The desire to ensure that the benefits of successful small‐scale social innovation are more widely available has led to a plethora of frameworks that seek to scale such innovations. We review 20 extant frameworks for scaling and distinguished four directions: up (producing changes in laws, policies, institutions or norms), down (resource allocation to support implementation), in (ensuring organizations have the capacity to deliver the type and number of good practices required) and out (geographically replicating or broadening the range or scope of good practices). In addition to these directions of scaling a generic pathway, or process, to achieve scaling is also discernible across many of the frameworks reviewed. This involves five phases: identifying, planning, implementing, learning and adapting. We stress the need for a more dynamic and systemic approach to scaling, as well as one which anticipates, addresses and assesses the extent to which scaling is inclusive of marginalized groups.

Purpose:The ability to have impact at scale is an important concern for Organisations of Persons with Disabilities (OPDs), but little is known about how scaling occurs in practice and the capacity of OPDs to undertake scaling. The aim of this study was to assess perceptions and experiences of scaling and broader organisational practices among a sample of people working for OPDs in Lao PDR. The study also aimed to deductively analyse the qualitative data in relation to a pre-defined socially inclusive scaling framework. Methods:In-depth interviews were conducted with a sample of people working with 10 OPDs operating in Lao PDR (n = 12; 6 female and 6 male). Participants included directors, administration personnel, and advisers of OPDs. Grounded theory was used to analyse the qualitative data. A deductive approach, comprising a multiple cycling coding process, was used to analyse the data in relation to the IPILA socially inclusive scaling framework.

No abstract

El desarrollo del ceremonial público exige la participación y toma de decisiones por parte de las instituciones de poder de la ciudad, que en el Lugo moderno eran el concejo, el cabildo catedralicio y el obispo. Estas tres instituciones, que diariamente se disputaban el gobierno y justicia de la ciudad, generarán interminables pleitos a la hora de la organización y puesta en marcha de las ceremonias, toda vez que el lugar ocupado en el ceremonial es espejo de relieve social y político.

No abstract