Detecting Social Innovation Agency; Methodological reflections on units of analysis in dispersed transformation processes

Bonno Pel, Jens Dorland, Julia Wittmayer, Michael Soegaard Jorgensen

Abstract


Considering that it is important for the social innovation research field to confront its methodological challenges, this contribution addresses the challenge of choosing appropriate units of analysis. Invoking insights from actor-network theory, it is demonstrated that this challenge is pervasive: the agency in social innovation processes is distributed and therefore fundamentally difficult to detect and ascribe. This elusiveness becomes particularly pressing in attempts towards systematic comparison of cases. Critically evaluating the three main unit of analysis choices that guided an international comparison of 20 transnational SI networks and their local manifestations, methodological lessons are drawn on the agents that SI can be ascribed to, on the transnational agency through which it spreads and on the relevant transformation contexts involved.


Full Text:

PDF

References


Akrich, M., Callon, M. and B. Latour, B. (2002), The key to success in innovation part I: The art of interessement, International Journal of Innovation Management, 6 (2), 187-206

Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K., (2009), Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research, SAGE.

Asdal, K. and Moser, I., (2012), Experiments in Context and Contexting, Science, Technology & Human Values 37, 291–306

Avelino, F., and Wittmayer, J. M. (2015), Shifting Power Relations in Sustainability Transitions: A Multi-actor Perspective, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 18 (5), 1-22.

Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J., Pel, B., Weaver, P., Dumitru, A., Haxeltine, A., Kemp, R., Jørgensen, M.S., Bauler,T., Ruijsink, S. and O’Riordan, T. (forthcoming), Transformative Social Innovation and (Dis)Empowerment: Towards a Heuristic, Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Bouchard, M.J. and Trudelle, C. (2013), Exploring the conceptual universe of social innovation: A relational database for a better understanding of its effects on social transformation, Social Frontiers, the next edge of social innovation research

Bueger, C. (2013), Actor‐Network Theory, Methodology, and International Organization, International Political Sociology, 7(3), 338-342.

Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2014), Social innovation: Moving the field forward. A conceptual framework, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82, 42-51.

Callorda Fossati, E., Degavre, F. and Nyssens, M. (2017), How to build a “sample” of social innovations? Adapting the Delphi method to the needs of a partner-oriented research using case studies, Methodological Challenges in Social Innovation workshop, Brussels (BE), February 9th 2017

Charmaz, K. (2006), Constructing grounded theory, Sage.

Cipolla, C., Afonso, R., Pel, B., Bartholo, R., Silva, E. and Proença, D. (forthcoming), Co-produced game-changing in transformative social innovation: reconnecting the ‘broken city’ of Rio de Janeiro, Ecology & Society

Czarniawska, B., and Joerges, B. (1996), Travels of ideas. Translating organizational change.

Czarniawska-Joerges, B. & Sevón, G.(2005), Global ideas: how ideas, objects and practices travel in a global economy, Copenhagen Business School Press.

Eisenhardt, K. M., and Graebner, M. E. (2007), Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of management journal, 50(1), 25-32.

Emirbayer, M. (1997), Manifesto for a relational sociology, American journal of sociology, 103 (2), 281-317

Geels, F. W. (2007), Feelings of discontent and the promise of middle range theory for STS examples from technology dynamics, Science, Technology & Human Values, 32(6), 627-651.

Giugni, M., McAdam, D., and Tilly, C. (1999), How Social Movements Matter, University of Minnesota Press.

Gupta, J., van der Leeuw, K. and de Moel, H. (2007), Climate change: a ‘glocal’ problem requiring ‘glocal’ action, Environmental Sciences, 4 (3), 139-148

Halkier, B., (2011), Methodological practicalities in analytical generalization, Qualitative Inquiry 17, 787–797.

Haxeltine, A.; Avelino, F.; Pel, B.; Dumitru, A.; Kemp, R.; Longhurst, N. Chilvers, J. and Wittmayer, J. M. (2016), A framework for Transformative Social Innovation, (TRANSIT Working Paper # 5), TRANSIT: EU

Haxeltine, A., Pel, B., Wittmayer, J., Avelino, A., Dumitru, A., Kemp, R. (2017), Building a middle-range theory of Transformative Social Innovation; theoretical pitfalls and methodological responses, Methodological challenges in SI workshop, Brussels (BE), 9 February 2017

Jessop, B., Moulaert, F., Hulgård, L. and Hamdouch, A. (2013), Social innovation research: a new stage in innovation research?, in Moulaert, F. et al. (eds.). (2013), The International Handbook on Social Innovation; Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 110-127

Jørgensen, U. (2012), Mapping and navigating transitions—The multi-level perspective compared with arenas of development, Research Policy, 41(6), 996-1010.

Jørgensen, M.S., Dorland, J., Pel, B. and Wittmayer, J. (2015), Characterisation and comparison of case study findings – Batch 1 cases, TRANSIT deliverable 4.2

Jørgensen, M.S., Avelino, F., Dorland, J., Rach, S. and Wittmayer, J. (2016), Synthesis across social innovation case studies, TRANSIT deliverable 4.4, Part 1

Kemp, R., Strasser, T., Davidson, M., Avelino, F., Pel, B., Dumitru, A., Kunze, I., Backhaus, J., O’Riordan, T., Haxeltine, A., and Weaver, P.W. (2016), The humanization of the economy through social innovation, SPRU 50th anniversary conference, September 2016, Brighton (UK)

Klein, J.L., Camus, A., Jetté, C. Champagne, C. and Roy, M. (eds.) (2016), La transformation sociale par l’innovation sociale, Montreal: Presses de l’ Université de Québec

Latour, B., (1999), Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies, Harvard University Press.

Latour, B., (2007), Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. OUP Oxford.

Law, J. (1992), Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity, Systemic practice and action research, 5(4), 379-393.

Law, J., (2002), Objects and Spaces, Theory, Culture & Society 19, 91–105.

Law, J., and Hetherington, K. (Eds.) (2000), Materialities, spatialities, globalities, in: Knowledge, Space, Economy. Routledge, London

Law, J., and Moser, I., (2012), Contexts and Culling, Science, Technology & Human Values 37, 332–354

McFarlane, C. (2009), Translocal assemblages: space, power and social movements, Geoforum, 40 (4): 561-567.

Meijer, A. J. (2014), From Hero-Innovators to Distributed Heroism: An in-depth analysis of the role of individuals in public sector innovation, Public Management Review, 16(2), 199-216.

Michael, M. (2016), Actor- network Theory; Trials, Trails and Translations, Sage

Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D. and Hillier, J. (2013), Social innovation: intuition, precept, concept, theory and practice, in Moulaert, F. et al. (eds.). (2013), The International Handbook on Social Innovation; Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 13-24

Moulaert, F & Van Dyck, B. (2013), Framing Social Innovation Research: a Sociology of Knowledge Perspective in Moulaert, F. et al. (eds.). (2013), The International Handbook on Social Innovation; Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar 466-479

Moulaert, F. (2016), Recommendations Méthodologiques pour l’analyse de l’innovation sociale: une perspective critique sur l’épistemologie des systèmes d’innovation territoriaux, in Klein, J.L., A. Camus, C. Jetté, C. Champagne & M. Roy (eds.) (2016). La transformation sociale par l’innovation sociale. Montreal: Presses de l’ Université de Québec, 65-78

Nicolini, D. (2009), Zooming in and out: Studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections, Organization Studies, 30(12), 1391-1418.

Pelka, B., and Terstriep, J. (2016), Mapping the Social Innovation Maps–The State of Research Practice across Europe, European Public & Social Innovation Review, 1(1), 3-16.

Perkins, D. D., and Zimmerman, M. A. (1995), Empowerment theory, research, and application, American journal of community psychology, 23(5), 569-579.

Pol, E. and Ville, S. (2009), Social innovation: Buzz word or enduring term?, The Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(6): 878-885.

Ragin, C. C., and Becker, H. S. (1992), What is a case?: exploring the foundations of social inquiry, Cambridge university press.

Richez-Battesti, N. and Petrella, F. (2016), L’innovation sociale entre vogue et vague: une approache en termes d’object-frontière, in Klein, J.L., A. Camus, C. Jetté, C. Champagne and M. Roy (eds.) (2016), La transformation sociale par l’innovation sociale, Montreal: Presses de l’ Université de Québec 363-373

Sayes, E., (2014), Actor–Network Theory and methodology: Just what does it mean to say that nonhumans have agency? Social Studies Of Science 44, 134–149.

Tellis, W. M. (1997), Application of a case study methodology, The qualitative report, 3(3), 1-19.

Vayda, A. P. (1983), Progressive contextualization: methods for research in human ecology, Human ecology, 11(3), 265-281.

Venn, L., Kneafsey, M., Holloway, L., Cox, R., Dowler, E., and Tuomainen, H. (2006), Researching European ‘alternative’ food networks: some methodological considerations, Area, 38(3), 248-258.

Yin, R. K. (1981), The case study crisis: Some answers, Administrative science quarterly, 26(1), 58-65.

Yin, R. K. (2013), Case study research: Design and methods, Sage publications.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2017 European Public & Social Innovation Review

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


Creative Commons License Copyright Sinnergiak - Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial 3.0. Editorial Sinnergiak