Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
PhD. student Monika FAester Roskilde University (RUC) , pedagogic and educational studies (PAES), Centre of social entrepreneurship (CSE). Problem identification and research question:.
Roskilde University (RUC), pedagogic and educational studies (PAES), Centre of social entrepreneurship (CSE)
Problem identification and research question:
How do actors from different sectors negotiate ideas and why are som ideas accepted and given grants while others are stoped. And who decides whether an idea is a good orbad idea and in whos interest?
Government change (2001 and 2011). New political discourse towards the welfare state: From welfare state to contest state.
Legitimization of the future welfare state through new distributive roles between: the state, market and civil society.
The Municipality reform (2007): Structural challenges and new tasks in the public sector.Structural changes which have implications on social innovation (litterature findings).
Welfare innovation (Decentralisation, lower costs, higher quality and further development of the welfare state)
Organizational innovation (fusions and development within an organization)
Patent driven innovation (closed idea development)
Userdriven innovation (product development in cooperation with users)Innovation review: innovation Field (besides cross sector innovation).
Ideas that work by everybody! Social innovation=New ideas that are implemented to solve social problems or assignments. (NESTA)
Part of an ongoing discussion in society regarding: tradition contra change. Incremental/radical innovation.
Actor driven understanding of social innovation
Innovation as a demand; adaptability on the labour market, ‘the ideal citizen’ (social entrepreneurship).
Innovation from a psychological perspective (resistance against change).definition of Cross sector innovation.Describing social innovation from a historical, social and cultural perspective
First actors are grouped within their respective fields (autonomous "micro worlds“) and their understanding of social/economical innovation is established.
Secondly I analyse different exampels of how actors negotiated which ideas should be subsidized (or what they said they negotiated).
Politicians, public servants, NGOs and business owners have different perspectives on social/economic innovation. The analysis strive to show which perspective (social/economic) becomes dominant and why by drawing on the mindset from already established fields (government pressure).Cross sector Innovation as an analytical framework
Projects/ideas which have a ‘professional’ and/or a business agenda are preferred.
‘The glass ceiling’: A hidden ‘efficiency’ agenda. A change in the welfare state, more competition between the third sector and municipalities
Easier to develop ideas within leisure- and cultural department than the social department (huge difference).
The ‘old school’third sector mentality or classical NGOs with their ‘critical perspective’ on the welfare state is vanishing and is replaced by a social entrepreneur mentality.
The municipality is a ‘blue stamp’ and have an ‘advisor role’ which some third sector actors understand to network with.main conclusions: obstacles and possibilities in cross sector innovation: