Upload
maciej-szczepanczyk
View
81
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
GROWING SOCIAL INNOVATION
TEPSIE is a research project under EU’s 7th framework programme
TEPSIE
17th June 2013
Julie Simon, The Young Foundation
Work Package 7
2
• Results from the literature review• Reviewing the concepts of ‘scaling’ and ‘diffusion’ for understanding the growth
of social innovation.• Results from our case studies• Areas for further research?
OVERVIEW
3
RESULTS FROM THE LITERATURE REVIEW…
• Origins in NGO and development literature (Edwards and Hulme, 1992; Uvin & Miller, 1996)
• Philanthropy and grant-making literature (Koh, Karanchandrani & Katz, 2012)
• Strategies for scale: models (Bloom & Chatterji, 2009; Bloom and Smith, 2010) & case studies (Chowdhury & Santos, 2010; McLeod Grant & Fulton, 2010)
• Unpacking the spectrum of scaling (Dees et al 2004; Lyon and Fernandez, 2012)
4
‘SCALING’ SOCIAL INNOVATION
dissemination affiliation branching
central co-ordination
resource requirements
•“There’s a need to go beyond a preoccupation with growth within specific organisations” (Lyon and Fernandez, 2012)
•“A new paradigm has emerged in recent years which focuses on scaling social impact without necessarily increasing the size of the organisation” (McPhedran Waitzer and Paul, 2011)
•“Finding ways to scale impact without scaling the size of an organisation is the new frontier for work in our field (Bradach, 2010)
A problematic framing for field of social innovation?
5
FROM ORGANISATION TO IMPACT
Scaling organisation
Scaling impact
• Suggest going from small to large• Suggests routinisation, standardisation and control• Problematic for the public sector? Is ‘scaling’ at odds with
personalisation and co-production?• Does it capture the political nature of social innovation?
“Enduring social change cannot be the result of social entrepreneurship alone; it necessarily involves political action at various levels from the formal to the informal, as well as partnerships with broader social movements” (Nicholls and Huybrechts, 2012)
6
CHALLENGES WITH ‘SCALING’
• Diffusion as adoption of practices by individuals.
• Two enduring frameworks, Rogers (1962)o Attributes of innovationso Categories of adopters
• Challenged by later researchers. o Attributes are not fixed or stable features
(Dearing at al 1994)o Categorization as over simplistic and value
laden (Greenhalgh et al, 2004)
7
DIFFUSING SOCIAL INNOVATION
• Highlights inherent complexity of diffusing social innovations• Emphasises diffusion as social process • Especially relevant for social innovation within organisations
But also some limitations….• Practical application? Complexity as disempowering? • Suggests gradual spread – that spread is organic and difficult to orchestrate
ASSESSING DIFFUSION
8
Neither ‘scaling’ nor ‘diffusion’ are on their own adequate for conceptualising the growth of all forms of social innovation….
9
• We need to go beyond using ‘social innovation’ generically or as our unit of analysis.
• We need to be clear about what exactly it is that we want to grow or spread.
• Different frames for growth will be appropriate to different types of social innovation we identify.
• A typology may be a helpful way forward...
NEED GREATER SPECIFICITY
10
TYPOLOGY OF SOCIAL INNOVATION & GROWTH
11
Type of social innovation Example Conceptualising growth as…
New services e.g. new interventions or new programmes to meet social needs
Replication, scaling up, mainstreaming, adoption.
New practices e.g. new services which require new professional roles or relationships
Adoption, replication, mainstreaming, change management.
New processes e.g. co-production of new services
Adoption, mainstreaming, implementation, change management
New rules and regulations e.g. the creation of new laws or new entitlements
Policy diffusion.
New organizational forms e.g. hybrid organisational forms such as social enterprises
Diffusion, replication.
12
Aim of the case studies is to explore:
• The spread of social innovations where these innovations are new programmes and organisational structures (i.e. not social enterprises)
• The role of intermediary organisations in spreading social innovations
• The tensions that exist between replication and adaptation that were highlighted in the literature
RESULTS FROM CASE STUDIES
13
THE CASES
14
Three factors for successful spreading social innovations:
• Networks of trusted peers are critical for spreading awareness and take up of an innovation
• The significance of receptive contexts – WILCO project: “a good idea is not convincing in itself – it comes when people are open to it… an innovation is adopted when minds are ripe”.
• Intermediaries can play a critical role in supporting the adoption process: Two characteristics of these organisations are also notable:o The role that these organisations play changes over time. o There are clear trade offs for support organisations between control and the
speed and extent of the spread they can achieve.
FINDINGS
15
• Better understanding how non-social enterprise social innovations spread – especially looking at social movements, grassroots and citizen-led initiatives
• How does spreading a social innovation provide a platform for new social innovations to be created?
• Rather than focusing on scaling up social innovations can we take a different approach and look at the enabling conditions – i.e. the conditions that enable social innovations to flourish?
• Trade offs between control and disseminating information about social innovations – where is the former/latter more appropriate?
AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH?