What is systemic innovation?

The term ‘systemic innovation’ is increasing in use. However, there is no consensus on its meaning: four different ways of using the term can be identified in the literature. Most people simply define it as a type of innovation where value can only be derived when the innovation is synergistically integrated with other complementary innovations, going beyond the boundaries of a single organization. Therefore, the term ‘systemic’ refers to the existence of a co-ordinated innovation system. A second, less frequent use of the term makes reference to the development of policies and governance at a local, regional or national scale to create an enabling environment for the above kind of synergistic, multi-organizational innovations. Here, ‘systemic’ means recognition that innovation systems can be enabled and/or constrained by a meta-level policy system. The third use of the term, which is growing in popularity, says that an innovation is ‘systemic’ when its purpose is to change the fundamental nature of society; for instance, to deliver on major transitions concerning ecological sustainability. What makes this systemic is acknowledgement of the existence of a systems hierarchy (systems nested within each other): innovation systems are parts of economic systems, which are parts of societal systems, and all societies exist on a single planetary ecological system. Collaboration is required across organizational and national boundaries to change the societal laws and norms that govern economic systems, which will place new enablers and constraints on innovations systems in the interests of sustainability. The fourth use of the term ‘systemic innovation’ concerns how the people acting to bring about an innovation engage in a process to support systemic thinking, and it is primarily this process and the thinking it gives rise to that is seen as systemic rather than the innovation system that they exist within or are trying to create. It is this fourth understanding of ‘systemic’ that accords with most of the literature on systems thinking published between the late 1970s and the present day. The paper offers an overview of what systems thinkers mean by ‘systemic’, and this not only enables us to provide a redefinition of ‘systemic innovation’, but it also helps to show how all three previous forms of innovation that have been described as systemic can be enhanced by the practice of systems thinking

Scientific Excellence in Participatory and Action Research: Part II. Rethinking Objectivity and Reliability

The purpose of this article is to deal with the following question: Can the concepts of reliability and objectivity be reconceptualized and reappropriated to enable understanding of scientific excellence in participatory and action research? The article shows that it is fruitful to consider the “subjective” and active role of researchers as vital in enabling scientific objectivity and reliability. As an expansion from a replication logic, reliability can be conceptualized as adaptive, goal-seeking, dynamically regulated processes enabled by effective organization of interactive and participatory learning processes where all participants can contribute to learning and correction in inquiry. Instead of erasing subjectivity, objectivity can be enabled by critical subjectivity, intersubjectivity, practical wisdom, impartial norms of inquiry, and open democratic dialogue. Reliability and objectivity in this understanding can be enabled by participatory and action research through skilful performance of research practices such as reflective conversations between parties, dialogue conferences, experimentation, and experiential learning as part of action-research cycles, etc., which are common in participatory and action research initiatives and projects. By rethinking validity, reliability, and objectivity, recognizing the substantially more active and participatory stances enables scientific excellence, it can expand the repertoire of strategies for promoting research quality, and it helps to mainstream this type of approach in the scientific community

Scientific Excellence in Participatory and Action Research: Part I. Rethinking Research Quality

A core impetus of participatory and action research is making science relevant and useful for solving pressing problems and improving social conditions, and enabling stakeholders to participate in research and development processes. There are claims in the community of participatory and action research of the potential for heightened scientific excellence, but at the same time, there are critiques in the mainstream community that more engaged, even activist, stances threaten scientific norms or that position these type of research approaches outside the field of science, for example, as issues of application. In the search of clarification of the scientific identity and the specific qualities of participatory and action research, scholars have been moving away from and sometimes have rejected traditional conceptions of quality. This leads to confusion about how to relate to the discourse on research quality and scientific excellence in mainstream science. Integration in this discourse is important in order to attain academic legitimation in prevailing institutions of science, for example, in applications for funding, in seeking to publish research, and in the acceptance of dissertations based on participatory and action research. The purpose of this article is to contribute to this integration by reconstructing the way traditional quality concepts – validity, reliability, and objectivity – can be fruitfully used in expanded frameworks for quality where scientific excellence of participatory and action approaches are visible and where mainstream science approaches also can be harboured. In this conceptual article, reconstruction of understanding of scientific inquiry is first made based on a praxis-oriented epistemology inspired by pragmatism. Through rethinking truth as trustworthiness, new proposals for the conceptualization and frames for research quality and scientific excellence are introduced. Second, a framework for understanding purpose in science and its basis in validity, reliability, and the core characteristics of participatory and action research is developed. Third, the turn to action, practice, and participation enables plural ways of knowing and ways that knowledge claims can be validated and made trustworthy. The article concludes that participatory and action research offers a broader landscape of purpose and validation than more traditional approaches to science. In a subsequent article, reliability and objectivity, and their use in participatory and action research, will be clarified

Ömsesidiga försäkringsbolag : En kvalitativ studie om bolagsstyrningens betydelse för lönsammheten i ömsesidiga försäkringsbolag

Vi har valt att inrikta oss på försäkringsbolag, då speciellt ömsesidiga bolag. Ömsesidiga försäkringsbolag präglas av att kunderna är dess ägare. Försäkringsbolag intresserade oss framförallt eftersom finansiella tjänstebolag sällan tas upp under vår utbildning, men även på grund av att försäkringar berör alla individer. Vi har med denna uppsats inte till avsikt att undersöka ömsesidiga försäkringsbolag i allmänhet, utan vårt intresse väcktes till deras lönsamhet och bolagsstyrning. Lönsamheten eftersom att försäkringsbolag idag går mycket bra och det sker stora förändringar i dessa bolag. Bolagsstyrningen i och med att detta ämne länge har diskuterats, bland annat på grund av stora brister i bolagets styrelse. Detta har mynnat ut i vår problemformulering: Vilken betydelse har bolagsstyrningen på lönsamheten i de svenska ömsesidiga försäkringsbolagen? Vi har även till avsikt att få en djupare förståelse för försäkringsbolag, då speciellt ömsesidiga bolag, och bolagsstyrningen. Med denna förståelse vill vi undersöka om det finns någon koppling mellan de två samt om bolagsstyrningen kan påverka ömsesidiga försäkringsbolags lönsamhet. Avslutningsvis vill vi studera om en alternativ bolagsform för ömsesidiga bolag skulle vara att föredra. För att vår problemformulering och vårt syfte ska kunna besvaras har vi valt att använda oss av en kvalitativ metod, eftersom vi vill skapa en förståelse och gå på djupet genom att undersöka ett fåtal bolag, Därför har två ömsesidiga försäkringsbolag med tre respondenter från varje bolag intervjuats. Bolagen är Folksam och Länsförsäkringar Västerbotten, varje respondent har olika positioner i vardera bolag. Detta för att vi tror att respondenterna besitter olika åsikter i och med sin position. Fyra av intervjuerna genomfördes på respondenternas arbetsplats. Resterande två intervjuer genomfördes via telefon. För att kunna skapa den förståelse vi eftersträvar har en hermeneutisk kunskapssyn används samt ett deduktivt angreppssätt. Vi har använt oss av ett externt perspektiv och med det menar vi att vi inte har någon kontakt till bolagen. Bolagsstyrning kan ske genom ett flertal olika styrverktyg. I denna uppsats har vi inriktat oss på den svenska bolagskoden och COSO-modellen. Vår litteraturöversikt och analysering av empirin har resulterat i att bolagsstyrningen har betydelse på ömsesidiga försäkringsbolags lönsamhet. Främst vill vi framhäva COSO-modellen tillsammans med att styrelsen bör bestå av en blandning av medlemmar utifrån och inifrån samt att styrelsen bör vara oberoende men inte väljas om för ofta, har betydelse för ömsesidiga försäkringsbolags lönsamhet

A systems perspective on systemic innovation

The term ‘systemic innovation’ is increasing in use, but there is no consensus on its meaning: five understandings of the term can be identified, each based on a different view of what the word ‘systemic’ should refer to. The first understanding focuses on technologies, where the innovation in focus is synergistically integrated with other complementary innovations, going beyond the boundaries of a single organization. Therefore, ‘systemic’ refers to technological innovations interacting in a larger product system. A second use of the term refers to the development of policies and governance at a local, regional or national scale to create an enabling environment for innovation systems. Here, ‘systemic’ means recognition that innovation systems can be enabled and/or constrained by a meta-level policy system. The third use of the term says that an innovation is ‘systemic’ when its purpose is to change societal laws and norms to place new enablers and constraints on innovation in the interests of ecological sustainability. What makes this systemic is acknowledgement of the existence of nested systems: innovation systems are parts of economic systems, which are parts of societal systems, and all societies exist on a single planetary ecosystem. The fourth use focuses on collaboration in innovation networks with multiple actors. This has evolved from the first understanding of systemic innovation, but the critical difference is the primary focus on people and processes rather than technological products. The word ‘systemic’ refers to the interdependency of actors in a business or community context, leading to a need to cocreate value and innovate in concert or through coevolutionary dynamics. The fifth use of the term ‘systemic innovation’ concerns how people engage in a process to support systemic thinking and action, and it is primarily this process, and the thinking and action it gives rise to, that is seen as systemic, rather than the innovation system that they exist within or are trying to create. It is this fifth understanding that accords with most of the literature on systems thinking published over the last 50 years. The current paper offers a contemporary perspective on what systems thinkers mean by ‘systemic’, and this not only enables us to provide a redefinition of ‘systemic innovation’, but it also helps to show how all four previous forms of innovation that have been described as systemic can be enhanced by the practice of systems thinking

Norms and Ethics : Prerequisites for Excellence in Co-production

Knowledge production is increasingly made in broader Mode 2 (Gibbons, 1994) network of stakeholders and contributing actors, e.g. in the form of participatory, interactive and action research. Historically this has always been an important part of scientific and academic activity, particularly important in certain scientific fields of research, e.g. engineering, business administration, organization and working life research, pedagogics and social work studies, as well in methodological traditions like action research and participatory research (Reason & Bradbury, 2008). When roles in knowledge production are more interconnected traditional research ethics focused on ethical treatments of research objects when they also are subjects (e.g. information, consent, and confidentiality) need to be significantly supplemented. When knowledge is seen as co-produced in interaction between equal parties with different contribution to the process and knowledge interest, this creates the need for recognition and guidance of special norms and ethical codes as prerequisites for excellent practice. This paper is aiming to explore and discuss norms of excellence and ethical concerns in co-production between academia and enterprises and how collaboration could be organized to increase both validity and utility of the knowledge created in such settings. All parties in such collaborative setting have the responsibility to generate practical agreements as to form the ground for a beneficial co-production, however this includes rules for securing non-violation of rights, like confidentiality and intellectual property. The parties share responsibility in review and control of quality of processes and results in relation to these agreements, although it differs in what matters considered important to address in academic traditions and enterprises cultures. The purpose of this paper is to develop an extended set of norms and ethical principles for co-production oriented research. The main focus is relational dimension between involved parties instead of how one party (the researcher) treats other affected parties. We have therefore developed a list of norms with clarification and argument as basis for their use. Examples are: acknowledgement and respect should be given to different forms of knowledge, theoretical and practical, explicit and formal as well as implicit and tacit; care should be taken to provide space for expression of different perspectives of involved parties in order to secure validation and useful results, open discussion on equal terms; democratic dialogue, is a core medium for good co-productive relations, different knowledge needs and interests of involved and concerned parties, practical as well as scientific; to the co-production should be considered in the aims and procedures, and that the parties have a mutual responsibility to develop sufficient understanding of the needs and interests of others. The proposed norms developed in this paper can be considered as a tool or a guideline for the development of ethical and excellence co-produced research

Emancipation or Workability? : Critical versus pragmatic scientific orientation in action research

In this article a distinction between a pragmatic and a critical orientation of action research is made. These orientations can be considered, implicitly or explicitly, to be the main alternatives in AR today. What are the assumptions behind, and practical implications for, AR projects with different orientations? A number of themes are introduced where a tension between the two are identified and illustrated in the form of a dialogue and friendly quarrel between proponents from each side. It is argued that the two orientations suit different research contexts and cannot easily be combined. The pragmatic orientation is well suited for contexts where concerted and immediate action is needed, whereas the critical is preferable where transformative action needs to be preceded by critical thinking and reflection. In the former, power to act is a desired outcome, and in the latter, unequal and invisible power relations need to be unveiled before they can be transformed. The responsibility of the researcher, as well as the form of knowledge developed, differs between the two orientations

Technology and transition: ‘Progressive Evolution of Regimes and the Consequences for Energy Regime Change

Transition of energy systems has been under-theorised. We have argued previously that energy efficiency as a strategy for fossil fuel replacement is inadequate as energy demand is not being reduced by efficiency alone. This paper is intended to elaborate further on the reasons. We require better answers to better questions about the nature of energy regimes and how they resist change. Our present-day socio-technical energy regime is a global integrated technical arrangement based on cheap high-yield energy sources (fossil fuels) with built-in ‘progressive’ social and economic directions. This ‘progressive’ change relies on cheap energy as a resource towards ever greater global integration and economic efficiency. Energy regime change will be not a tinkering at the edges but will require a dismantling of this ‘progressive’ tendency with radical retrogressive economic and social consequences. We conclude a change of our relationship with energy will require the reversal of a contingent ‘progressive’ tendency that is as old as mankind and the necessarily modest building of a new infrastructural apparatus designed to a new ‘end’, or the reversion to previous low or lower demand apparatus based on non-fossil energy sources. Both solutions would imply major social and economic changes which we will deal with in another paper.Spatial Planning and Strateg