Please rotate your device to landscape mode to view the charts.

Navigating the ‘meaningless’ of social innovation: perspectives of social care practitioners in Scotland

Journal: Public Management Review

Date: 2024

Author: Fiona Henderson, Simon Teasdale

Abstract:
Social innovation is an umbrella concept that allows space for a diverse range of perspectives to co-exist. In this paper, we explore how practitioners negotiate this complexity. Conducting 19 interviews with stakeholders involved in social enterprise and social care in Scotland, we show that almost anything can be conceived of as a social innovation as defined by the European Union. The EU definition can be a useful tool for organisations to demonstrate to funders how and why they are socially innovative. However, in failing to interrogate the power dimension of social innovation, the EU definition neglects any transformative potential.

Link: Google Scholar

Background and Context

Research Focus

This study explores how social care practitioners in Scotland navigate the complex and contested concept of social innovation.

Methodology

The researchers conducted 19 interviews with stakeholders from social enterprises and organizations in the social care sector in Scotland.

Research Setting

Scottish social care faces pressures from an aging population, austerity-driven funding cuts, and changes in funding structures focused on social innovation.

Social Innovation as Both Meaningless and Meaningful

MEANINGLESS Multiple contradictory interpretations Open to subjective definitions Almost anything can qualify MEANINGFUL Attracts funding opportunities Conveys positive values Signals valued achievement
  • Social innovation has contradictory interpretations, making the concept effectively "meaningless" in practical applications.
  • Despite its ambiguity, social innovation carries positive meaning that can attract funding and recognition.
  • Organizations must navigate this paradox to succeed in the changing funding landscape of social care.

Practitioners Value Creativity Over "Newness" in Social Innovation

What "New" Really Means in Social Innovation CREATIVITY New Context Adaptation of Existing New Application Different Community "We're too caught up in the new"
  • Practitioners rejected the notion that innovations must be "completely new" to qualify as social innovation.
  • Many viewed creativity in adapting existing ideas to new contexts as more important than novelty.
  • This finding challenges funders' emphasis on novelty when evaluating social innovation projects.

BEPA Definition Neglects Power Dynamics in Social Innovation

What's Missing in the BEPA Definition BEPA EMPHASIS New Products & Services Meeting Social Needs New Collaborations Enhancing Capacity to Act MISSING ELEMENTS Power Dynamics Bottom-up Transformation Collective Agency Democratic Engagement
  • The BEPA definition focuses on processes and outcomes but neglects power relationships in social innovation.
  • Practitioners identified power dynamics and democratic engagement as critical missing elements in the definition.
  • This omission limits the transformative potential of social innovation to address fundamental social inequalities.

Moving from Individual to Collective Agency in Social Innovation

From Social Entrepreneurs to Collective Agency INDIVIDUAL FOCUS Social Entrepreneurs as Heroes Short-term Funding Product Innovation Micro Impact COLLECTIVE FOCUS Community-led Movement Long-term Systemic Change Democratic Engagement Transformative Impact
  • Research participants focused on individual entrepreneur capacity, neglecting the collective capacity of those receiving social care.
  • Moving from individual to collective focus enables larger-scale social change with transformative potential.
  • This shift requires reconsideration of power dynamics in how social care is delivered and funded.

Contribution and Implications

  • The BEPA definition can be a useful tool for organizations to demonstrate to funders how they are socially innovative.
  • Almost anything can be conceived as social innovation under the BEPA definition, making it effectively "meaningless" yet useful.
  • Social innovation should consider power relationships rather than just focusing on products, services, or individual social entrepreneurs.
  • Funding models need to recognize that ideas evolve across contexts rather than requiring completely new approaches.
  • Greater focus is needed on how social innovation can enhance collective agency, not just individual entrepreneurial capability.

Data Sources

  • All visualizations are based on qualitative analysis of the 19 interviews conducted with stakeholders in Scottish social care.
  • Visualization 1 is based on interviewees' perspectives on the paradoxical nature of social innovation as described in the findings.
  • Visualization 2 represents participants' critiques of the five dimensions of the BEPA definition as detailed in the article.
  • Visualization 3 is derived from the article's discussion of how practitioners view "newness" in social innovation.
  • Visualizations 4 and 5 reflect the authors' analysis of what is missing from current social innovation frameworks.