In this Chapter I have discussed some of the issues and concerns arising from bringing together the fields of social innovation and public policy. In an area of inquiry that is only recently beginning to put down conceptual roots of substance, this discussion has covered a broad range of topics that offer potential research agendas for those interested in enabling social innovation through the channels available to the public sector.
Through the discussion, I have argued that fully integrating the ‘means and ends’ dimensions of social innovation takes the definition beyond ‘this helps us get to that’ to locating social value within improved social relations. I suggest that, due to the contextual and specific nature of social value, identifying whether or not ‘good’ social change outcomes have been generated through social innovation activity can only really be understood through processes of participatory governance and capacity building that involve those impacted.
Therefore, chief amongst the research questions I was interested to pursue were those that related to gaining a better understanding of the social relations dimension of social innovation, and in particular those that contribute to strengthening the language available for communicating about the agents, processes and relationships involved. I hope that by exploring these questions
that I can make a small contribution towards the big-picture issues discussed above.
To understand the dynamics of improving social relations, the actors involved must firstly be identifiable. By inventorying the diversity of agents and processes that contribute to, sustain and benefit from social innovation activity insights into how relationships could be (re)configured to improve social relations can be gained. With a focus on policymaking roles, language that makes it possible to communicate about these agents, processes and relationships in ways that resonate with the culture and practices of public sector contexts is also needed. These concerns frame the first broad research question:
1) What diverse agents and processes are involved in social innovation activity?
This inventorying process brings into focus the relationships between the actors and processes, and importantly the multitude of decision-making points involved. As Parker et al. articulate, decision-making is often contested and may involve significant tensions, but there are ‘always choices about means, ends and the relations between them’. Decision-making also does not just happen at the start of a process, policy or program - it is occurring step-by-step at larger and smaller scales, and as each layer of decision-making is encountered there are opportunities to test assumptions and to make different choices (Parker, Cheney, Fournier, Land & Lightfoot 2014b, pp.34-39). The negotiations that occur around all kinds of decision-making points are central to developing a robust counter to ‘there is no alternative’ arguments that assume particular methods or path dependencies are inevitable. Identifying where and how these are occurring is prefigurative to establishing an open stance oriented towards possibilities and potentialities. This concern frames the second broad research question:
2) Where are the key negotiating and decision-making points that open up opportunities for social innovation?
Amongst those working to promote social change, the public sector is often reduced to a ‘simple and abstract set of negativities’ that include dysfunctionality and outdated approaches, and perceptions that it is staffed by inefficient bureaucratic ‘leftovers’ (Dey 2006, p.129). To more effectively enrol public sector assets in addressing complex public problems, we need to shift perceptions that the public sector is just ‘part of the problem’. However, if they are to secure the public interest, rather than succumbing to narrow quantitative representations of best-value and further exacerbate various ‘wicked problems’, public sector roles must be reconstituted. The emerging NPG frameworks offer tools and methods that manage the balance between accountability and flexibility. They help displace the public sector as the sole ‘driver’s’ in decision-making around complex public problems. This opportunity frames the third broad research question:
3) What role/s does the public sector play in enabling social innovation activity?
Taken together, the exploration of the three research questions begins to develop a more textured understanding of what is occurring in social innovation activity, and through this to develop a finer-grained language for opening up opportunities for public sector involvement. In the following Chapter I develop the conceptual framework for the project and outline the research process. I then draw on a wide range of examples to characterise the language developed, and to highlight that the discourse of ‘wicked problems’ may not be as monolithic as it seems.
CHAPTER TWO: Framing the research project
At this early stage of the field’s development, there is still much that remains unknown about social innovation and as such there is a need to strengthen its theoretical foundations. As mentioned, work is progressing on this on a number of fronts which are beginning to address various gaps. Sinclair & Baglioni (2014) suggest that in the current context a useful approach to building the field is to focus on developing ‘middle range theories’, by investigating specific research questions around particular aspects of social innovation and testing these empirically. They identify five sets of questions that require middle range theories to advance understanding of social innovation, grouped as: origins and contexts of social innovation; the impact of social innovations; expanding and transferring social innovations; theories of change; and mainstreaming social innovations and relations with the private sector. From the various questions they suggest will help to advance understanding in this way, this thesis is positioned to contribute to theory development around issues relating to whether and how governments can create conditions to stimulate social innovation (Sinclair & Baglioni 2014, pp.472-473).
I set out aiming to uncover new insights that would contribute to this facet of the social innovation field, and which could point to areas and possibly research methods that may be useful for further enquiry (Babbie 2013, p.91). What is presented in this thesis is motivated by an interest in generating energy and insight into attempts to enable social innovation to establish, survive and thrive. My analysis is purposefully hopeful, reflecting the overarching community economies ethos through which it has been approached (Gibson-Graham, Cameron, Dombroski, Healy & Miller 2017).