Developing the Transformative Capacity of Social Innovation through Learning: A Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda for the Roles of Network Leadership

Understanding transformative capacity to boost urban climate adaptation: A Semi-Systematic Literature Review

Transformative capacity (TC) is key for addressing climate change impacts. It refers to urban areas' ability for profound and intentional change to address current challenges and move towards a more desirable and resilient state. However, its varied applications across disciplines can lead to misunderstandings and implementation challenges. Thus, this Semi-Systematic Literature Review (SSLR) on TC within urban studies from 2016 to 2022 aims to overview and synthesise TC literature and its gaps to inform ongoing debates, intersecting it with climate-related research. The results show an increasing interest in TC within two fields of knowledge: resilience studies and transformative research. The review found TC as a catalyst for transformative actions, promoting sustainable pathways, enhancing resilience, and driving fundamental changes in urban climate adaptation. Finally, the prevailing literature gaps concern the TC concept's fragmentation, excessive research on governance features, and lack of joint research about TC and innovation.

Academic contributions to the development of evidence and policy systems: an EPPI Centre collective autoethnography

BACKGROUND

Evidence for policy systems emerging around the world combine the fields of research synthesis, evidence-informed policy and public engagement with research. We conducted this retrospective collective autoethnography to understand the role of academics in developing such systems.

METHODS

We constructed a timeline of EPPI Centre work and associated events since 1990. We employed: Transition Theory to reveal emerging and influential innovations; and Transformative Social Innovation theory to track their increasing depth, reach and embeddedness in research and policy organisations.

FINDINGS

The EPPI Centre, alongside other small research units, collaborated with national and international organisations at the research-policy interface to incubate, spread and embed new ways of working with evidence and policy. Sustainable change arising from research-policy interactions was less about uptake and embedding of innovations, but more about co-developing and tailoring innovations with organisations to suit their missions and structures for creating new knowledge or using knowledge for decisions. Both spreading and embedding innovation relied on mutual learning that both accommodated and challenged established assumptions and values of collaborating organisations as they adapted to closer ways of working. The incubation, spread and embedding of innovations have been iterative, with new ways of working inspiring further innovation as they spread and embedded. Institutionalising evidence for policy required change in both institutions generating evidence and institutions developing policy.

CONCLUSIONS

Key mechanisms for academic contributions to advancing evidence for policy were: contract research focusing attention at the research-policy interface; a willingness to work in unfamiliar fields; inclusive ways of working to move from conflict to consensus; and incentives and opportunities for reflection and consolidating learning.

The Role of Actors in Social Innovation in Rural Areas

Social innovation is gaining momentum in academia, policy and practice, as a process by which local communities generate new social relations and become more capable of addressing social needs and opportunities. However, there is significant ambiguity about the role of the different types of actors involved in social innovation, particularly in rural areas. This article aims to examine which actors make social innovation in rural areas possible, and the roles they play in these processes. Drawing on 33 interviews carried out with key informants of three socially innovative initiatives developed in rural areas of Spain and Scotland, this paper illustrates the scale, role and logic of the actors involved. The findings of the study clarify the central role of local processes and local actors, the impact of facilitators and perceived neutrality. They also show the contribution of social economy organizations as an arena for coordinating plural networks and civil society initiatives. The way the public sector and LEADER participate in social innovation processes in rural areas are also reflected in the results.

Three Dimensions of Transformative Impact and Capacity: A Conceptual Framework Applied in Social Innovation Practice

This article empirically applies, tests, and refines a conceptual framework that articulates three dimensions of transformative impact and transformative capacity: depth, width, and length. This responds to the need for a more precise conceptual language to describe these terms and operationalize them in a way that is useful for practitioners in social innovation networks. By applying this framework in diverse cases of social innovation networks, we demonstrate how the framework can serve to identify and assess transformative impacts and the capacities needed to bring about these impacts. Our findings include 1. empirical substantiations, 2. refinements, and 3. interaction effects among the elements of the framework. We also subjected the framework to an appraisal by practitioners in social innovation networks regarding the recognizability of the framework elements and usefulness for practice. The framework was generally perceived as very meaningful and valuable for social innovation practitioners as a way to understand, assess, strategically design and evaluate their transformation efforts. Drawing on feedback by practitioners, we offer recommendations for further research and development of the framework to improve its usefulness in practice.

Social Innovation for Sustainability Challenges

Social innovation is concerned with social mobilization and impact, and is increasingly seen as an option to address sustainability challenges. Nevertheless, the concept of social innovation is quite open in character and requires empirical accommodation to establish how it differs from other types of innovation in this setting. This article contributes empirically to the concept of social innovation as it reviews categories of success factors of social innovation against those of five other innovation types (product, service, governmental, organizational, system) in 202 innovation cases that focus on climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials. Statistical analysis with contingency tables is applied to examine the distribution of five kinds of success factors across the innovation types: economic, environmental, political, social, and technological. The results confirm empirically that social innovation is indeed a distinct type of innovation. There are statistically significant differences in the distribution of categories of success factors between social innovation on the one hand and product, service and governance innovation on the other. In addition to the prevalence of social success factors, social innovation is characterized by a lesser emphasis on political and technological success factors.

Co-Creation for Social Innovation in the Ecosystem Context: The Role of Higher Educational Institutions

This study examined the role of Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) in promoting, creating, and sustaining social innovation. Recently, HEIs have extended their contribution beyond the traditional function of teaching and research to perform in socio-economic problem-solving. Considering the increasing trends of higher education involvement in social innovation practices, this study tries to examine the tools such as learning processes and systemic thinking approach that could be helpful to align the function and responsibilities of HEIs towards social innovation. The objective is to develop a theoretical understanding of the “co-creation for social innovation” concept and to understand the functions and activities of HEIs that can contribute to this process. To promote co-creation for social innovation, HEIs should actively encourage collaborative learning tools that focus on open platforms for collective action and systemic change that help them to engage with society and strengthen their collaboration with social actors. Different activities such as mutual learning and knowledge diffusion using a transdisciplinary approach, technology-based learning and collaboration, and relational transformation are key enablers that can promote social innovation.