Mapping the Social Innovation Maps – The State of Research Practice across Europe

Abstract

Abstract:In an effort to better understand the various forms of social innovation, mapping has become a common and widely applied method for gaining insights into social innovation practices. The transdisciplinary nature of social innovation research has led to a plurality of distinct approaches and methods. Given the increasing interest in social innovation, and the apparent endeavour among policymakers to utilise social innovation to address current societal challenges, it is argued that mapping efforts need to be streamlined in order to make better use of their results. The article describes 17 ongoing or recently finalised research projects on social innovation and their methodological approaches on "mapping" social innovations. It provides a systematic overview on project objectives, SI definitions and mapping approaches for each of the scrutinised projects and ends with a synoptical analysis on methods, objectives and missing research.

Editorial Synthesis: Methodological Challenges in Social Innovation Research

“…There is a striking divergence, however. Whilst some advances are strongly driven by aims of sound science and systematic knowledge development (Martinelli et al 2010, Bouchard & Trudelle 2013, McGowan & Westley 2015, Pelka & Terstriep 2016, others rather seek to develop modes of action-oriented investigation (Moulaert & van Dyck 2013, Novy et al 2013, Moulaert et al 2017. In other words, recent advances in SI methodology are departing from quite different logics of inquiry and understandings of scientific knowledge production.…”

“…Apart from the academic interest as articulated by Bouchard & Trudelle (2013), also practitioners and policy-makers are seeking a more solid evidence basis for SI practice (European Commission 2013: 7). The development of successful scaling strategies and overviews (Pelka & Terstriep 2016) arguably call for a broadening of the investigative scope -not only through evolutionary theorizing of meso-and macro levels (Cf. section 3), but also in terms of larger numbers of cases.…”

A Global Mapping of Social Innovations: Challenges of a Theory Driven Methodology

“…Within the last years, mapping approaches have been also implemented by a number of social innovation projects. Pelka and Terstriep (2016) identified 17 European projects using different types of mapping which focus on thematic aspects like citizen engagement (TEPSIE) or economic underpinnings (SIMPACT), management frameworks (CASI) and incubation approaches (BENISI), the identification of innovative service practices (INNOSERVE), the public (LIPSE) or the third sector (CRESSI, TSI, ITSSOIN). Empirical analyses of successful local or regional models of Social Innovation (CRISES / Moulaert 2012, WILCO -Welfare Innovations at the Local level in favour of Cohesion) have also made important contributions to a better understanding of the topic by highlighting aspects like empowerment and collective action.…”

Building a middle-range theory of Transformative Social Innovation; theoretical pitfalls and methodological responses

“…Developing explanations of social innovation based on single cases, or small sets of cases To date SI research has suffered from an overreliance on studies of either single empirical cases of SI initiatives or on small groups of localised cases. Several recent contributions indicate in this regard that systematic comparison is crucial for SI research to move forward, even if difficult (Bouchard & Trudelle, 2013;McGowan & Westley, 2015;Pelka & Terstriep, 2016;Callorda Fossati et al, 2017). This pitfall of particularism refers to the excessive focus on the empirical details of particular SI initiatives and processes, at the expense of attempts towards the further abstraction, generalisation and explanation that theory-building requires.…”