Detecting Social Innovation Agency; Methodological reflections on units of analysis in dispersed transformation processes

Considering that it is important for the social innovation research field to confront its methodological challenges, this contribution addresses the challenge of choosing appropriate units of analysis. Invoking insights from actor-network theory, it is demonstrated that this challenge is pervasive: the agency in social innovation processes is distributed and therefore fundamentally difficult to detect and ascribe. This elusiveness becomes particularly pressing in attempts towards systematic comparison of cases. Critically evaluating the three main unit of analysis choices that guided an international comparison of 20 transnational SI networks and their local manifestations, methodological lessons are drawn on the agents that SI can be ascribed to, on the transnational agency through which it spreads and on the relevant transformation contexts involved. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.31637/epsir.17-1.8

[1]  Barbara Czarniawska,et al.  Travels of ideas. , 1996 .

[2]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities And Challenges , 2007 .

[3]  Derk Loorbach,et al.  The economic crisis as a game changer? Exploring the role of social construction in sustainability transitions , 2016 .

[4]  Ingunn Moser,et al.  Experiments in Context and Contexting , 2012 .

[5]  Thomas Bauler,et al.  Emergent transformation games: Exploring social innovation agency and activation through the case of the Belgian electricity blackout threat , 2016 .

[6]  Adina Dumitru,et al.  Building a middle-range theory of Transformative Social Innovation; theoretical pitfalls and methodological responses , 2017 .

[7]  Frank Moulaert,et al.  Social Innovation research: A New Stage in Innovation Analysis? , 2013 .

[8]  Diana MacCallum,et al.  Social Innovation: intuition, precept, concept, theory and practice , 2013 .

[9]  John Law,et al.  Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity , 1992 .

[10]  Winston M. Tellis,et al.  APPLICATION OF A CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY , 1997 .

[11]  R. Miettinen,et al.  The riddle of things: Activity theory and actor‐network theory as approaches to studying innovations , 1999 .

[12]  J. Gupta,et al.  Climate change: a ‘glocal’ problem requiring ‘glocal’ action , 2007 .

[13]  A. Bruni,et al.  Reassembling the Social—An Introduction to Actor Network Theory , 2007 .

[14]  Michele-Lee Moore,et al.  Research, part of a Special Feature on Resilience Through Multi-scalar Collaboration Surmountable Chasms: Networks and Social Innovation for Resilient Systems , 2011 .

[15]  Bruno Latour,et al.  THE KEY TO SUCCESS IN INNOVATION PART I: THE ART OF INTERESSEMENT , 2002 .

[16]  Domício Proença Júnior,et al.  Coproduced game-changing in transformative social innovation: Reconnecting the “broken city” of Rio de Janeiro , 2017 .

[17]  Tor Hernes,et al.  Actor-network theory and organizing , 2005 .

[18]  Staffan Jacobsson,et al.  Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues , 2002 .

[19]  G. Cajaiba-Santana.  Social innovation: Moving the field forward. A conceptual framework , 2014 .

[20]  B. Latour.  Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies , 1999 .

[21]  K. Charmaz,et al.  Constructing Grounded Theory , 2014 .

[22]  A. Vayda,et al.  Progressive contextualization: Methods for research in human ecology , 1983 .

[23]  Colin McFarlane,et al.  Translocal assemblages: Space, power and social movements , 2009 .

[24]  S. Jasanoff.  States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order , 2004 .

[25]  J. Law,et al.  Materialities, spatialities, globalities. , 2000 .

[26]  Mustafa Emirbayer.  Manifesto for a Relational Sociology1 , 1997, American Journal of Sociology.

[27]  John Law,et al.  Objects and Spaces , 2002 .

[28]  Charles Tilly,et al.  How Social Movements Matter , 1999 .

[29]  Edwin Sayes.  Actor–Network Theory and methodology: Just what does it mean to say that nonhumans have agency? , 2014, Social studies of science.

[30]  Christian Bueger.  Actor‐Network Theory, Methodology, and International Organization , 2013 .

[31]  Charles C. Ragin,et al.  What Is a Case?: Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry , 1992 .

[32]  Bastian Pelka,et al.  Mapping the Social Innovation Maps – The State of Research Practice across Europe , 2016 .

[33]  U. Jørgensen.  Mapping and navigating transitions—The multi-level perspective compared with arenas of development , 2012 .

[34]  Moya Kneafsey,et al.  Researching European ‘alternative’ food networks: some methodological considerations , 2006 .

[35]  R. Yin.  The Case Study Crisis: Some Answers , 1981 .

[36]  Ingunn Moser,et al.  Contexts and Culling , 2012 .

[37]  Albert Meijer,et al.  From Hero-Innovators to Distributed Heroism: An in-depth analysis of the role of individuals in public sector innovation , 2014 .

[38]  Monika Büscher,et al.  Mobile Methods and the Empirical , 2009 .

[39]  Vivien Lowndes,et al.  Why Institutions Matter: The New Institutionalism in Political Science , 2013 .

[40]  M. Michael.  Actor-Network Theory: Trials, Trails and Translations , 2016 .

[41]  Bonno Pel,et al.  Intersections in system innovation: a nested-case methodology to study co-evolving innovation journeys , 2014, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[42]  David Byrne,et al.  Complexity, Configurations and Cases , 2005 .

[43]  Marthe Nyssens,et al.  How to deal with an" essentially contested concept" on the field? Sampling social innovations through the Delphi method , 2017 .

[44]  Frank W. Geels,et al.  Feelings of Discontent and the Promise of Middle Range Theory for STS , 2007 .

[45]  R. Kemp,et al.  Transformative social innovation and (dis)empowerment , 2017, Technological Forecasting and Social Change.