GROWING SOCIAL INNOVATION

TEPSIE is a research project under EU’s 7th framework programme

TEPSIE

17th June 2013

Julie Simon, The Young Foundation

Work Package 7

2

• Results from the literature review• Reviewing the concepts of ‘scaling’ and ‘diffusion’ for understanding the growth

of social innovation.• Results from our case studies• Areas for further research?

OVERVIEW

3

RESULTS FROM THE LITERATURE REVIEW…

• Origins in NGO and development literature (Edwards and Hulme, 1992; Uvin & Miller, 1996)

• Philanthropy and grant-making literature (Koh, Karanchandrani & Katz, 2012)

• Strategies for scale: models (Bloom & Chatterji, 2009; Bloom and Smith, 2010) & case studies (Chowdhury & Santos, 2010; McLeod Grant & Fulton, 2010)

• Unpacking the spectrum of scaling (Dees et al 2004; Lyon and Fernandez, 2012)

4

‘SCALING’ SOCIAL INNOVATION

dissemination affiliation branching

central co-ordination

resource requirements

•“There’s a need to go beyond a preoccupation with growth within specific organisations” (Lyon and Fernandez, 2012)

•“A new paradigm has emerged in recent years which focuses on scaling social impact without necessarily increasing the size of the organisation” (McPhedran Waitzer and Paul, 2011)

•“Finding ways to scale impact without scaling the size of an organisation is the new frontier for work in our field (Bradach, 2010)

A problematic framing for field of social innovation?

5

FROM ORGANISATION TO IMPACT

Scaling organisation

Scaling impact

• Suggest going from small to large• Suggests routinisation, standardisation and control• Problematic for the public sector? Is ‘scaling’ at odds with

personalisation and co-production?• Does it capture the political nature of social innovation?

“Enduring social change cannot be the result of social entrepreneurship alone; it necessarily involves political action at various levels from the formal to the informal, as well as partnerships with broader social movements” (Nicholls and Huybrechts, 2012)

6

CHALLENGES WITH ‘SCALING’

• Diffusion as adoption of practices by individuals.

• Two enduring frameworks, Rogers (1962)o Attributes of innovationso Categories of adopters

• Challenged by later researchers. o Attributes are not fixed or stable features

(Dearing at al 1994)o Categorization as over simplistic and value

laden (Greenhalgh et al, 2004)

7

DIFFUSING SOCIAL INNOVATION

• Highlights inherent complexity of diffusing social innovations• Emphasises diffusion as social process • Especially relevant for social innovation within organisations

But also some limitations….• Practical application? Complexity as disempowering? • Suggests gradual spread – that spread is organic and difficult to orchestrate

ASSESSING DIFFUSION

8

Neither ‘scaling’ nor ‘diffusion’ are on their own adequate for conceptualising the growth of all forms of social innovation….

9

• We need to go beyond using ‘social innovation’ generically or as our unit of analysis.

• We need to be clear about what exactly it is that we want to grow or spread.

• Different frames for growth will be appropriate to different types of social innovation we identify.

• A typology may be a helpful way forward...

NEED GREATER SPECIFICITY

10

TYPOLOGY OF SOCIAL INNOVATION & GROWTH

11

Type of social innovation Example Conceptualising growth as…

New services e.g. new interventions or new programmes to meet social needs

Replication, scaling up, mainstreaming, adoption.

New practices e.g. new services which require new professional roles or relationships

Adoption, replication, mainstreaming, change management.

New processes e.g. co-production of new services

Adoption, mainstreaming, implementation, change management

New rules and regulations e.g. the creation of new laws or new entitlements

Policy diffusion.

New organizational forms e.g. hybrid organisational forms such as social enterprises

Diffusion, replication.

12

Aim of the case studies is to explore:

• The spread of social innovations where these innovations are new programmes and organisational structures (i.e. not social enterprises)

• The role of intermediary organisations in spreading social innovations

• The tensions that exist between replication and adaptation that were highlighted in the literature

RESULTS FROM CASE STUDIES

13

THE CASES

14

Three factors for successful spreading social innovations:

• Networks of trusted peers are critical for spreading awareness and take up of an innovation

• The significance of receptive contexts – WILCO project: “a good idea is not convincing in itself – it comes when people are open to it… an innovation is adopted when minds are ripe”.

• Intermediaries can play a critical role in supporting the adoption process: Two characteristics of these organisations are also notable:o The role that these organisations play changes over time. o There are clear trade offs for support organisations between control and the

speed and extent of the spread they can achieve.

FINDINGS

15

• Better understanding how non-social enterprise social innovations spread – especially looking at social movements, grassroots and citizen-led initiatives

• How does spreading a social innovation provide a platform for new social innovations to be created?

• Rather than focusing on scaling up social innovations can we take a different approach and look at the enabling conditions – i.e. the conditions that enable social innovations to flourish?

• Trade offs between control and disseminating information about social innovations – where is the former/latter more appropriate?

AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH?

THANK YOUJulie.simon@youngfoundation.orgwww.tepsie.euwww.siresearch.eu