{"title":"Scaling for social impact: understanding social innovation through local empowerment strategies","authors":"Istvan Rado, Prapin Nuchpiam","doi":"10.1108/sej-04-2023-0045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>This paper aims to provide a nuanced understanding of philosophies underpinning social innovation based on the action research strategies applied in the field.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>Literature review was conducted to identify action research strategies referred to in the social innovation literature. Through stratified purposive sampling, the authors then selected nonprofit organizations, each closely associated with one of the strategies. Qualitative content analysis was applied to documents published by these organizations for an in-depth exploration of how the action research strategies frame the three dimensions of social innovation, namely, the product, process and empowerment dimensions.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>The authors identified four broad action research strategies referred to in the social innovation literature. Each strategy inspires four distinct narratives of social innovation centered around key concepts: prototyping, evidence, asset-building and co-creation.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Research limitations/implications</h3>\n<p>The methodology used is characterized by depth rather than scope. Although diverse types of documents were used, the documents are limited to publications by four institutions. A deductive approach using the categories should be used in future empirical research.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>The paper contributes to the discussion about different schools and research agendas in the field of social innovation. In particular, the authors examine the action research strategies adopted in the field, shedding light on incompatible views and strategies within certain research clusters while identifying common ground between authors belonging to different schools.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":46809,"journal":{"name":"Social Enterprise Journal","volume":"149 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Enterprise Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sej-04-2023-0045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to provide a nuanced understanding of philosophies underpinning social innovation based on the action research strategies applied in the field.
Design/methodology/approach
Literature review was conducted to identify action research strategies referred to in the social innovation literature. Through stratified purposive sampling, the authors then selected nonprofit organizations, each closely associated with one of the strategies. Qualitative content analysis was applied to documents published by these organizations for an in-depth exploration of how the action research strategies frame the three dimensions of social innovation, namely, the product, process and empowerment dimensions.
Findings
The authors identified four broad action research strategies referred to in the social innovation literature. Each strategy inspires four distinct narratives of social innovation centered around key concepts: prototyping, evidence, asset-building and co-creation.
Research limitations/implications
The methodology used is characterized by depth rather than scope. Although diverse types of documents were used, the documents are limited to publications by four institutions. A deductive approach using the categories should be used in future empirical research.
Originality/value
The paper contributes to the discussion about different schools and research agendas in the field of social innovation. In particular, the authors examine the action research strategies adopted in the field, shedding light on incompatible views and strategies within certain research clusters while identifying common ground between authors belonging to different schools.