Scaling social innovation: Ownership, documentation, infrastructuring elements and rehearsing new practices | Intellect Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Artifact
  4. Volume 9, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 9, Issue 1-2
  • ISSN: 1749-3463
  • E-ISSN: 1749-3471
file format pdf download PDF

Abstract

Today, co-designing for social innovation is explored in many western democracies to transform political agendas and develop sustainable societies. For social innovation to have a radical and wide-reaching impact on society, scaling is crucial. Scaling social innovation after ending a project requires a focus on making innovations sustainable in the long run and how they can foster organizational or institutional transformation. Despite increased interest in design for social innovation and scaling, little attention has been given to how the scaling of social innovation unfolds in practice over a longer period. A qualitative study was conducted following the continuation of a social innovation project called SeniorInteraction, which ended in 2012. Through interviews and field visits, we examined the attempts at scaling by different public and private partners and citizens after the project ended. The social innovation concept in question is an open exercise community in public parks for senior citizens supported by the local municipality. The research provides a deeper understanding of scaling in practice and identifies four important drivers for scaling social innovation: ownership, documentation, infrastructuring elements and rehearsing new practices. Additionally, we discuss challenges related to the way we understand and evaluate the scaling of social innovations.

© 2022 The Author(s) Published by Intellect Ltd.
This article is Open Access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-ND), which allows users to copy, distribute and transmit the article as long as the author is attributed, the article is not used for commercial purposes, and the work is not modified or adapted in any way. To view a copy of the licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/art_00022_1
2023-01-23
2024-04-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/ajdp/9/1-2/art.9.1-2.22.1_Yndigegn.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1386/art_00022_1&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Bason, C.. ( 2010), Leading Public Sector Innovation: Co-creating for a Better Society, Cambridge:: Policy Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Binder, T., and Brandt, E.. ( 2008;), ‘ The design: Lab as platform in participatory design research. ’, Co-design, 4:2, pp. 115–29.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Binder, T., and Brandt, E.. ( 2018), Hvad har design med samskabelse af gøre? I Fogsgaard og De Jongh (red) Ledelse og samskabelse i den offentlige sektor, Copenhagen:: Dansk Psykologisk Forlag;, pp. 332–61.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Binder, T.,, Brandt, E.,, Halse, J.,, Foverskov, M.,, Olander, S., and Yndigegn, S.. ( 2011a;), ‘ Living the (codesign) Lab. ’, Proceedings of the Nordic Design Research Conference (NORDES), Helsinki, 29–31 May.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Binder, T.,, Michelis, G. De,, Ehn, P.,, Jacucci, G.,, Linde, P., and Wagner, I.. ( 2011b), Design Things, Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Biørn-Hansen, A., and Håkansson, M.. ( 2018;), ‘ Building momentum: Scaling up change in community organizations. ’, Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal QC, Canada, 21–26 April, New York:: ACM;, pp. 1–13.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Björgvinsson, E.,, Ehn, P., and Hillgren, P. A.. ( 2010;), ‘ Participatory design and democratizing innovation. ’, Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference, ACM, Sydney, Australia, 29 November–3 December, New York:: ACM;, pp. 41–50.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Björgvinsson, E.,, Ehn, P., and Hillgren, P. A.. ( 2012;), ‘ Design things and design thinking: Contemporary participatory design challenges. ’, Design Issues, 28:3, pp. 101–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bossen, C.,, Dindler, C., and Iversen, O. S.. ( 2016;), ‘ Evaluation in participatory design: A literature survey. ’, in Proceedings of the 14th Participatory Design Conference, August, Aarhus, Denmark, 15–19 August, New York:: ACM;, pp. 151–60.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Brandt, E.,, Binder, T.,, Malmborg, L., and Sokoler, T.. ( 2010;), ‘ Communities of everyday practice and situated elderliness as an approach to co-design for senior interaction. ’, Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Computer–Human Interaction Special Interest Group of Australia on Computer–Human Interaction, Brisbane, Australia, 22–26 November.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Brandt, E.,, Binder, T., and Sanders, E. B.. ( 2013;), ‘ Ways to engage telling, making and enacting. ’, in J. Simonsen, and T. Robertson. (eds), Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design, New York:: Routledge;, pp. 145–81.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Brandt, E.,, Fjerritslev Mortensen, P.,, Malmborg, L.,, Binder, T., and Sokoler, T.. (red) ( 2012), SeniorInteraktion: Innovation Gennem Dialog, vol. 1, Copenhagen:: Det Kongelige Danske Kunstakademis SKoler for Arkitektur, Design og Konservering Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. DiSalvo, C.. ( 2022), Design as Democratic Inquiry: Putting Experimental Civics into Practice, Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Ehn, P.,, Nilsson, E. M., and Topgaard, R.. ( 2014), Making Futures: Marginal Notes on Innovation, Design and Democracy, Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Foverskov, M.. ( 2020;), ‘ Design as everyday theatre: Towards a performative praxis of social design. ’, Ph.D. thesis, Copenhagen:: Det Kongelige Danske Kunstakademis Skoler for Arkitektur, Design og Konservering;.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Freire, K., and Sangiorgi, D.. ( 2010;), ‘ Service design and healthcare innovation: From consumption to co-production and co-creation. ’, in S. Holmlid,, J.-V. Nisula, and S. Clatworthy. (eds), Proceedings of the Service Design and Service Innovation Conference, Linköping, Sweden, 1–3 December, Linköping:: Electronic Conference Proceedings;, pp. 39–49.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Galego, D.,, Moulaert, F.,, Brans, M., and Santinha, G.. ( 2022;), ‘ Social innovation & governance: A scoping review. ’, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 35:2, pp. 265–90, https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2021.1879630. Accessed 22 August 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Halse, J.,, Brandt, E.,, Clark, B., and Binder, T.. ( 2010), Rehearsing the Future, Copenhagen:: The Danish Design School Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Hunt, J.. ( 2020), Not to Scale: How the Small Becomes Large, the Large Becomes Unthinkable and the Unthinkable Becomes Possible, New York and Boston, MA:: Grant Central Publishing;.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Jensen, O. B.. ( 2021;), ‘ Rethinking scale: Relationality, place, and critical zone. ’, in E. Brandt,, T. Markussen,, E. Berglund,, G. Julier, and P. Linde. (eds), in Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Design Research Conference, Kolding, Denmark, 15–18 August, Kolding:: NORDES;, pp. 39–47.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Karasti, H., and Syrjänen, A. L.. ( 2004;), ‘ Artful infrastructuring in two cases of community PD. ’, in Proceedings of the eighth conference on Participatory design: Artful integration: interweaving media, materials and practices-Volume 1, July 27–31, 2004, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. New York:: ACM Press;, pp. 20–30. https://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1011870.1011874.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Malmborg, L., and Yndigegn, S. L.. ( 2013;), ‘ Sustainable infrastructure for ad hoc social interaction. ’, Proceedings of Nordes 2013, Copenhagen, Denmark and Malmö, Sweden, 9–12 June.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Manzini, E.. ( 2015), Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation, Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Manzini, E., and Staszowski, E.. (eds) ( 2013), Public and Collaborative: Exploring the Intersection of Design, Social Innovation and Policy, n.p.:: DESIS Network;.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Morelli, N.,, Götzen, A. de, and Simeone, L.. ( 2021;), ‘ An approach to service design. ’, Service Design Capabilities, Springer Series in Design and Innovation, Cham:: Springer;, pp. 9–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Moulaert, F.,, MacCallum, D., and Hillier, J.. ( 2013;), ‘ Social innovation: Intuition, precept, concept, theory and practice. ’, The International Handbook on Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research, Cheltenham:: Edward Elgar Publishing;, pp. 13–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Murray, R.,, Gaulier-Grice, J., and Mulgan, G.. ( 2010), The Open Book of Social Innovation, Social Innovator Series: Ways to Design, Develop and Grow Social Innovation, London:: The Young Foundation;.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Naber, R.,, Raven, R.,, Kouw, M., and Dassen, T.. ( 2017;), ‘ Scaling up sustainable energy innovations. ’, Energy Policy, 110, pp. 342–54.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Olander, S.,, Lenskjold, T. U.,, Yndigegn, S. L., and Foverskov, M.. ( 2011;), ‘ Mobilizing for community building and everyday innovation. ’, Interactions, 18:4, pp. 28–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Rossitto, C.,, Lampinen, A.,, Bødker, S.,, Light, A.,, Berns, K., and Hui, J.. ( 2020;), ‘ Reconsidering scale and scaling in CSCW research. ’, in Conference Companion Publication of the 2020 on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, October, New York:: ACM;, pp. 493–501.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Siira, E.,, Yndigegn, S.,, Rolandsson, B.,, Wijk, H., and Wolf, A.. ( 2020;), ‘ Co-production of peer-to-peer care practices: The case of a social innovation in elderly care. ’, Tecnoscienza Italian Journal of Science and Technology Studies, 112, pp. 73–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Simonsen, J., and Robertson, T.. (eds) ( 2013), Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design, vol. 711, New York:: Routledge;.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Star, S. L., and Ruhleder, K.. ( 1996;), ‘ Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. ’, Information Systems Research, 7:1, pp. 111–34.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Suchman, L.. ( 2002;), ‘ Located accountabilities in technology production. ’, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 14:2, pp. 91–105.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Vaughan, L.. (ed.) ( 2017), Practice-Based Design Research, London:: Bloomsbury Publishing;.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. VIVE ( 2021;), ‘ VIVEs kommunetal 2021.5: Flere småbørn og ældre vil presse kommunernes økonomi og rekruttering. ’, https://www.vive.dk/media/pure/16712/6176229. Accessed 16 September 2022.
  37. Westley, F., and Antadze, N.. ( 2010;), ‘ Making a difference: Strategies for scaling social innovation for greater impact. ’, The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 15:2, article 2 , http://www.innovation.cc/scholarly-style/westley2antadze-2make_difference_final.pdf. Accessed 16 September 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Westley, F., and Antadze, N.. ( 2013;), ‘ When scaling out is not enough: Strategies for system change. ’, in Social Frontiers: Social Innovation Research Conference, vol. 11, Oxford, 13–14 November, London:: Nesta;, pp. 1–11.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Yndigegn, S. L.. ( 2016;), ‘ Managing resistance and negotiating co-design: Reflection on troublesome and elusive moments. ’, Ph.D. dissertation, Copenhagen:: IT University of Copenhagen;.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Yndigegn, S. L., and Aakjær, M. K.. ( 2018;), ‘ Living lab: Format for rehearsing a new (service) practice. ’, Proceedings of Participatory Innovation Conference, Eskilstuna, Sweden, vol. 5, 10–11 January, Eskilstuna:: Participatory Innovation Conference;, pp. 111–19.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Yndigegn, Signe Louise,, Brandt, Eva,, Foverskov, Maria, and Malmborg, Lone. ( 2022;), ‘ Scaling social innovation: Ownership, documentation, infrastructuring elements and rehearsing new practices. ’, Artifact: Journal of Design Practice, 9:1&2, pp. 22.1–22.26, https://doi.org/10.1386/art_00022_1
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1386/art_00022_1
Loading
Scaling social innovation: Ownership, documentation, infrastructuring elements and rehearsing new practices
Artifact 9, 22.1 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1386/art_00022_1
/content/journals/10.1386/art_00022_1
/content/journals/10.1386/art_00022_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): citizens-driven services; co-design; infrastructuring; longitudinal design research; participatory design; public partnerships

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error