SI-DRIVE Social Innovation: Driving Force of Social Change SOCIAL INNOVATION AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO SOCIAL CHANGE Verifying existing Social Theories in reference to Social Innovation and its Relationship to Social Change D1.3 Project acronym SI-DRIVE Project title Social Innovation: Driving Force of Social Change Grand Agreement number 612870 Coordinator TUDO – TU Dortmund University Funding Scheme Collaborative project; Large scale integration project Due date of deliverable April 30 2016 Actual submission date April 30 2016 Start date of the project January 1 2014 Project duration 48 months Work package 1 Theory Lead beneficiary for this deliverable TUDO Authors Jürgen Howaldt (TUDO), Michael Schwarz Dissemination level public This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 612870. Acknowledgements We would like to thank all partners of the SI-DRIVE consortium for their comments to this paper. Also many thanks to Doris Schartinger and Matthias Weber for their contributions. We also thank Marthe Zirngiebl and Luise Kuschmierz for their support. SI-DRIVE “Social Innovation: Driving Force of Social Change” (SI-DRIVE) is a research project funded by the European Union under the 7th Framework Programme. The project consortium consists of 25 partners, 15 from the EU and 10 from world regions outside the EU. SI-DRIVE is led by TU Dortmund University / Sozialforschungsstelle and runs from 2014-2017. 2 CONTENTS 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 2 Social Innovation Research and Concepts of Social Change ............................ 8 3 Theories of Social Change – an Overview ........................................................ 14 3.1 Social Innovations in Theories of Social Change ........................................................................................................ 14 3.2 Theories of Social Change in scientific Discourse ...................................................................................................... 16 3.3 Demands on the Analysis and Explanation of Processes of Social Change ...................................................... 19 4 Selected Approaches to recording Processes and Mechanisms of Social Change ................................................................................................................. 23 4.1 Social Change from a Structuration Theory Perspective.......................................................................................... 23 4.2 Morphogenesis and Mechanisms Approach .................................................................................................................. 25 4.3 Capability Approach and Social Grid ............................................................................................................................... 30 4.4 Institution-Theory Perspectives on Change .................................................................................................................. 33 4.5 Post-Structuralism and Actor-Network Theory ............................................................................................................ 36 4.6 Multilevel Perspective (MLP) ............................................................................................................................................. 38 4.7 Transformation Research and transformative Research ......................................................................................... 43 4.7.1 Transformation Research ..................................................................................................................................................... 43 4.7.2 From Transformation Research to transformative Research .................................................................................. 43 4.7.2.1 Social-ecological Research ................................................................................................................................................. 44 4.7.2.2 Social Contract for a major Transformation .................................................................................................................. 45 4.7.2.3 Transition Management ....................................................................................................................................................... 46 4.7.2.4 Transition Design .................................................................................................................................................................... 48 4.7.2.5 Transformation Design ......................................................................................................................................................... 49 4.8 Social Change as a rational Transformation of Ways of Life ................................................................................. 51 5 Summary – Social Innovation as a Key Element of an Understanding of Social Change Processes that is grounded in Social Theory .......................... 53 6 Conclusion – The Conceptualisation Of Social Innovation and Social Change ................................................................................................................. 57 7 Next Steps ........................................................................................................... 63 8 References ........................................................................................................... 64 LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1: Basic diagram ................................................................................................................................................................................ 27 Fig. 2: The Extended Social Grid Model and Social Innovation ............................................................................................... 32 Fig. 3: A schematic conceptual Model of the Social Innovation Process.............................................................................. 34 Fig. 4 Combining the MLP and SPT .................................................................................................................................................... 41 Fig. 5: Conceptual heuristic to explore the Dynamics of transformative Social Innovation ......................................... 42 Fig. 6: The Transition Framework ........................................................................................................................................................ 49 2 1 INTRODUCTION The harder task for social innovation research is to understand the place of social innovation in much bigger processes of social change. (Mulgan, 2015, xiii) The task of understanding and unlocking the potential of social innovation is on the research and policy agenda alike: While “in recent years, social innovation has become increasingly influential in both scholarship and policy” (Moulaert et al. 2013a, p. 1), there is still no sustained and systematic analysis of social innovation, its theories, characteristics, and impacts. “Recent work on social innovation has been mostly practice oriented” (Choi/Majumdar 2015, p. 7) and practice led. A plethora of vastly diverging subject matters and problem dimensions as well as expectations for resolving them have been subsumed under the heading ‘social innovation’ without making distinctions between different social and economic meanings, the conditions governing its inception, its genesis and diffusion, and without clearly distinguishing it from other forms of innovation (European Commission 2013). Often, social innovations were studied quite comprehensively, but without being labelled as such. Today, there are countless approaches and successful initiatives that illustrate the strengths and potentials of social innovations in the area of social integration through education and poverty reduction, in establishing sustainable patterns of consumption, or in coping with demographic change (cf. Yunus 2010; Rey de Marulanda/Tancredi 2010; Murray et al. 2010; Moulaert et al. 2013). At the same time, social innovations are gaining in importance not only in relation to social integration and equal opportunities, but also in respect to the innovative ability and future sustainability of society as a whole. “Although social innovation is widely recognised as an important development phenomenon, it has traditionally been perceived as being limited in scope” (Millard 2014, p. 35). One key reason for this is that for a long time, the social innovation discussion focused predominantly– and still is in many parts of the world - on concepts of social entrepreneurship (cf. Nicholls 2012; Phills et al. 2008; Short et al. 2009; Young 2012). Yet, such a limited understanding is not sufficient for developing the potentials of social innovation for the purposes of human and sustainable development (cf. Davies 2014; Howaldt et al. 2015). Instead, it is necessary to develop a concept of social innovation that is, on the one hand, grounded in social theory, which, on the other hand, looks at its various manifestations, actors, and cultural contexts and, hence, frees the term from the narrow confines of an economic orientation that is focused on the concept of social entrepreneurship (Howaldt et al. 2014b). Developing a theoretically grounded concept of social innovation is the essential condition for meeting the demand for an integrative theory of socio-technical innovation in which social innovation is more than just a precondition for, concomitant phenomenon with, and consequence of technological innovations or an idea to compensate for shortcomings in (social) policy (cf. Elsen/Lorenz 2014, p. 2). While theories of social change have been at the core of sociology since its beginnings (cf. Meulemann 2013) the report “Social Innovation and social change” focusses on a sociological perspective and therefore verifies existing social theories in reference to Social Innovation and its relationship to social change. Social innovation from a sociological perspective As can be seen in the international debate that treats social innovation as a separate type of innovation and has made it more accessible as an object of empirical investigations, social sciences have been catching up with the development of a theoretically grounded concept of social innovation (cf. Moulaert et al. 2005, p. 1973ff.; Howaldt/Schwarz 2010, p. 36). Currently, a new generation of EU-funded projects is working on a sound theoretical understanding of social innovation and its relation to (transformative) social change, on the economic underpinnings of social innovation, its incubation, and other foci of the topic.1 While culminating social and economic problems identified in public discourse are increasingly prompting a call for extensive social innovation, the relationship between social innovation and social change remains a largely under-explored area within the social sciences as well as government innovation policies. Whereas – 1 See e.g. SI-DRIVE (www.si-drive.eu), SIMPACT (http://www.simpact-project.eu/), TRANSIT (http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/) and CrESSI (http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/faculty-research/research-projects/cressi). 1 based mainly on Ogburn’s theory – a specialised sociology of change has developed (Schäfers 2002), with few exceptions social innovation as an analytical category is at best a secondary topic - both in the classical and contemporary social theory approaches and concepts of social differentiation and social integration, social order and social development, modernisation and transformation. This is all the more astonishing given that Ogburn (1969) not only makes ‘cultural lag’ – the difference in the time it takes for the comparatively ‘slow’ non-material culture to catch up with the faster-developing material culture – his starting point and systematically differentiates between technological and social innovations (and inventions) as critical factors in social change, but also emphasises that the use of the term ‘inventions’ is not restricted to technological inventions also including social inventions such as the League of Nations (Ogburn 1969). “Invention is defined as a combination of existing and known elements of culture, material and/or non-material, or a modification of one to form a new one. […] By inventions we do not mean only the basic or important inventions, but the minor ones and the incremental improvements. Inventions, then, are the evidence on which we base our observations of social evolution” (ibid, p. 56ff.). Thus, Ogburn is convinced that in the interplay of invention, accumulation, exchange, and adaptation, he has discovered the basic elements of “cultural development” ibid, p. 56) and, hence, – like Darwin for biological evolution – has developed a model to explain social evolution. However, if transformative social change refers to the reconfiguration of practices from which sociality arises, in this perspective it cannot be perceived as the result of an evolutionary process but a reaction in the shape of processes of reflexive social learning towards existing ways of life and forms of practices becoming obsolete (Jaeggi 2013). In this sense, social change is driven by changing social practices and stimulating social innovations based on continuous new adaptation and configuration anchored in social practices themselves, which means real experiments with the participation of heterogeneous actors understood as carriers of social practices and in the context of an unequally self-organised co-evolutionary process (cf. Shove 2010, p. 1274; Shove et al. 2012, p. 162ff.). Against the background of the emergence of a new innovation paradigm2 from the viewpoint of sociology, it becomes more important to devote greater attention to social innovation as a mechanism of change residing at the micro and meso level. Why? First, the shortcomings of older models of social change and of an economically and technologically focused innovation model become increasingly apparent when dealing with the key social challenges. Second, new forms of governance and social self-management, of protest movements that aim to shape society (Marg et al. 2013), and new social practices in social life and related governance – understood as necessary social innovations – are increasingly established. In the context of the broad societal debate surrounding sustainable development and necessary social transformation processes (Geels/Schot 2007), the question of the relationship between social innovations and social change arises again: how can processes of social change be initiated which go beyond the illusion of centralist management concepts linking social innovations that emerge within society to the intended social transformation processes? Social innovation from an economic perspective An excursus by Doris Schartinger/Matthias Weber In economics, a discussion about social innovation (using exactly this label!) has first arisen in the literature on service innovation, as most social innovations are, in essence, service innovations with a social purpose. The line of argument that relates the literature on service innovation to social change follows along three steps: First, the service innovation literature develops the special properties of services and – as a consequence - of service innovations, thus, providing a general analytical foundation for this discussion. Second, in this stream of literature, innovation scholars are mainly concerned with the challenge of grasping the differences between service innovation and social innovation as a particular form of services. Third, this has implications for the discussion on social change, which is actually not part of the service innovation literature because it is not concerned with social change as such. In this regard, the literature is usually restricted to matters of the diffusion of service innovations. 2 In innovation economics, the emergence of a new innovation paradigm can be traced back to the late 1980s, when the interactive model of innovation described by Kline and Rosenberg (1986) was presented in opposition to the then still prevailing linear model of innovation as presented in V. Bush’s famous contribution “Science the endless frontier” (1945). 2 2 Discussion of innovation in services in contrast to manufacturing After generations of economists viewing services as non-productive activities peripheral to manufacturing, which was considered the true engine of growth and welfare (cf. Baumol 1967), in the 1990s innovation scholars started to emphasise the conceptualisation and assessment of innovation in services (Griliches 1992; Miles 2002), for an overview see Gallouj and Savona (2009). Here, the most pervasive analytical challenge is the fuzzy nature of services due to their immaterial content (immateriality). Service output is not tangible because it is not embodied in anything physical. Services are processes, sequences of operations, formulas, protocols, or solutions to problems. A consequence of their immateriality is that normally they cannot be stored or easily transported, although this implication needs to be reconsidered today in light of the growing importance of web-enabled services (e.g. online support centres in India, banking services, etc.). A second analytical challenge is that services are not provided in clear-cut separable units (e.g. is the service in having a haircut, the process of having hair cut or the final haircut? And when does this service end? When the hair is cut again or when the customer leaves the salon?). Their unit and (additional) quality is thus often unspecifiable. A third important feature is the involvement of users. In services, delivery and consumption often take place at the same time, i.e. services are interactive per se. The user or customer has to interact, either by being present (e.g. physicians’ services or by interacting over distance (e.g. digital services like health appliances and related services). Co-production means user involvement to the extent that the service is actually not only delivered by the supplier but requires more resources like additional knowledge and learning, or cooperative efforts on part of the user. The literature on service innovation is grouped around three basic approaches (for an overview see Gallouj/Savona 2009): 1) The technologist or assimilation approach: innovation in services in this view is limited to the adoption and use of technology (e.g. ICT). Innovation processes in this view do not differ substantially between services and manufactured products. Special features of services are not considered in their own right (e.g. Barras 1986; 1990). 2) The service–oriented or demarcation approach: This stream of literature strives for a specific framework for service innovation, while attempting to identify all the particularities in services and delivery processes (Howells/Tether 2004; Sundbo 1997; Sundbo/Gallouj 2000). 3) An integrative or synthesizing approach: This goes back to the Lancasterian (and post-Lancasterian) characteristic-based approach to the definition of products. It argues that the distinction between goods and services is artificial in the end, as any product has good and service elements. Thus, it provides the theoretical basis for a much richer set of innovation modes than would be possible with the assimilation or demarcation approaches alone (Gallouj/Weinstein 1997; Saviotti/Metcalfe 1984; Windrum/Garcia-Goni 2008). Discussion of service innovation in general in contrast to social innovation in particular Although social innovations are basically new services, and services incorporate person-to-person interaction in development and/or delivery (note: services may also integrate the interface of technology-to-person interaction), the term social innovation is rather reserved to services that have additional qualities. The OECD LEED Forum on Social Innovations (OECD n.d.) and the European Commission (2011) emphasised the connection between services and social innovation. Social innovators seek to develop new services that improve the quality of life of individuals and communities in labour market integration, social inclusion, health and wellbeing, education, and environmental challenges. In other words, social innovations are a sub- type of service innovation with a specific purpose. Still, service innovation and social innovation remain rather separate subfields (Gallouj/Djellal 2010; Harrisson et al. 2010; Reinstaller 2013). It makes sense to elaborate on the special features of social innovation, instead of arguing all service innovation equals social innovation because it is interactive in some form. Windrum, Schartinger, Rubalcaba, Gallouj, and Toivonen (2016) identify three areas in which the conceptual 3 understanding of social innovations is further specified beyond that of service innovations: Incentives. In the service innovation literature social innovation is a special type of service that does not conform to business rationality in that it is not driven by profit motives, but by principles of inclusion and well-being. This does not imply that commercial service innovations do not induce well-being, yet they are incentivised by expected profits whereas social innovation is incentivised by value created to society as a whole rather than to private individuals (i.e. externalities) (see also definition by Phills et al. 2008). Empowerment. Social innovations differ from commercial service innovations in that they seek to empower citizens. Where the consumption of commercial services is driven by demand based on prices, income, and preferences, the use of social innovations is more based on needs (which are different from demand, see Hodgson (2008)). Social innovations attempt to assign new roles and relationships (e.g. between the citizens and the state) to individuals or groups in need, they develop assets and capabilities and/or the more efficient and environmentally sustainable use of existing assets and resources (cf. Chiappero/Von Jacobi 2015; Science Communication Unit 2014). Imitation. In innovation economics it is seen as given that fast imitation undermines economic returns of innovators. Hence, low appropriability regimes provide disincentives for innovators to engage in innovative activities, which results in less innovation and, therefore, a loss to society. In contrast to that, social innovators often seem to encourage imitation and the rapid dissemination of their problem solutions. The key to this problem is probably that weak competition and the scarcity of solutions in the areas of social innovation needs to be compensated for: When needs of a group or parts of society are overwhelming, and solutions to solve the needs are scarce, ideas to solve the needs are rather promoted (once they finally exist) by the actors, instead of being withheld for better commercial exploitation. Implications for the discussion on social innovation and social change It seems that especially these three additional qualities of social innovations compared to service innovations in general, also yield special conclusions for the connection between social innovation and social change. First, considering the direction of social change it is worthwhile thinking of innovation projects that are explicitly set up to solve social problems (e.g. of marginalisation, of social determination etc.) encounter barriers in a systematic way instead of viewing them as the product of singular achievements and pure chance. Intentionality is important considering that many innovation projects have some social impact as a wider effect. Second, the very active roles of empowered citizens strengthened by social innovations may have an impact on new social practices guiding social change. Third, imitation is a key aspect in the rapid dissemination of new service ideas and practices which may accelerate social change. In practice, the dissemination of new ideas and practices is challenging. This is due to two characteristics of social innovations. First, they tend to be very local in nature. Second, there is often a lack of codification (Harrisson et al. 2010; Windrum 2014). 4 4 Moving towards an integrated approach Against that background, the main objective of the SI-DRIVE project is the development of a theoretically sound concept of social innovation as a precondition for the development of an integrated theory of socio- technological innovation in which social innovation is more than a mere requirement, side effect, and result of technological innovation. It is possible to comprehend the systemic connections and interdependence of social and technological innovation as driving forces in the overall processes of social change only by taking into account the unique properties and specifics of social innovation in different contexts. While the Critical Literature Review (CLR) provided a general depiction of how social innovation resonates within the wider frameworks of existing innovation theory and research, the concepts and perceptions of social change, and of societal and policy development, the purpose of the present report is to verify existing social theories in reference to social innovation and its relationship to social change. The report is important part of the Theory Work Package (WP 1). WP 1 forms the core element of SI-DRIVE and provides the conceptual framework that underpins all the other WPs. Hypotheses for further research will be verified and developed by analysing the empirical data across sectors and countries within the mapping exercises. WP1 examines the conditions under which social innovation takes place, unpacking and developing the concepts that are associated with this phenomenon, and explores and explains the variety of processes and networking through which social innovation occurs. This theoretical endeavour provides a general depiction of how social innovation resonates within the wider frameworks of existing innovation theory and research, the concepts and perceptions of social change, and of societal and policy development. The CLR provided an overview of the current state of international research on social innovation explicitly including studies on technological and business innovations. The overview confirmed the lack of a theoretically sound concept of social innovation which is able to describe commonalities and differences and thereby coherently interlinks the different policy areas and research fields in which social innovation is already playing a prominent role. Innovation in general and social innovation in particular are conceptualised in many different ways. This relates to the mostly problem-driven and intervention-oriented type of research tailored to understand and finally overcome strategic challenges in the before mentioned policy fields. At the same time, the CLR revealed that there is no clear understanding of how social innovation leads to social change of existing structures, policies, institutions, and behaviour. Obviously, phenomena of social change have been consistently looked at in innovation research conducted within the social sciences. Especially in areas such as energy, mobility, or health, which are all defined as distinct policy fields of the SI-DRIVE project, and in which social and technological elements of innovation are closely interwoven and, for the sake of describing their influence on social change, can hardly be separated. Still, the new paradigm of innovation, reflecting the transition from an industrial to a knowledge- and service-based society, calls for social innovation to be considered as an independent field of innovation and innovation research within sociology, following its own rules. This takes a new perspective on social innovation which so far has been focusing predominantly on the social preconditions, effects, and processes relating to technological innovations and the technology-centred innovation paradigm of explaining social change. From such a perspective of a distinct type of innovation there is no shared and theoretically coherent understanding of the relationship between social innovations on the one hand and social change on the other. In order to target the overall goals of the project it is imperative in theory and praxis to comprehend how social innovation relates to social change. To achieve these goals, this report changes perspective and examines well-established theories of social change with regard to their potential contribution to a better understanding of the relationship between social innovation and social change. It places particular emphasis on concepts for analysing far-reaching social transformation processes. Based on a survey and synthesis of the state-of-the-art and with reference to the international debate on the role of social innovation in shaping transformation processes, the aim is to further develop the conceptual foundations for understanding social innovation, and use these for further analysis of the relationship between social innovation and social change in the context of theoretical and empirical research for the SI-DRIVE project. 5 Given the vast variety of approaches and concepts as well as the long tradition of scientific research into phenomena of social change, this report focuses on those approaches which are compatible with the concept of social innovation grounded in social theory, as defined in the SI-DRIVE project. Social innovation is seen as a new combination or figuration of practices in areas of social action, prompted by certain actors or constellations of actors with the goal of better coping with needs and problems than is possible by the use of existing practices. An innovation is therefore social to the extent that it varies social action, and is socially accepted and diffused in society. Depending on circumstances of social change, interests, policies and power, social ideas as well as successfully implemented SI may be transformed and ultimately institutionalised as regular social practice or made routine (cf. Howaldt et al. 2010; Hochgerner 2012). A key difficulty is that it is usually not possible to find any explicit indications of the required compatibility. One reason for this is that the social sciences, if they use the concept of social innovation in the context of phenomena of social and technical change at all, use it less as an analytical term and more as a kind of descriptive metaphor (cf. Howaldt et al. 2014a, p. 10ff.) The significance of the concept in processes of social change receives little attention and therefore remains largely unexplained. In light of this, after producing a meta-analysis that gives an overview of the broad lines of social science discussion of social change and its key trends, as the next step the report gives priority to examining those theories which are compatible with an understanding of social innovation that is grounded in social theory. Thus we focus on concepts which choose a  process-oriented,  endogenous,  relational and  micro-founded perspective, and which specifically also consider the dynamics of change themselves and the inbuilt reflexivity (instead of ‘only’ describing phenomena of (structural) change with the aid of indicators), and which therefore at the same time tie in with current trends in the theoretical examination of the topic. While the classical sociologists of the 19th century focused on the immanent order of change itself, attention shifted during the 20th century to the question of the stability of social order (cf. Elias 2009, p. 123ff., p. 162f.) “Even the term ‘social change’ is often used as if it referred to a state” (ibid, p. 124). In contrast, Elias distances himself from theories of social change that regard it as a sequence of seemingly stable states. Instead, he sees “society” in “figurations whose usual peculiarities include changing” (Elias 1977, p.LXX), and which are therefore constantly in motion. Accordingly – so his central thesis goes – one can gain a “far better understanding of the facts which sociology concerns itself with, if one does not abstract from the movements, from the process character, and [if one] uses terms that include [...] the process character of societies and their various aspects” (Elias 2009, p. 123). Social innovation in the above sense is just such a term. Social innovations relate to the change (of social practices) in “society”, and social change relates to the change of “society”. Social innovation is the mechanism by which “society” changes. The structure of this report follows the described line of argument. A look at the debate concerning the relationship between social innovation and social change in social innovation research forms the starting point (chapter 2). The following chapter gives a meta-theoretical overview of the broad lines of theories of social change and their central trends (chapter 3). The key finding is that the prevailing macro-sociological paradigm of social change has increasingly come under criticism and is being replaced by a theoretical and empirical perspective on partial and local transformation processes and the network of interdependencies that is relevant in each respective case. This yields key compatibilities in respect of a theoretical conceptualisation of the relationship between social innovations and processes of social change. In light of the above, the fourth chapter is devoted to selected approaches which are compatible with a definition of social innovation that is grounded in social theory, and which adopt a process-oriented and micro-founded perspective when examining 6 6