Show simple item record

Opening up the social innovation process: is the concept of open social innovation needed?

hal.structure.identifierDauphine Recherches en Management [DRM]
dc.contributor.authorAdam-Ledunois, Sonia
hal.structure.identifierDauphine Recherches en Management [DRM]
dc.contributor.authorDamart, Sébastien
HAL ID: 53
hal.structure.identifierDauphine Recherches en Management [DRM]
dc.contributor.authorRakotoson, Laëtitia
dc.date.accessioned2021-09-27T11:05:26Z
dc.date.available2021-09-27T11:05:26Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.urihttps://basepub.dauphine.psl.eu/handle/123456789/21837
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectorganisational changeen
dc.subject.ddc658.4en
dc.subject.classificationjelO.O3.O32en
dc.titleOpening up the social innovation process: is the concept of open social innovation needed?en
dc.typeCommunication / Conférence
dc.description.abstractenAcademic research on social innovation (SI) has developed during the 2000s (Van der Have & Rubalcaba, 2016). As early as the mid-2000s, SI was presented as a process through which resources and capacities for collective action on economic and social issues are strengthened (Heiskala 2007). In 2014, Chesbrough and di Minin apply the concept of open innovation developed 10 years earlier (Chesbrough, 2004) to the field of SI and propose the concept of open social innovation (OIS). Opening up the innovation process would help to develop more effective innovative solutions to meet social needs. Implicitly, OSI assumes there would be 'closed' SI processes. However, among the characteristics of SI process, cooperation with stakeholders is regularly identified, leading to a relative consensus. It is even an element of definition for some authors (Cajaiba-Santana, 2013), as the process is essentially 'open'. This communication questions the added value of the OIS concept and its articulation with research on the SI process. Based on a systematic review of the literature, we will attempt to determine how research on OIS has been structured: does open social innovation qualify singular types of processes that academic literature has never identified so far? Our research has been carried out according to the principles of the Systematic Literature Review. We considered the academic bibliographic databases EBSCO, ScienceDirect, Emerald, Scopus and Semanticscholar from January 2000 to February 2021. We identified 71 research articles and book chapters containing the keywords "OSI", "IS", "open" or "Openness". Articles containing the keyword "IS" and including the bibliographic reference of "Chesbrough and Di Minin (2014)" were also included, even if they do not refer to "open" or "openness".Our results lead to three main series of critical comments. (1) Academic research on social innovation process openness is published in 17 journals as early as 2009, before the concept of OSI emerged. Research publications on this topic concern a range of disciplines: innovation and public management, entrepreneurship, economics, sociology, information-communication. (2) The "openness" of SI process is studied mainly to show the role of collaboration with stakeholders in promoting SI, building public policies and solving social problems. Collaboration is discussed as a process of co-production or aggregation of knowledge sources. (3) Research on social innovation process openness can be characterised according to 2 dimensions: the degree of intentionality of the process openness (Deliberate Versus Emerging) on one hand, and the finality of the process openness (Relational Design Versus Results) on other hand. Our study thus questions the contributions of the triptych typology proposed by Chesbrough (2004), which was then used to characterise SI process openness (Chesbrough and Di Minin, 2014).en
dc.subject.ddclabelChangement organisationnel, réingénierieen
dc.relation.conftitle13th International Social Innovation Research Conference (ISIRC)en
dc.relation.confdate2021-09
dc.relation.confcityMilanoen
dc.relation.confcountryItalyen
dc.relation.forthcomingnonen
dc.description.ssrncandidatenon
dc.description.halcandidateouien
dc.description.readershiprechercheen
dc.description.audienceInternationalen
dc.relation.Isversionofjnlpeerreviewednonen
dc.date.updated2021-09-24T15:53:42Z
dc.subject.classificationjelHALO - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth::O3 - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights::O32 - Management of Technological Innovation and R&Den
hal.description.error<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <sword:error xmlns:sword="http://purl.org/net/sword/error/" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" href="http://purl.org/net/sword/error/ErrorBadRequest"> <title>ERROR</title> <updated>2021-09-27T13:05:27+02:00</updated> <author> <name>HAL SWORD API Server</name> </author> <source> <generator uri="https://api.archives-ouvertes.fr/sword" version="1.0">hal@ccsd.cnrs.fr</generator> </source> <summary>Some parameters sent with the request were not understood</summary> <sword:treatment>processing failed</sword:treatment> <sword:verboseDescription>{"meta":{"country":{"notInArray":"'italy' ne fait pas partie des valeurs attendues"}}}</sword:verboseDescription> <link rel="alternate" href="https://api.archives-ouvertes.fr" type="text/html"/> </sword:error>
hal.update-error.statusnewSubmission
hal.author.functionaut
hal.author.functionaut
hal.author.functionaut


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record