals” which involves the idea generation process and the third is “prototypes” where ideas get tested in practice. Then the fourth stage is “sustaining” which includes the refinement of ideas and ensuring their long term financial sustainability. The six stage is about “scaling” and growing the social innovation, while the last one is about “systemic change” which involves the creation of new conditions (new technologies, supply chains, institutional and regulatory frameworks) to make SI viable in the long term. Figure 4: The process of Social Innovation

Going back to SIPs responses, the links to the different stages of the social innovation process are evident:

the ability to spot a social need and see the full picture of a problem relates to the “prompts”

stage;

the ability to network with different people, to share leadership and responsibilities and value

different ideas and feedback relate to the “proposal” stage;

the ability to turn ideas into action, while being open-minded, resilient and persistent to learn

from mistakes and try again relates to the rest four stages: “prototyping”, “sustaining”, “scaling”

and “systemic change”.


NEMESIS competences

Following that, we see that competences in the framework of NEMESIS fall under three interlinked categories which are in line both with our working definition on SIE and the six stages of SI presented above. These categories are:

the ability to identify opportunities to create social value,

the ability to build collaborations and form relationships which catalyses an empowering and

transformative effect on individuals and society at large as well as

the ability to take a concrete course of action achieving collective outcomes for the benefit of

society, at the same time, shifting people’s viewpoint from ‘me’ to ‘us’ and eventually to ‘all of

us’.

Hence, emphasis is placed on the collective ability to identify opportunities and take action alongside individual abilities to form relationships and participate effectively in collaborative learning and decision-making. These abilities combined is what, according to NEMESIS, drives social change, transforms lives and activates peoples’ inspiration and mind set for societal betterment; it is what enables them to actively participate in creating a better version of themselves, of civic life, of democracy and society at large. At this point, it is important to emphasize that these abilities would never be relevant to social innovation if they were not underpinned by key values that shape social innovators mindsets and motivate and guide their actions. As the SIPs that we interviewed highlighted these include values like social sensitivity which is important for spotting opportunities for social value creation and solving problems, patience, altruism and integrity to keep you going and creating social value for the benefit of your society, fairness and respect of yourself and others, generosity, mutuality and trust towards your team and peers, courage to face difficulties, persistency and an open mind. Therefore, for the development of the NEMESIS framework, these values are essential for the conceptualisation and characterisation of the competences as social innovation ones. Although we do not intend to analyse values under their own distinct heading, we want to stress that they lie at the heart of competences since without them they would not be social innovation competences but more general entrepreneurial or innovation ones. The table below briefly presents the key elements of the NEMESIS competence framework whereby the three competence categories are shown together with the 14 core competences that are proposed by the NEMESIS SI learning framework. Given that education is not solely about preparing young people for the world of work but also about equipping them with competences that will enable them to become socially proactive, empowered, responsible and engaged citizens and thus collectively contribute to and benefit from an inclusive and sustainable future. In this respect, the NEMESIS learning framework entails a set of Social Innovation competences such as, among others, greater empathy, creative, responsible and collective problem-solving, deeper and critical reflection, enhanced civic responsibility and the adaptive and transformative capacity of individuals when coping with failures or uncertainties. Also, adversity is greatly being embraced as well as the socio-political activation of people for achieving collective goals while being self-aware without undervaluing the opinions of others.


Table 2: Key elements of the NEMESIS competence framework

Spiral of Social Innovation

Competence categories Competences Rationale

Pro

mp

ts

Iden

tify

op

po

rtu

nit

ies

for

soci

al

valu

e cr

eati

on

Vision for a better world The ability to constructively and responsibly visualise a better and fairer world

Responsible and critical thinking competences

The ability to think critically, responsibly and insightfully and make evaluative judgments

Empathy The ability to deeply understand and respond to the feelings of others enabling and motivating us to

collectively build something better

Self-efficacy The ability to believe in yourself, identify and assess your strengths and weaknesses without undervaluing

the opinions of others

Pro

po

sals

Form

new

rela

tio

ns

Collective and creative problem solving

The ability to collectively generate meaningful ideas that create value and trigger social change

Embracing diversity The ability to bring together creative and different minds and diverse populations to create valuable,

responsible and collaborative solutions

Pro

toty

pe

Sust

ain

ing

Scal

ing

Syst

emic

ch

ange

Take

inn

ova

tive

act

ion

fo

r va

lue

crea

tio

n

Collective efficacy The ability to activate people into achieving joint and/or collective goals

Social resilience The ability to persevere, stay focused on your vision and be self-directed when witnessing a setback or

failure

Digital social innovation competences

The ability to safely, responsibly, collectively and critically using digital technologies and environments

Take the leap for value creation

The ability to act upon your vision and bring social value to your mission

Organisation and mobilisation of resources

The ability to coordinate resources from different sources (human and material resources)

Social communication competences

The ability to effectively communicate and interact with others fostering positive and sustainable

relationships and improved performance

Reflective learning The ability to step back and be able to reflectively and critically analyse what you have achieved in order to

learn and improve

Collaborative planning and democratic decision making

The ability to democratically decide upon your future actions and shared vision in a collaborative manner


In Figure 5 below, we tried to visualize the competences related to social innovation by presenting them under 3 interrelated and interlinked categories. In this sense, NEMESIS competences are important for identifying opportunities for social and collective value creation, those which are essential for developing collaborations and building meaningful relations and competences which are pivotal for taking action both on an individual but also on a collective manner. At the bottom of the figure the key values are being presented which underpin the mentioned competences, as according to interviews with social innovators they have stated that these values are meaningful and essential in social innovation. In this respect, it should be notated that with this set of competences NEMESIS does not aim to provide a ‘fixed answer’ to SIE but it rather encourages diverse opinions and approaches and gives flexibility in interpreting the different competence categories according to the different contexts they are applied.


Figure 5: NEMESIS Social Innovation Competences

For each competence presented above, a more detailed description is provided herewith.

Vision for a better world

The knowledge, ability and attitude towards constructively and responsibly visualising a better and fairer world.

Being a visionary is about making a difference for the betterment of society building on “social justice and well-being” (The University of Northampton, 2014) by imagining a desirable future that will eventually turn ideas into action. However, to be able to vision a better world one needs to want to change the world into a better place, and this positive intention refers to the attitude underpinning this competence. The other two aspects of the competence refer to the know-how and to the ability to do it. Social Innovators need to have the desire and a strong vision towards a better world and take action by transforming their change making knowledge and ideas into reality. Imagining

Vision for a better world

Responsible and critical thinking

Self-efficacy

Empathy

Embracing diversity

Social communication skills

Collective planning and democratic decision making

Collective and creative thinking and problem solving

Take the leap for value creation

Collective efficacy

Digital SI skills

Resource mobilisation

Reflective learning

Social resilience

Underpinning values: fairness, equality, respect, integrity, persistency, generosity, trust, altruism, mutuality, social

sensitivity.

Social Innovation Competences


desirable future scenarios and being optimistic about their possible solutions to a social problem can be the stepping stone on their path to SI. SIs require using our imagination and having the ability to identify a problem or opportunity in our environment and come up with innovative ideas that could improve people’s lives or solve a social issue. Social Innovators go further and filter opportunities from their daily life experiences to create social value. They face problems not as something unmanageable, but as something that they can accomplish in the near future.

Responsible and critical thinking

The knowledge, ability and attitude to think critically, responsibly and insightfully and make evaluative judgments

Responsible and critical thinking is a cognitive process that includes, the knowledge, the systematic analysis of ideas, information and opinions we face when reflecting on how to tackle problems in a socially responsible and critical manner. It encompasses the intention to be critical, the ability to think about the potential consequences for each option, idea or opportunity before acting and to collectively evaluate those ideas by being “objective and aware of personal prejudice” (Arslan & Demitras, 2016) and having an “equal measure of good judgement” (Rezak, n.d.) for reaching more effective, innovative and responsible solutions. It is a process that enables anyone to grow from the experience and reach mutually beneficial solutions (Thornton, 2015). It is considered as a basic skill for a competent, critical and responsible citizen capable of confronting the challenges of the future (Elesapiens blog, 2014). Most importantly, when combined with collective and creative problem solving it represents the holistic process for reaching bottom up solutions with high impact when closely working with people involved. It also embodies the value of a love for learning so that social innovators can see a venture as a continuous learning journey for constant reflection and improvement (Brown & Wyatt, 2010). Above all, critical thinkers are curious, insightful and open-minded, flexible and responsible in decision making and persistent in investigating all the details for creating social value for the benefit of their societies (Arslan & Demitras, 2016).

Empathy

The knowledge, ability and attitude to deeply understand and respond to the feelings of others enabling and motivating us to collectively build something better.

The dictionary definition of empathy is “the ability to understand what someone is feeling”. However, the notion of competence includes the knowledge of what empathy is and the openness to listen, to feel and understand others. When empathy is put into practice it entails a stronger meaning and that is “the ability to grasp the many sides of today’s complex problems and the capacity to collaborate with others to solve them; it means being as good at listening to the ideas of others as articulating your own; it means being able to lead a team one day and participate as a team member the next” (Ashoka Changemakers, n.d.). In the dynamically changing world that we live, we are witnessing numerous challenges and opportunities and in order to ensure that the proposed solutions will outpace problems, empathy is of the essence. On another note, empathy is seen as the vehicle towards the inability to understand or yet embrace the challenges and opportunities that the future holds for us as being perhaps “the most important skill that children can learn because it allows them to relate to and connect with people and thus lead change for the good of all” (Ashoka, 2014). Being able to drive effective collaboration and organize ourselves into teams, where everyone shall not only be a contributor but also a leader can only be achieved if we have the ability to understand and respond to the feelings of others. The stakes for every child mastering empathy have never been higher. Opening up students to deeper learning, driving clarity of thinking, and inspiring engagement with the world has never been more needed (Markham, 2016). Hence, emphasis of the


learning effort needs to be placed on the fundamental skill of empathy from the very early grades as being critical for success not only at a school or home environment but also within the workplace (De Sio, 2016). Ensuring that every child fully develops their own innate capacity for empathy is thus a new social imperative (Ashoka, n.d.).

Self- efficacy

The knowledge, ability and attitude to believe in yourself, identify and assess your strengths and weaknesses without undervaluing the opinions of others.

According to Bandura (1994), “self-efficacy is defined as people's beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives”. According to Goleman et al (2002), self-awareness requires

Documents

D1.1 NEMESIS social innovation learning framework]€¦ · (HealthApp), Kostapanos Miliaresis, (Ethelon), Melina Taprantzi, (Wise Greece), Esther García Garaluz (ENESO), Angela Catley,