在欧盟政策和资助项目中共同应对社会挑战的共创战略和社会创新

IF 2.7 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE European Policy Analysis Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI:10.1002/epa2.1133
Peter Meister Broekema, Lummina G. Horlings, Elles Bulder
{"title":"在欧盟政策和资助项目中共同应对社会挑战的共创战略和社会创新","authors":"Peter Meister Broekema,&nbsp;Lummina G. Horlings,&nbsp;Elles Bulder","doi":"10.1002/epa2.1133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The last decade we saw an increasing academic, policy, and professional interest in the use of co-creation to tackle societal challenges. Most research focused on qualitative analysis of case studies. This led to an understanding that co-creation is essential for social innovation. We started this paper by analyzing co-creation strategies <i>ex ante</i> to understand how EU-funded consortia intend to tackle societal challenges. By quantitatively analyzing 300 EU projects and qualitatively analyzing the Horizon2020 “co-creation for growth and inclusion” call, our research revealed four different types of consortia. We characterized these types by the coordinators and dubbed them, respectively, as research led, government led, enterprise led, and other led. These consortia were quite different in terms of diversity and preferred partners. We also distinguished three distinct co-creation strategies that are focused on inclusion of stakeholders, the outcome, or tool development. We discovered that these strategies are not linked to types of consortia or projects, but only to the call text. We therefore conclude that the policy design of Horizon2020 led to a program that aims to stimulate innovation, but has become too rigid to be able to do so.</p>","PeriodicalId":52190,"journal":{"name":"European Policy Analysis","volume":"8 1","pages":"68-86"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/epa2.1133","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tackling societal challenges together: Co-creation strategies and social innovation in EU policy and funded projects\",\"authors\":\"Peter Meister Broekema,&nbsp;Lummina G. Horlings,&nbsp;Elles Bulder\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/epa2.1133\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The last decade we saw an increasing academic, policy, and professional interest in the use of co-creation to tackle societal challenges. Most research focused on qualitative analysis of case studies. This led to an understanding that co-creation is essential for social innovation. We started this paper by analyzing co-creation strategies <i>ex ante</i> to understand how EU-funded consortia intend to tackle societal challenges. By quantitatively analyzing 300 EU projects and qualitatively analyzing the Horizon2020 “co-creation for growth and inclusion” call, our research revealed four different types of consortia. We characterized these types by the coordinators and dubbed them, respectively, as research led, government led, enterprise led, and other led. These consortia were quite different in terms of diversity and preferred partners. We also distinguished three distinct co-creation strategies that are focused on inclusion of stakeholders, the outcome, or tool development. We discovered that these strategies are not linked to types of consortia or projects, but only to the call text. We therefore conclude that the policy design of Horizon2020 led to a program that aims to stimulate innovation, but has become too rigid to be able to do so.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":52190,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Policy Analysis\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"68-86\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/epa2.1133\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Policy Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/epa2.1133\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Policy Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/epa2.1133","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

在过去的十年里,我们看到越来越多的学术、政策和专业人士对利用共同创造来应对社会挑战的兴趣。大多数研究侧重于案例研究的定性分析。这使人们认识到,共同创造对社会创新至关重要。我们通过事先分析共同创造策略来了解欧盟资助的财团打算如何应对社会挑战,从而开始本文。通过定量分析300个欧盟项目和定性分析Horizon2020“共同创造促进增长和包容”的呼吁,我们的研究揭示了四种不同类型的联盟。我们用协调者来描述这些类型,并将它们分别称为研究主导、政府主导、企业主导和其他主导。这些财团在多样性和首选合作伙伴方面有很大的不同。我们还区分了三种不同的共同创造策略,它们关注涉众、结果或工具开发的包容性。我们发现这些策略与财团或项目的类型无关,而只与呼叫文本有关。因此,我们得出结论,地平线2020的政策设计导致了一个旨在刺激创新的计划,但已经变得过于僵化,无法做到这一点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Tackling societal challenges together: Co-creation strategies and social innovation in EU policy and funded projects

The last decade we saw an increasing academic, policy, and professional interest in the use of co-creation to tackle societal challenges. Most research focused on qualitative analysis of case studies. This led to an understanding that co-creation is essential for social innovation. We started this paper by analyzing co-creation strategies ex ante to understand how EU-funded consortia intend to tackle societal challenges. By quantitatively analyzing 300 EU projects and qualitatively analyzing the Horizon2020 “co-creation for growth and inclusion” call, our research revealed four different types of consortia. We characterized these types by the coordinators and dubbed them, respectively, as research led, government led, enterprise led, and other led. These consortia were quite different in terms of diversity and preferred partners. We also distinguished three distinct co-creation strategies that are focused on inclusion of stakeholders, the outcome, or tool development. We discovered that these strategies are not linked to types of consortia or projects, but only to the call text. We therefore conclude that the policy design of Horizon2020 led to a program that aims to stimulate innovation, but has become too rigid to be able to do so.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Policy Analysis
European Policy Analysis Social Sciences-Public Administration
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
32
期刊最新文献
Issue Information What determines effectiveness in the policy process? Is open strategy a good fit for Public-Private hybrid organizations? Triggering policy learning via formal EU evaluation requirements in the case of Cohesion Policy Between institutions and narratives: Understanding collective action in innovation policy processes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1