In this paper we conduct a critical reading of the European Union's social innovation policy (EUSIP) discourse. We argue that, rather than being a transformative discourse within EU policy, EUSIP discourse reinforces neoliberal hegemony by (re)legitimizing it. Inspired by post-foundational discourse theory and Glynos and Howarth's logics of critical explanation we analyse three central EUSIP documents. We characterize what kind of political project is articulated in and through EUSIP discourse, and uncover how it relates to neoliberal political rationality. Our contribution lies in showing: (1) how the social logics of EUSIP can be understood as both 'roll-out' and 'roll-with-it' neoliberalization, thereby relegitimizing and naturalizing neoliberalism; (2) how the political logics of EUSIP pre-empt the critique of 'roll-back' neoliberalization and thus legitimize decreased public expenditure; and (3) how the fantasmatic logics make EUSIP ideologically useful in relegitimizing neoliberalism through the win-win-win fantasy and the ethical responsibilization of subjects. We argue that resisting the neoliberalizing power of EUSIP discourse implies resisting the fantasmatic grip Post-print version Organization, 2017, Vol. 24(6) driven by a replication of best practices, we need to understand SIs as conceived and suited for particular social issues in particular contexts: we call for a different win-win mindset that does not blind innovators to possible negative impacts of SIs.

Innovation is in many contemporary economies understood as a key driver of desirable longterm economic and social development (Fagerberg, 2005). The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the European Union (EU) have emphasized in their recent strategies that innovation is essential for the recovery from the global financial crisis that began around 2008. In this vein, scholarly debates of innovation in management studies are almost exclusively occupied with attempts to improve, refine and manage innovation in more economically efficient ways (for example, Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Chesbrough, 2010; Lee et al., 2012). Kimberly (1981) highlighted already over 35 years ago this tendency to view innovation as fundamentally positive and called it the 'pro-innovation bias'. Recently, scholars have returned to this tendency and developed a critique by addressing some of the shortcomings in innovation research. These include neglect of the impact of changing meanings of innovation over time (Godin, 2012), the reproduction of gendered orders (Andersson et al., 2012; Alsos et al., 2013), disempowerment of researchers and scientific knowledge (Leitch et al., 2014), blurring of innovation due to its popularity in policy (Perren and Sapsed, 2013), risks of innovation in public services (Brown and Osborne, 2013) and lack of critical analysis (Sveiby et al., 2012). While agreeing with the above, we suggest taking the critique one step further. By focusing on the taken for granted assumptions of innovation in the academic community we attempt to advance the field of critical innovation studies by formulating transformational research questions. The aim of this chapter is to broaden the scope of management literature by analysing and problematizing the academic management discourse of innovation.

No abstract

No abstract

Innovation is often celebrated as a solution to various challenges in care work. Thus, a growing number of care workers are likely to experience innovations in their daily work. This article examines how care workers and project workers in elderly care are affected by contemporary transformations by exploring: (1) how they construct meanings around innovation implementation and (2) are subject positioned in relation to these meanings. Drawing on discourse analysis, we conduct a case study and analyze semistructured interviews, observations, and organizational documents. We illustrate how innovation is constructed in terms of optimism, and also as a source for struggle, with specific effects on care workers’ subject positioning. The findings thus contribute to new insights into the contemporary dominating discourse of innovation and its implications at the level of practice and subjectivity.