Paradoxes of Transformative Social Innovation: From Critical Awareness towards Strategies of Inquiry
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5380/nocsi.v0i4.91113Keywords:
social innovation, societal transformation, paradoxes, critical analysis, methodologyAbstract
Society is transforming through a whirlpool of innovations. This includes technological as well as social innovations, i.e. changes in social relations involving new ways of doing, organizing, framing and knowing. Especially the potentials for transformative social innovation (TSI) are gaining the interest of progressive political actors and critical scholars. Occurring in the form of new modes of governance and alternative ways of working and living together, TSI involves the challenging, altering or replacing of dominant institutions. As documented in various strands of critical social inquiry and innovation research, TSI praxis is pervaded with contradictions, anomalies and paradoxes. This methodological contribution addresses the challenge that tends to remain: How to elaborate this general critical awareness into more operational ‘strategies of inquiry’? The paper discusses paradoxes of a) system reproduction, b) temporality, and c) reality construction. Identifying distinct kinds of contradictions and distinct empirical phenomena, this differentiation also calls attention to the associated differences between realist, processual and constructivist research philosophies. Gathering the empirical analyses, theoretical interpretations and methodological advances that have been made on these paradoxes, this contribution opens up the scope for critical and practically relevant innovation research: It is important to bridge the divide between rigorous but sterile methodological know-how, and critical-reflexive theorizing that lacks operational insights.
References
Adorno, T. W. (1966). Negative Dialektik. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Aiken, G. T. (2017). Social Innovation and Participatory Action Research: A way to research community? European Public & Social Innovation Review, 2(1), 17-33.
Akrich, M., Callon, M., Latour, B., & Monaghan, A. (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. (2017). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. Sage.
Anderson, B. (2006). “Transcending without transcendence”: utopianism and an ethos of hope. Antipode, 38(4), 691-710.
Andriopoulos, C., & Gotsi, M. (2017). Methods of paradox. Oxford University Press.
Arnold, A., David, M., Hanke, G., & Sonnberger, M. (Eds.). (2015). Innovation-Exnovation: Über Prozesse des Abschaffens und Erneuerns in der Nachhaltigkeitstransformation. Metropolis-Verlag.
Arthur, L. (2013). Participatory action research and implications. In F. Moulaert & D. Maccalum (Eds.), The International Handbook on Social Innovation: Collective action, social learning, and transdisciplinary research (p. 332-342). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Audet, R. (2014). The double hermeneutic of sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 11, 46-9.
Avelino, F., & Grin, J. (2017). Beyond deconstruction. a reconstructive perspective on sustainability transition governance. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 22, 15-25.
Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J. M., Pel, B., Weaver, P., Dumitru, A., Haxeltine, A., Kemp, R., Jørgensen, M. S., Bauler, T., Ruijsink, S., & O’Riordan, T. (2019). Transformative Social Innovation and (Dis)Empowerment: Towards a Heuristic, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, 195-206.
Bartels, K., & Wittmayer, J. M. (Eds.) (2018). Action Research in Policy Analysis: Critical and Relational Approaches to Sustainability Transitions. Routledge: Oxfordshire.
Bull, M., Ridley-Duff, R., Whittam, G., & Baines, S. (2018). Challenging tensions and contradictions: Critical, theoretical and empirical perspectives on social enterprise, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 24(3), 582-586.
Büscher, M., & Urry, J. (2009). Mobile methods and the empirical. European Journal of Social Theory, 12(1), 99-116.
Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2014). Social innovation: Moving the field forward. A conceptual framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82, 42-51.
Callon, M. (2009). Elaborating the notion of performativity. Le libellio d'AEGIS, 5(1), 18-29.
Callorda Fossati, E., Degavre, F., & Nyssens, M. (2017). How to deal with an “essentially contested concept” on the field? Sampling social innovations through the Delphi method. European Public & Social Innovation Review, 2(1), 45-58.
Chavez, D. (2008). The watering down of participatory budgeting and people power in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Participatory Learning and Action, 58(1), 57-60.
de Geus, T., Wittmayer, J. M., Van Berkel, F. (2021). Charging the future: Roadmaps and value tensions for mainstreaming prosumerism to 2030 and 2050. PROSEU – Prosumers for the Energy Union: Mainstreaming active participation of citizens in the energy transition (Deliverable N°6.3 – Horizon 2020 (H2020-LCE-2017), Grant Agreement Nº 764056. European Commission, Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT).
Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2017). Fundamentals for an international typology of social enterprise models. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and nonprofit organizations, 28(6), 2469-2497.
Dey, P., & Steyaert, C. (2012). Social entrepreneurship: critique and the radical enactment of the social. Social Enterprise Journal, 8(2), 90-107.
Dey, P., & Teasdale, S. (2013). Social enterprise and dis/identification: The politics of identity work in the English third sector. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 35(2), 248-270.
Dey, P., & Teasdale, S. (2016). The tactical mimicry of social enterprise strategies: Acting ‘as if’ in the everyday life of third sector organizations. Organization, 23(4), 485-504.
European Commission (2011). Empowering people, driving change. Social Innovation in the European Union. Luxembourg: Bureau of European Policy Advisers. https://doi.org/10.2796/13155
Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis and critical policy studies. Critical policy studies, 7(2), 177-197.
Ferreras, I., Battilana, J., & Méda, D. (2022). Democratize work: The case for reorganizing the economy. University of Chicago Press.
Forsman, A., De Moor, T., van Weeren, R., Bravo, G., Ghorbani, A., Dehkordi, M. A. E., & Farjam, M. (2020). Eco-evolutionary perspectives on emergence, dispersion and dissolution of historical Dutch commons. PLoS ONE, 15(7), e0236471. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236471
Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. (2001). Post-normal science. Science and Governance under conditions of complexity. In M. Decker & F. Wütscher (Eds.), Interdisciplinarity in Technology Assessment: Implementation and its Chances and Limits (p. 15-24). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Gaglio, G., Godin, B., & Pfotenhauer, S. (2019). X-Innovation: Re-inventing innovation again and again. Novation: Critical Studies of Innovation, 1(2019), 1-16.
Garud, R., & Gehman, J. (2012). Metatheoretical perspectives on sustainability journeys: Evolutionary, relational and durational. Research Policy, 41(6), 980-995.
Geels, F. W. (2010). Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Research policy, 39(4), 495-510.
Geels, F. W. (2021). From leadership to followership: A suggestion for interdisciplinary theorising of mainstream actor reorientation in sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 41, 45-48.
Geels, F. W., Kemp, R., Dudley, G., & Lyons, G. (2011). Automobility in transition? A socio-technical analysis of sustainable transport. Routledge.
Giudici, A., Combs, J. G., Cannatelli, B. L., & Smith, B. R. (2020). Successful scaling in social franchising: The case of Impact Hub. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(2), 288-314.
Godin, B., & Vinck, D. (2017). Critical Studies of Innovation: Alternative Approaches to the Pro-Innovation Bias. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Grimes, M. (2021), Navigating hype in the context of social innovation, Keynote lecture at International Social Innovation research Conference (ISIRC), Milano (ITA) September 8-10.
Grzymala-Busse, A. (2011). Time will tell? Temporality and the analysis of causal mechanisms and processes. Comparative Political Studies, 44(9), 1267-1297.
Hacking, I. (1995). The looping effects of human kinds. In D. Sperber, D. Premack, A. J Premack (Eds.), Causal cognition: A Multidisciplinary Debate (p. 351-394). Oxford University Press.
Hajer, M. A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Clarendon Press.
Hargrave, T. J., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2006). A collective action model of institutional innovation. Academy of management review, 31(4), 864-888.
Haxeltine, A., Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J. M., Kunze, I., Longhurst, N., Dumitru, A., O’Riordan, T. (2018). Conceptualising the role of social innovation in sustainability transformations. In J. Backhaus, A. Genus, S. Lorek, E. Vadovics & J. M. Wittmayer (Eds.), Social Innovation and Sustainable Consumption: Research and Action for Societal Transformation (p. 12-25). Routledge, Oxfordshire.
Haxeltine, A., Pel, B., Wittmayer, J. M., Dumitru, A., Kemp, R. & Avelino, A. (2017). Building a middle-range theory of Transformative Social Innovation; theoretical pitfalls and methodological responses. European Public and Social Innovation Review, 2(1), 59-77.
Hiteva, R., & Sovacool, B. (2017). Harnessing social innovation for energy justice: A business model perspective. Energy Policy, 107, 631-639.
Howaldt, J., Kopp, R., & Schwarz, M. (2015). Social innovations as drivers of social change – Exploring Tarde’s contribution to social innovation theory building. In A. Nichols, J. Simon & M. Gabriel (Eds.), New frontiers in social innovation research (p. 29-51). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Howarth, D. (2010). Power, discourse, and policy: articulating a hegemony approach to critical policy studies. Critical policy studies, 3(3-4), 309-335.
Ingeborgrud, L., Heidenreich, S., Ryghaug, M., Skjølsvold, T.M., Foulds, C., Robison, R., Buchmann, K., Mourik, R. (2020). Expanding the scope and implications of energy research: A guide to key themes and concepts from the Social Sciences and Humanities. Energy Research & Social Sciencie, 63, 101398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101398
Jaeger-Erben, M., Rückert-John, J., & Schäfer, M. (2015). Sustainable consumption through social innovation: a typology of innovations for sustainable consumption practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 784-798.
Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge. Abingdon, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Jessop, B., F. Moulaert, F., L. Hulgård & A.Hamdouch (2013). Social innovation research: a new stage in innovation research? In F. Moulaert, D. Maccallum, A. Mehmood, A. Hamdouch (Eds.), The International Handbook on Social Innovation; Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research (p. 110-127). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Joss, S. (2011). Eco-cities: The mainstreaming of urban sustainability–key characteristics and driving factors. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 6(3), 268-285.
Kelly, M. (Ed.) (1994). Critique and power: recasting the Foucault/Habermas debate. MIT Press.
Khan, F. R., Munir, K. A., & Willmott, H. (2007). A dark side of institutional entrepreneurship: Soccer balls, child labour and postcolonial impoverishment. Organization studies, 28(7), 1055-1077.
Klein, J. L., Camus, A., Jetté, C., Champagne, C., & Roy, M. (Eds.) (2016). La transformation sociale par l’innovation sociale. Montreal: Presses de l’ Université de Québec.
Köhler, J., et al. (2019). An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. 31, 1-32.
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management review, 24(4), 691-710.
Laville, J. L. (2014). The Social and Solidarity Economy: A theoretical and plural framework. In J. Defourny, L. Hulgård & V. Pestoff (Eds.), Social Enterprise and the Third Sector. Changing European Landscapes in a Comparative Perspective (p. 102-113). Routledge.
Le Velly, R. (2019). Allowing for the projective dimension of agency in analysing alternative food networks. Sociologia Ruralis, 59(1), 2-22.
Lefèvre, S., Audet, R., & El-Jed, M. (2016). La recherche-action comme appui à la transformation sociale: l’étude des marchés de quartier à Montréal. In J. L. Klein, A. Camus, C. Jetté, C. Champagne & M. Roy (Eds.), La transformation sociale par l’innovation sociale (p. 159-172). Montreal: Presses de l’ Université de Québec.
Lennon, B., Dunphy, N., Gaffney, C., Revez, A., Mullally, G., & O’Connor, P. (2020). Citizen or consumer? Reconsidering energy citizenship. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 22(2), 184-197.
Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford University Press.
Luhmann, N., & Rasch, W. (2002). Theories of distinction: Redescribing the descriptions of modernity. Stanford University Press.
Mikkonen, I., Gynther, L., Matschoss, K., Koukoufikis, G., Murauskaite-Bull, I., & Uihlein, A. (2020). Social innovations for the energy transition. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https://doi.org/10.2760/555111
Monticelli, L. (2018). Embodying Alternatives to Capitalism in the 21st Century. tripleC Communication. Capitalism & Critique, 16(2), 501-517.
Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Moulaert, F., & Ailenei, O. (2005). Social economy, third sector and solidarity relations: A conceptual synthesis from history to present. Urban studies, 42(11), 2037-2053.
Moulaert, F., Mehmood, A., MacCallum, D., & Leubolt, B. (2017). Social innovation as a trigger for transformations-the role of research. Publications Office of the European Union.
North, P. (2014), Ten square miles surrounded by reality? Materialising alternative economies using local currencies. Antipode, 46(1), 246-265.
Novy, A., & Leubolt, B. (2005). Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre: social innovation and the dialectical relationship of state and civil society. Urban studies, 42(11), 2023-2036.
Pansera, M., & Fressoli, M. (2021). Innovation without growth: Frameworks for understanding technological change in a post-growth era. Organization, 28(3), 380-404.
Pel, B., & Backhaus, J. (2020). Realizing the Basic Income: Competing Claims to Expertise in Transformative Social Innovation. Science & Technology Studies, 33(2), 83-101.
Pel, B., & Kemp, R. (2020). Between innovation and restoration; towards a critical-historicizing understanding of social innovation niches. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 32(10), 1182-1194.
Pel, B., Dorland, J., Wittmayer, J. M., & Jørgensen, M. S. (2017a), Detecting Social Innovation agency; Methodological reflections on units of analysis in dispersed transformation processes, European Public and Social Innovation Review, 2(1), 110-126.
Pel, B., Bauler, T., Avelino, F., Backhaus, J., Ruijsink, S., Rach, S., Jørgensen, M. S., Kunze, I., Voss, G., Dumitru, A., Lema Blanco, I., Afonso, R., Cipolla, C., Longhurst, N., Dorland, J. Elle, M., Balázs, B., Horváth, J., Matolay, R., Wittmayer, J. M., Valderrama Pineda, A., Serpa, B., Rösing Agostini, M., Lajarthe, F., Garrido, S., Picabea, F., Moreira, J., Trentini, F., Bidinost, A., Weaver, P., Heimann, R., Skropke, C., Hoffmeister, K.L., Tawakol, D., Olivotto, V., Tsatsou, A., Zahed, Y., Moet, R., Zuijderwijk, L., Renema, J., & Kemp, R. (2017b). The Critical Turning Points database; concept, methodology and dataset of an international Transformative Social Innovation comparison. TRANSIT Working Paper # 10, TRANSIT: EU SSH.2013.3.3.2-1 Grant Agreement Nº 613169. European Commission.
Pel, B., Haxeltine, A., Avelino, F., Dumitru, A., Kemp, R., Bauler, T., Kunze, I., Dorland, J., Wittmayer, J. W., & Jørgensen, M. S. (2020). Towards a theory of Transformative Social Innovation: a relational framework and 12 propositions. Research Policy, 49(8), 104080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104080
Pfotenhauer, S., & Jasanoff, S. (2017). Panacea or diagnosis? Imaginaries of innovation and the ‘MIT model’ in three political cultures. Social Studies of Science, 47(6), 783-810. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312717706110
Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of management review, 14(4), 562-578.
Rammert, W., Windeler, A., Knoblauch, H., & Hutter, M. (2018). Innovation Society Today. Springer.
Rice, R. E., & Rogers, E. M. (1980). Reinvention in the innovation process. Knowledge, 1(4), 499-514.
Ridley-Duff, R., & Bull, M. (2021). Common pool resource institutions: The rise of internet platforms in the social solidarity economy. Business Strategy & the Environment, 30(3), 1436-1453. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2707
Roth, S. (2009). New for whom? Initial images from the social dimension of innovation. Int. J. Innovation and Sustainable Development, 4(4), 231-252.
Schubert, C. (2018). Social Innovation; A New Instrument for Social Change? In W. Rammert & A. Windeler (Eds.), Innovation Society Today (p. 371-391). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Schubert, C. (2019). Social innovations as a repair of social order. NOvation: Critical Studies of Innovation, I(2019), 41-66.
Scott-Cato, M., & Hillier, J. (2010). How could we study climate-related social innovation? Applying Deleuzean philosophy to Transition Towns. Environmental Politics, 19(6), 869-887.
Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state. Yale University Press.
Seo, M. G., & Creed, W. D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective, Academy of management review, 27(2), 222-247.
Shin, Y., & Jeong, H. (2019). Transition or Tradition. NOvation: Critical Studies of Innovation, I(2019), 106-134.
Shove, E. (2012). The shadowy side of innovation: unmaking and sustainability. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(4), 363-375.
Smith, A. (2007). Translating sustainabilities between green niches and socio-technical regimes. Technology analysis & strategic management, 19(4), 427-450.
Smith, A., & Stirling, A. (2007). Moving inside or outside? Objectivation and reflexivity in the governance of socio-technical systems. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 8(3-4), 1-23.
Smith, A., & Stirling, A. (2010). The politics of social-ecological resilience and sustainable socio-technical transitions. Ecology and Society, 15(1), 11. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss1/art11/
Solis-Navarrete, J. A., Bucio-Mendoza, S., & Paneque-Gálvez, J. (2021). What is not social innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 173, 121190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121190
Steyaert, C., & Dey, P. (2010). Nine verbs to keep the social entrepreneurship research agenda ‘dangerous’. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(2), 231-254.
Stirling A. (2016) Knowing Doing Governing: Realizing Heterodyne Democracies. In: Voß JP & Freeman R.(Eds.) (2016) Knowing Governance: The Epistemic Construction of Political Order. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 259-286.
Stirling, A. (2019). How deep is incumbency? A ‘configuring fields’ approach to redistributing and reorienting power in socio-material change. Energy Research & Social Science, 58, 101239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101239
Swyngedouw, E. (2005). Governance Innovation and the Citizen: The Janus Face of Governance-beyond-the State. Urban Studies, 42(11), 1991-2006.
Teasdale, S., Roy, M. J., Ziegler, R., Mauksch, S., Dey, P., & Raufflet, E. B. (2021). Everyone a changemaker? Exploring the moral underpinnings of social innovation discourse through real utopias. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 12(3), 417-437.
Temenos, C., & McCann, E. (2013). Geographies of policy mobilities. Geography Compass, 7(5), 344-357.
Turnheim, B., Asquith, M., & Geels, F. W. (2020). Making sustainability transitions research policy-relevant: Challenges at the science-policy interface. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 34, 116-120.
Ulrich, W. (2003). Beyond methodology choice: critical systems thinking as critically systemic discourse. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54(4), 325-342.
Unger, R. M. (2015). Conclusion: The task of the social innovation movement. In A. Nichols, J. Simon & M. Gabriel (Eds.), New frontiers in social innovation research (p. 233-251). Springer.
Voß, J. P. (2014). Performative policy studies: realizing “transition management”. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 27(4), 317-343.
Voß, J. P., & Freeman, R. (2016), Introduction: Knowing Governance, In: J. P. Voß & R. Freeman (Eds.), Knowing Governance: The Epistemic Construction of Political Order (p. 1-34). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Westley, F., McGowan, K., & Tjörnbo, O. (2017). The Evolution of Social Innovation; Building Resilience Through Transitions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Westman, L., & Castán Broto, V. (2022). Urban Transformations to Keep All the Same: The Power of Ivy Discourses. Antipode, 54(4), 1320-1343. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12820
Wittmayer, J. M., & Schäpke, N. (2014). Action, research and participation: roles of researchers in sustainability transitions. Sustainability Science, 9(4), 483-496.
Wittmayer, J. M., Avelino, F., Backhaus, J., Pel, B., Strasser, T., & Zuijderwijk, L. (2019). Narratives of change: how social innovation initiatives construct societal transformation. Futures, 112, 10243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2019.06.005
Wittmayer, J. M., Campos, I., Avelino, F., Brown, D., Doračić, B., Fraaije, M., Gährs, S., Hinsch, A., Assalini, S., Becker, T., Marín-González, E., Holstenkamp, L., Bedoić, R., Duić, N., Oxenaar, S., Pukšec, T. (2022). Thinking, doing, organising: Prefiguring just and sustainable energy systems via collective prosumer ecosystems in Europe. Energy Research & Social Science, 86, 102425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102425
Wright, E. O. (2010). Envisioning real utopias. Verso: London.
Ziegler, R. (2017). Citizen Innovation as Niche Restoration – A Type of Social Innovation and Its Relevance for Political Participation and Sustainability. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 8(3), 338-353.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
NOvation is an open-access journal under a Creative Commons – CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 license, which allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement (and preservation) of the author's authorship and intellectual property rights.
To this extent, the authors who publish in this journal agree with the following terms:
1. Authors retain the rights and grant the journal the right of first publication, with the work published under the Creative Commons – CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 that allows [...].
2. Authors have authorization for distribution, of the version of the work published in this journal, in an institutional repository, thematic, databases and in other works as a book chapter, with acknowledgement of authorship and initial publication in the journal;
3. Papers published in this journal will be indexed in databases, repositories, portals, directories and other sources in which the journal is and will be indexed.
Ethical Responsibilities of Authors
This journal is committed to upholding the integrity of the scientific record.
Consent to submit has been received explicitly from all co-authors, as well as from the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – at the institute/organization where the work has been carried out, before the work is submitted.
