Convenors:

 

Sonia Tello-Rozas

ESG UQAM, Canada

tello-rozas.sonia@uqam.ca

​

Chantale Mailhot

HEC Montréal, Canada

chantale.mailhot@hec.ca

​

Carolina Andion

ESAG UDESC, Brazil

andion.esag@gmail.com

​

Paulo Cruz Filho

FAE Business School, Brazil

paulocruzfilho@fae.edu 

 

 

Call for papers

​

In a global context characterized by social, technical, environmental, and political risk, individuals, organizations, and collectivities have to face, resist, and develop innovative reactions to adverse situations of disruption and emergency. In response to these complex issues, interest in social innovation (i.e., new responses by various actors to societal problems, Phills et al, 2008, Andion et al, 2017) has developed significantly, to the point that social innovation has become a "buzz word" (Moulaert  et al, 2013). These innovations have been studied by various disciplines including sociology, urban and cultural studies, political science, spatial studies, public policy, and management.

 

Several authors (i.e., Pol and Ville, 2009; Bouchard, 2012; Cajaibe-Santana, 2014; Lévesque, 2014; Montgomery, 2016) have identified two major approaches in the international literature on social innovation. According to the “Neo-Schumpeterian” approach, social innovation involves a new idea or combination of ideas responding to concrete social needs (Mumford 2002; Murray, Caulier-Grice and Mulgan, 2010; Nicholls, 2010). Developed primarily in the field of organizational studies, this approach favours a more functionalist conception of the phenomenon, emphasizing the process of “creative destruction” promoted by social entrepreneurs along with the role of philanthropy and individual solutions to major social problems through business initiatives (Austin et al., 2006). Most scholars adopting this approach have focused on income generation and how to give the most vulnerable populations access to consumer goods and public services (e.g., Bhattacharyya et al., 2010) or to increase their economic well-being (George et al., 2012). From this perspective, social innovation is a tool giving disenfranchised members of society access to market and the ability to increase consumption or production, as in the bottom of pyramid (BoP) market (Hall et al., 2012).

 

The second perspective, far less mobilized in organizational studies, addresses social innovation as the spark of social transformation processes providing access to experiences and bottom-up initiatives that challenge and attempt to change dominant economic systems. From this perspective, social innovation “concerns the implementation of new social and institutional arrangements, new forms of resource mobilization, new answers to problems for which available solutions have proven inadequate, or new social aspirations” (Klein et al., 2012: 11).  They play an important role in development dynamics by “[i]ncreasing the socio-political capability and access to resources needed to enhance rights to satisfaction of human needs and participation” (Moulaert et al., 2005: 1976). When such innovations are extended to a variety of actors (i.e., not just firms), in addition to individual empowerment, they can lead to collective empowerment and open new avenues of social transformation.

 

Interested primarily in this second perspective, we observe that there are important gaps within organizational studies in the documentation of new theoretical perspectives used to analyse social innovation, the types of organization that promote the emergence of those innovations or that are created by them, the practices of social transformation, and the effects of those practices. To take up the challenge of studying collective and organizational responses to contemporary crises, we suggest focusing on social innovation, with explorations of any of the following topics or other relevant issues:

​

• Theoretical perspectives. What epistemological perspectives and theories within organizational studies can be used to analyze social innovations as transformative initiatives? We believe that theories emerging from “the South” that have analyzed socio-material arrangements aiming to promote social transformation are particularly interesting, e.g., perspectives on social technologies (Pozzebon, 2015) and “El buen vivir” (Acosta, 2013).

• Organizations and organizational forms. What organizational forms crystallize emerging values and aspirations and lead to social transformation? It is well known that the social and solidarity economy promotes social innovation (Bouchard, 2012), but what is the current face of organizations within this sector? What is the role of for-profit companies? Which organizational elements constrain and empower innovative responses to social problems? How do collective co-ordination and collaboration processes among different types of organizations (Tello-Rozas et al., 2015) respond to urgent social problems?

• Practices and processes. Which practices lead to long-term social transformation? How are mediation practices mobilized? (i.e., practices involving multiple actors during the innovation dynamic, where problems are raised and ideas are generated collectively, practices that translate, transform, and create new connections between objects, Callon, 1996, Latour, 2012). What are the empowerment practices and processes for individuals, organizations, and communities?

• Transformations/effects: What are the effects of these practices in terms of social change? How can a transformative, systemic, societal scope be given to social innovation initiatives? How can the alignment between social impact and economic performance be improved and maintained? Perspectives focused on relationships between social innovation and social change that address the incidence and consequences of the social innovation process in the public sphere (Andion et al, 2017) will be welcome.

• Social Innovation Ecosystems (SIEs), Cities and Territories: How do SIEs emerge and develop in the context of cities and territories? How do organizations, constellations of social actors, and social innovation practices interact with this hybrid reality of cities? How do these experiences act as barriers or drives for achieving sustainability and co-create resilience (Wolfram and Frantzeskai, 2016)? To what extent do social innovation ecosystems respond to the complex societal problems faced by cities and territories? What roles do SIEs play in promoting innovative reactions to adverse situations of disruption and emergency and new styles of development and ways of life?

 

We will accept submissions in English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish.

Submit you abstract until September 30, 2017 at www.laemos.com

 

References

​

Acosta, A. (2013). Buen vivir. Sumak kawsay. Una oportunidad para imaginar otros mundos, Barcelona, Icaria.

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

 

Austin, J., Stevenson, H. and Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). “Social and commercial entrepreneurship: same, different, or both?” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), pp. 1–22

 

Bhattacharyya, O., Khor, S., McGahan, A., Dunne, D., Daar, A. and Singer, P. (2010). “Innovative health service delivery models in low- and middle-income countries – what can we learn from the private sector?” Health Research Policy and Systems, 8, pp. 1–11.

 

Bouchard, M. (2012). “Social innovation, an analytical grid for understanding the social economy: the example of the Quebec housing sector”. Service Business, 6(1), pp. 47–59.

​

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

 

Callon M. (1986), “Éléments pour une sociologie de la traduction. La domestication des coquilles Saint-Jacques dans la baie de Saint-Brieuc”, L’Année sociologique, 36, pp. 169-208.

 

George, G., McGahan, A. and Prabhu, J. (2012). “Innovation for Inclusive Growth: Towards a Theoretical Framework and a Research Agenda”.  Journal of Management Studies, 49(4), pp. 661–683.

 

Hall, J., Matos, S, Sheehan, L. and Silvestre, B. (2012). “Entrepreneurship and Innovation at the Base of the Pyramid: A Recipe for Inclusive Growth or Social Exclusion?” Journal of Management Studies, 49(4), pp. 785–812

 

Klein, J.L, Fontan, J.M, Harrisson, D. and Lévesque, B. (2012). “The Quebec system of social innovation: a focused analysis on the local development field”. Finisterra: Revista Portuguesa de Geografia, XLVII(94), pp. 9–28.

 

Latour, B. (2012) Reagregando o social: uma introdução à teoria do ator-rede. EDUFBA, Salvador.

​

Lévesque, B. (2014) “As Inovações Sociais Podem Contribuir para Transformações, Mas Isso Não é Tão Evidente”. Revista Ciências em Debate [on-line].  1:2, pp. 179-199.

 

Montgomery, T. (2016) “Are Social Innovation Paradigms Incommensurable?” Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27, 1979-2000.

 

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

 

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

 

Mumford, M. D. (2002) “Social innovation: ten cases from Benjamin Franklin”. Creativity Research Journal, 14, (2), pp. 253-266.

 

Murray, R.; Caulier-Grice, J. and Mulgan, G. The open book of social innovation. London: The Young Foundation, 2010.

 

Nicholls, A. (2010) “The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: reflexive isomorphism in a pre-paradigmatic field”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 34 (4), pp. 611-633.

 

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

 

Pol, E. and Ville, S. (2009). “Social Innovation: Buzz Word or Enduring Term?” The Journal of Socio-Economics. 38 (6), pp. 878-885.

 

Pozzebon, M. (2015). “Tecnologia social: A South American view of technology and society relationship”. In: Vaujany, François-Xavier; Mitev, Nathalie; Lanzara, Giovan Francesco & Mukherjee, Anouck. Materiality, Rules and Regulation, New trends in management and organization studies. Palgrave Macmilian. Chapter 1, pp. 33-51.

 

Tello Rozas, S.; Pozzebon, M. and Mailhot, C. (2015) “Uncovering micro-practices and patterns of engagement that scale up social-driven collaboration: a practice view of power”. Journal of Management Studies, 52 (8): pp. 1064-1096.

 

Wolfram, M. and Frantzeskaki, N. (2016). “Cities and Systemic Change for Sustainability: Prevailing Epistemologies and an Emerging Research Agenda”,  Sustainability  8(2), pp. 1-18.