Archive for the ‘Social innovation’ Category
In complex systems there is a lot to pay attention to. Mindfulness and contemplative inquiry built into the organization can be a way to deal with complexity and help detect the weak signals that will make it thrive and be resilient in the face of challenges.
Creating an organizational culture where open sharing, questioning, experimentation, and attention to the adjacent possibles that come from the data and experiences from operations is the foundation for a mindful organization. This means slowing down, valuing non-doing instead of the constant push to action, cultivating contemplative inquiry and reflection, while also being clear about the directions that matter. Thus, strategy in this case is not divorced from mindfulness, rather it gently frames a directionality of effort. In doing so, it creates possibilities for innovation, attention to quality, and a mechanism for building resiliency within organizations and those working with them and within them. In creating these mindful systems we move closer to making sense of complexity and better prepare ourselves for social innovation.
For Deleuze, social innovation takes place through windows of opportunity for social creativity (ie. along lines of flight) which emerge as challenges to institutional legitimacy. Innovation often emerges from conflict. Opportunity spaces often are at micro-levels which make possible creative strategies at macro-levels.
The aim is …to find the conditions under which something new is produced … how are the production and appearance of something new possible. The new … calls forth forces in thought that are not the forces of recognition, today or tomorrow, but the powers of a completely other model, from an unrecognised and unrecognisable terra incognita.
What might forces of social innovation look like? Forces would include discourse, materialities, power, subjectivations, codings/territorialisations, ie. a robust theoretical combination of Deleuzean axes and Foucauldian dispositif.
The Centre for Social Innovation provides its members with the spaces, relationships and knowledge they need to translate ideas to impact. We’re part coworking space, part community center and part incubator for people and organizations that are changing the world. More importantly, the Centre for Social Innovation is a place of possibility. We know that society is facing complex economic, environmental, social and cultural challenges. We also know that new innovations are the key to turning these challenges into opportunities to improve our lives, our communities and our planet. All around the world, people are striving to prove that another way forward is possible. They know—as we do—that it’s up to us to create the world we want to live in. We’re inviting New York City’s social entrepreneurs, nonprofits, creatives and innovators to help us build CSI Starrett-Lehigh into a nexus of innovation and transformation. Together, we’ll catalyze new ideas for a better world.
Presentation by Professor Frances Westley during the 2011 Nobel Laureate Symposium in Stockholm.
Designers have traditionally focused on enhancing the look and functionality of products. Recently, they have begun using design techniques to tackle more complex problems, such as finding ways to provide low-cost healthcare throughout the world. Businesses were the first to embrace this new approach—called design thinking—and nonprofits are beginning to adopt it too.
One of the biggest impediments to adopting design thinking is simply fear of failure. The notion that there is nothing wrong with experimentation or failure, as long as they happen early and act as a source of learning, can be difficult to accept. But a vibrant design thinking culture will encourage prototyping—quick, cheap, and dirty—as part of the creative process and not just as a way of validating finished ideas.
This report points out that there are structuralistic as well as subjective conceptions of self-organisation. The first stress the self-reproduction of social structures, the second aspects of participation, direct democracy, co-operation, respect, solidarity, responsibility and tolerance. Arguments in favour of a dialectical conception of social self-organisation that both incorporates systemic and subjective aspects are put forward. Social systems theory is mainly focused on functionalist aspects and stands in the tradition of Niklas Luhmann. This tradition lacks aspects of the role of human actors and cannot consistently explain the relationship of social structures and actors. The report shows that social systems theory should be grounded in conceiving the relationship of system and subject dialectically as has been done in some works of modern sociology like the ones of Pierre Bourdieu and Anthony Giddens.
Corporate power is behind the politics of climate denial, Wall Street bailouts, union busting, and media consolidation, to name just a few. But real people have power, too. Here are some of our most successful strategies.
The power of corporations in politics and in our daily lives can seem insurmountable. They’ve got piles of cash, and no qualms about spending big to get their own way. We asked if there’s any way to shift the balance of power back towards real people. Here are strategies to put people back in charge.
This paper captures the on-going debate on defining the concept of innovation in the social sphere as change which is social both in its goal and means.
Discussions around social innovation make the heads of the governmental and organisational agendas nowadays. The focus of these discussions is to address societal challenges through the instrumentality of policies, programmes and projects that enhance the quality of life and social cohesion through innovative social processes. The institutions and agents that theorise, stimulate and implement social innovation function according to the principles of social structures. The present paper argues that this specific operational mode limits the understanding, as well as the performance of social innovation. The existing related body of literature addresses the questions of what, where and who makes social innovation happen, but overlooks the issue of how it is initiated it and why it happens at all. For this reason, we propose post-structuralism as a critical perspective on social innovation which deals less with the accountability of the process and more with acknowledging the multitude of innovation sources starting from individuals and groups in the community and a broader field of practice.