Everything and nothing: A critical review of the “social” in Innovation and Entrepreneurship studies

Over the past two decades we have witnessed growing academic and policy interest in phenomena such as social innovation and social entrepreneurship. In these instances, the “social” element has often been described as a new or rediscovered category, indicating a normative predisposition to “elevate” existing or emerging innovation and entrepreneurship processes by identifying and promoting socially-acceptable standards of behavior and goal-setting. While previous reviews on social innovation have focused on the historical development of the concept and its role in academic debate, this article critically reviews the place of the “social” in current mainstream Innovation and Entrepreneurship (I&E) studies. The aim is to understand how this literature has been evolving in relation to this element and to what extent this addition has promoted a radical shift in the research direction. Our review, based on selected articles from 16 I&E mainstream journals, advances a novel classification of the dominant approaches to the social dimension in I&E studies, identifying four main categories: disciplinary, integrationist, separationist, and essentialist. What emerges is that most I&E studies ignore, minimize, or compartmentalize the “social”, using it to extend existing frameworks rather than to evolve them. Indeed, while the “social” has been offering an avenue for critical views to challenge mainstream discourse, at present it does not seem to significantly affect the latter’s evolution

Everything and nothing: A critical review of the “social” in Innovation and Entrepreneurship studies

Over the past two decades we have witnessed growing academic and policy interest in phenomena such as social innovation and social entrepreneurship. In these instances, the “social” element has often been described as a new or rediscovered category, indicating a normative predisposition to “elevate” existing or emerging innovation and entrepreneurship processes by identifying and promoting socially-acceptable standards of behavior and goal-setting. While previous reviews on social innovation have focused on the historical development of the concept and its role in academic debate, this article critically reviews the place of the “social” in current mainstream Innovation and Entrepreneurship (I&E) studies. The aim is to understand how this literature has been evolving in relation to this element and to what extent this addition has promoted a radical shift in the research direction. Our review, based on selected articles from 16 I&E mainstream journals, advances a novel classification of the dominant approaches to the social dimension in I&E studies, identifying four main categories: disciplinary, integrationist, separationist, and essentialist. What emerges is that most I&E studies ignore, minimize, or compartmentalize the “social”, using it to extend existing frameworks rather than to evolve them. Indeed, while the “social” has been offering an avenue for critical views to challenge mainstream discourse, at present it does not seem to significantly affect the latter’s evolution.Over the past two decades we have witnessed growing academic and policy interest in phenomena such as social innovation and social entrepreneurship. In these instances, the “social” element has often been described as a new or rediscovered category, indicating a normative predisposition to “elevate” existing or emerging innovation and entrepreneurship processes by identifying and promoting socially-acceptable standards of behavior and goal-setting. While previous reviews on social innovation have focused on the historical development of the concept and its role in academic debate, this article critically reviews the place of the “social” in current mainstream Innovation and Entrepreneurship (I&E) studies. The aim is to understand how this literature has been evolving in relation to this element and to what extent this addition has promoted a radical shift in the research direction. Our review, based on selected articles from 16 I&E mainstream journals, advances a novel classification of the dominant approaches to the social dimension in I&E studies, identifying four main categories: disciplinary, integrationist, separationist, and essentialist. What emerges is that most I&E studies ignore, minimize, or compartmentalize the “social”, using it to extend existing frameworks rather than to evolve them. Indeed, while the “social” has been offering an avenue for critical views to challenge mainstream discourse, at present it does not seem to significantly affect the latter’s evolution

RRI and Corporate Stakeholder Engagement: The Aquadvantage Salmon Case

Declining public trust in science and innovation triggered the emergence and development of the responsible research and innovation (RRI) concept among policymakers and academics. Engaging stakeholders in the early phases of innovation processes has been identified as a major driver of inclusive, responsible, and sustainable development. Firms however have often adopted practices entirely opposite to those being advocated within the RRI framework, namely, reducing external interaction with stakeholders, focusing on exclusive communication with the scientific community and legal authorities while avoiding the social spotlight. We illustrate these practices, their causes and consequences using the case of the Aquadvantage salmon, the first genetically modified (GM) animal approved to petition for the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for human consumption. We find that such practices heighten the risk of social backlash, being undesirable from the perspective of both the organizations involved and society at large. Stakeholder engagement remains necessary in order to gain the minimum social acceptance required for contentious innovative products to enter the market. However, stakeholder engagement must be selective, focused on pragmatic organizations whose aims and interests are sufficiently broad to potentially align with corporate interests. Strategic stakeholder engagement offers a meeting point between the transformative aspirations of RRI framework proponents and legitimate business interests

Blending in: A Case Study of Transitional Ambidexterity in the Financial Sector

Organizational ambidexterity is widely recognized as necessary for the economic sustainability of firms operating in the financial sector. While the management literature has recognized several forms of ambidexterity, the relationship between them and their relative merits remain unclear. By studying a process of implementation of ambidextrous capabilities within a large Scandinavian financial firm, we explore the role of top-down reforms and bottom-up reactions in determining the development of sector-specific innovative capabilities. We find that blended ambidexterity follows naturally from the attempt to correct the tensions arising from harmonic ambidextrous blueprints. The resulting blended practice appears to be closely related to the reciprocal model of ambidexterity, which appears to be a necessity rather than a choice, for large firms attempting to develop innovative capabilities. Consequently, we suggest to re-interpret current taxonomies of ambidexterity not as alternative blueprints, but rather as stages in a long-term process of transition

Blending in: A Case Study of Transitional Ambidexterity in the Financial Sector

Organizational ambidexterity is widely recognized as necessary for the economic sustainability of firms operating in the financial sector. While the management literature has recognized several forms of ambidexterity, the relationship between them and their relative merits remain unclear. By studying a process of implementation of ambidextrous capabilities within a large Scandinavian financial firm, we explore the role of top-down reforms and bottom-up reactions in determining the development of sector-specific innovative capabilities. We find that blended ambidexterity follows naturally from the attempt to correct the tensions arising from harmonic ambidextrous blueprints. The resulting blended practice appears to be closely related to the reciprocal model of ambidexterity, which appears to be a necessity rather than a choice, for large firms attempting to develop innovative capabilities. Consequently, we suggest to re-interpret current taxonomies of ambidexterity not as alternative blueprints, but rather as stages in a long-term process of transition

Impact of residual pulmonary obstruction on the long-term outcome of patients with pulmonary embolism

The impact of residual pulmonary obstruction on the outcome of patients with pulmonary embolism is uncertain.We recruited 647 consecutive symptomatic patients with a first episode of pulmonary embolism, with or without concomitant deep venous thrombosis. They received conventional anticoagulation, were assessed for residual pulmonary obstruction through perfusion lung scanning after 6 months and then were followed up for up to 3 years. Recurrent venous thromboembolism and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension were assessed according to widely accepted criteria.Residual pulmonary obstruction was detected in 324 patients (50.1%, 95% CI 46.2-54.0%). Patients with residual pulmonary obstruction were more likely to be older and to have an unprovoked episode. After a 3-year follow-up, recurrent venous thromboembolism and/or chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension developed in 34 out of the 324 patients (10.5%) with residual pulmonary obstruction and in 15 out of the 323 patients (4.6%) without residual pulmonary obstruction, leading to an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.26 (95% CI 1.23-4.16).Residual pulmonary obstruction, as detected with perfusion lung scanning at 6 months after a first episode of pulmonary embolism, is an independent predictor of recurrent venous thromboembolism and/or chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension