Citizen Science Case Studies and Their Impacts on Social Innovation

Social innovation brings social change and aims to address societal challenges and social needs in a novel way. We therefore consider citizen science as both (1) social innovation in research and (2) an innovative way to develop and foster social innovation. In this chapter, we discuss how citizen science contributes to society’s goals and the development of social innovation, and we conceptualise citizen science as a process that creates social innovation. We argue that both citizen science and social innovation can be analysed using three dimensions – content, process, and empowerment (impact). Using these three dimensions as a framework for our analysis, we present five citizen science cases to demonstrate how citizen science leads to social innovation. As a result of our case study analysis, we identify the major challenges for citizen science in stimulating social innovation

What Future for LEADER as a Catalyst of Social Innovation?

The LEADER Approach was initially designed to promote innovation in European rural areas by sustaining a bottom-up approach to local development. Nowadays the LEADER Approach includes elements that are generally considered to support social innovation. Classical features of the LEADER Approach \u2013 for example, area-based development strategies and cooperation and networking \u2013 are considered catalysts of social innovation as well. By drawing on key elements which support social innovation, the chapter discusses the future role of the LEADER Approach and Local Action Groups, and debates the challenges and potentials of the new rural development policy within emerging social, environmental and economic needs

Exploring institutional reform of Korean civil service pension: advocacy coalition framework, policy knowledge and social innovation

Abstract This paper examines what factors are associated with the 2015 pension reform of Korean civil servant as social innovation. We explore what lessons we can learn from the pension reform in terms of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) model. The ACF model allows us to identify how the substantial reform is, relying on policy knowledge and entrepreneurs, possible in terms of political and social consensus. It also clearly demonstrates the possibility of systematic pension reform at an appropriate level through social learning and policy learning. Through the ACF model, we review how South Koreas civil servant pension reform act occurred at the end of May 2015. The temporal scope covers from 2009 latest reform, and the 2014s President administrative policy speech that had strongly been showed her will to reform the pension issue to the end of May 2015 when the reform bill enacted. We investigate each advocacy coalition in order to elucidate the actors that constitute the two coalition groups and to scrutinize whether a policy broker had existed in the process. We also attempt to find the relatively stable parameters and external events that affected the reform and also the belief system that shared by two advocacy coalition group. The result clearly shows that the two coalition groups shared their normative beliefs ultimately, for example, the need to change the current civil servants pension system, but, the gap in the numerical change in the policy core belief and secondary belief between the two actors had seemed to be excessively large and uncompromising. A policy broker who can coordinate the interests and interests of stakeholder groups over the government pension reform proposal was desperately needed. Negotiation and leadership of the policy entrepreneurs led to a settlement of the government pension reform proposal at the end of May 2015. Their entrepreneurial activities led to an appropriate level of social consensus on the sustainable reform of pension system through policy knowledge and learning. Further research is required to explore how models of socially innovative forms of governance are created in various pension reforms across various countries. It is also required to examine how policy entrepreneurs use policy knowledge and information for a successful institutional reform through social innovation across various countries

Going it alone won’t work! The relational imperative for social innovation in social enterprises

Shifts in the philosophy of the “state” and a growing emphasis on the “Big Society” have placed an increasing onus on a newly emerging organizational form, social enterprises, to deliver innovative solutions to ease societal issues. However, the question of how social enterprises manage the process of social innovation remains largely unexplored. Based on insights from both in-depth interviews and a quantitative empirical study of social enterprises, this research examines the role of stakeholder relationships in supporting the process of social innovation within social enterprises. We find that social enterprises are adept at working with their stakeholders in the ideation stage of social innovation. In contrast, they often fail to harness knowledge and expertise from their partners during the social innovation implementation phase. Consequently, we propose a social innovation–stakeholder relationship matrix that provides social enterprises in particular with insight for developing stakeholder relationships to achieve their social innovation missions

Are social innovation paradigms incommensurable?

This paper calls attention to the problematic use of the concept of social innovation which remains undefined despite its proliferation throughout academic and policy discourses. Extant research has thus far failed to capture the socio-political contentions which surround social innovation. This paper therefore draws upon the work of Thomas Kuhn and conducts a paradigmatic analysis of the field of social innovation which identifies two emerging schools: one technocratic, the other democratic. The paper identifies some of the key thinkers in each paradigm and explains how the struggle between these two paradigms reveals itself to be part of a broader conflict between neoliberalism and it opponents and concludes by arguing that future research focused upon local contextualised struggles will reveal which paradigm is in the ascendancy

Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research

Biodiversity loss is one of the main challenges of our time,1,2 and attempts to address it require a clear un derstanding of how ecological communities respond to environmental change across time and space.3,4 While the increasing availability of global databases on ecological communities has advanced our knowledge of biodiversity sensitivity to environmental changes,5–7 vast areas of the tropics remain understudied.8–11 In the American tropics, Amazonia stands out as the world’s most diverse rainforest and the primary source of Neotropical biodiversity,12 but it remains among the least known forests in America and is often underrepre sented in biodiversity databases.13–15 To worsen this situation, human-induced modifications16,17 may elim inate pieces of the Amazon’s biodiversity puzzle before we can use them to understand how ecological com munities are responding. To increase generalization and applicability of biodiversity knowledge,18,19 it is thus crucial to reduce biases in ecological research, particularly in regions projected to face the most pronounced environmental changes. We integrate ecological community metadata of 7,694 sampling sites for multiple or ganism groups in a machine learning model framework to map the research probability across the Brazilian Amazonia, while identifying the region’s vulnerability to environmental change. 15%–18% of the most ne glected areas in ecological research are expected to experience severe climate or land use changes by 2050. This means that unless we take immediate action, we will not be able to establish their current status, much less monitor how it is changing and what is being lostinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio