Defining social innovation - what do you think?

msweeks's picture
Submitted by msweeks on 10 March 2010 - 4:28am

In their report for the EU Commission, the Social Innovation Exchange (SIX) spent some time rehearsing the mix and range of definitions of social innovation. In any new field of endeavour, there is always a deal of debate about definitions and boundaries. Social innovation is no different.

What is included, what is excluded, how do you define social innovation in a way that is distinctive and predictive? How do you avoid using the term simply as a re-badging for other activities like charity, philanthropy or the third sector? In the end, the SIX report puts forward this definition:

"Specifically, we define social innovations as new ideas (products, services and models) that simultaneously meet social needs (more effectively than alternatives) and create new social relationships or collaborations. In other words they are innovations that are both good for society and enhance society’s capacity to act."

A couple of dimensions that struck me. One is the idea that a social innovation has to be new, offering some new way of thinking or acting about a particular issue or challenge. Whatever the new thing is - a new product or a service or perhaps anew model or methodology - it has to be good at solving a social problem. It has something to do with new relationships, which I take to mean new links between people and organisations.

I like the idea of unusual links and unexpected connections, which I take to be implied in this definition, reflecting the idea that innovation is often found at the "collision of the unfamiliar". And finally, social innovation is simultaneously about solving a problem or confronting an opportunity and making it easier to take action. I really like that last piece...the sense that social innovation ought to be a set of actions and investments whose legacy is that it becomes easier next time around to act. That sense that social innovation is a practice that self-consciously collects methods and tools that, as they grow, make it easier for others to be innovative next time around is especially powerful.

It occurred to me that the recent social innovation camp in Sydney was a small illustration of how this definition might look in real life. A bunch of people collaborating intensively over a weekend to set several ideas running to solve a range of social challenges, but in the end creating just as much value in the stock of social innovation tools and methods (ie capability) to which they added as they did in the specific solutions they came up with. Building the boat and sailing it at the same time...makes sense to me.

Comments

Vern's picture

Re: Defining social innovation - what do you think?

by Vern - 15 Apr 2010 - 7:30pm
The SIX definition of social innovation is good, but avoids the crucial question of context. We can develop new, relationship-forming, capacity-building innovations for causes that are trivial and fashion-driven, or, we can develop them for causes that are important. This is where Charlie Leadbeater's work is important, because Charlie avoids the temptation of equating social innovation with the whims of fashion-chasers and career-oriented NGO managers. Instead, Charlie's interest is in two key areas, which he defines as social problems that have eluded governments, and social problems that appear to be intractable. In the first basket, he puts schooling for the 35% of kids who are not suited to schooling; the marginalisation of families with members who have disabilities or mental illness; the isolation of the aged; and chronic illness management. In the second, he puts youth alienation and disconnection; family dysfunction; and the dominance of professions in determining the shape of social provision. So why in Australia are social innovators avoiding the big issues like these? Why are social innovators here seemingly entranced by the idea that a website is the solution to every social problem?] And are social innovators averse to developing real relationships with difficult people - the mentally ill, the uneducated single mother, the adult man with an intellectual disability? Why are social innovators nowhere to be seen in supporting these groups of disadvantaged Australians, leaving the field to charities and other practitioners of 'passive welfare'? Let's have some real social innovation, please. Vern Hughes
msweeks's picture

Re: Defining social innovation - what do you think?

by msweeks - 19 Apr 2010 - 9:38pm
Fair cop. Anyone who thinks a website equals social innovation is being foolish. But thoughtless dismissal of the very real, and growing impact of smart and sometimes unexpected use of technology in new ways to tackle social problems, fashionable or otherwise, isn't much better than similarly thoughtless embrace. In the end, social innovation follows the passions and commitment of those who want to do the innovating. That will inevitably reflect changing fashions and fads. Nothing you can do about that. You can't force people to do "good" innovation that happens to coincide with anyone else's view about what is worthy or not worthy. People do what they can do and want to do. But if social innovation, or formal welfare policy, or corporate social responsibility or philanthropy or charity...or whatever vehicle it might be never engages with the sorts of challenges you've identified, then you're right, there's a gap.
Vern's picture

Re: Defining social innovation - what do you think?

by Vern - 20 Apr 2010 - 12:10am
Of course social innovation 'follows the passions and commitment of those who want to do the innovating'. The question is: what are the priorities of social innovation leadership and support agencies like ASIX? Because it is the priorities of organisations like ASIX that publicly define the field. Judging by the projects selected for participation in the SI Camp in March 2010, you have to conclude that the priorities of the selection group are a long way removed from those on Charlie Leadbeater's list. None of those selected dealt with the hard social issues nominated by Charlie. All of them were soft options, on flavour-of-the-month politically-correct cultural issues. Without exception. There's more than a 'gap', Martin, between these projects and the challenges identified by Charlie. It's a different agenda entirely. Vern Hughes
msweeks's picture

Re: Defining social innovation - what do you think?

by msweeks - 16 Mar 2010 - 11:46pm
The question is whether innovation is, by definition, an 'edge' activity, that is something that can only be prosecuted by a relatively small number of people who are willing to do the lateral thinking and speculating from which real innovation is born? Is the idea of 'mainstream' innovation oxymoronic? The whole point about the mainstream is that it isn't innovative...is that right? Innovation happens at the edge, is often rejected and even ridiculed by the centre (which is another term for 'orthodoxy') until it looks like it will work and do things better and then the centre absorbs it, usually trying to argue that it believed in the new idea all along.
LaurenA's picture

Re: Defining social innovation - what do you think?

by LaurenA - 15 Mar 2010 - 10:28pm
I'm reading Daniel Pink's book A Whole New Mind at the moment - in it he is describing the new value being placed on the 'innovation worker' as opposed to the knowledge worker of recently who simply digests and synthesises information. This innovation worker is looking for exactly those new connections and unexpected links that Martin speaks of, and as Pink suggests they are creating a whole new currency around these ideas and connections. If this is the way of work in the future, it might be possible to suggest that as a society we are moving towards embracing this as a mainstream concept, not just a fringe activity. I look forward to when innovation and social innovation means the same thing. In the meantime, I think SIX has done a great job of providing a clear yet flexible definition. Thanks for this summary.