It's a good thing to do!: How institutional entrepreneurs scale up social innovations.

To illustrate the relationship between transformative social innovation and multisystem resilience, this chapter summarizes three transformative social innovations, the National Parks in the United States, the internet, and the challenging or social engineering–like case of the intelligence test. Each case study demonstrates how innovations shift several systems as they develop, scale up, and even became challenged themselves, as well as the authors’ overarching assertion that transformative social innovation and multisystem resilience are deeply interrelated. Additionally, it is by understanding our social innovation history that we can be better prepared for our future and avoid the pitfalls of social innovation’s underappreciated dark side, the risk of social engineering. This chapter is based on over a decade of work on multisystem resilience and social innovation at the Waterloo Institute of Social Innovation and Resilience.

Download Full-text

Social innovation research checklist: A crowdsourcing open call and digital hackathon to develop a checklist for research to advance social innovation in health

10.1101/2020.11.03.20225110 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Eneyi Kpokiri ◽

Elizabeth Chen ◽

Jingjing Li ◽

Sarah Payne ◽

Priyanka Shrestha ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Health Research ◽

Social Innovation ◽

Scale Up ◽

Healthcare Delivery ◽

User Engagement ◽

List Type ◽

Middle Income ◽

Innovation Research ◽

Study Results ◽

Social Innovations

AbstractWhile social innovations in health have shown promise in closing the healthcare delivery gap, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), more research is needed to evaluate, scale up, and sustain social innovations. Research checklists can standardize and improve reporting of research findings, promote transparency, and increase replicability of study results and findings. This article describes the development of a 17-item social innovation in health research checklist to assess and report social innovation projects and provides examples of good reporting. The checklist is adapted from the TIDieR checklist and will facilitate more complete and transparent reporting and increase end user engagement.Summary pointsWhile many social innovations have been developed and shown promise in closing the healthcare delivery gap, more research is needed to evaluate social innovationThe Social Innovation in Health Research Checklist, the first of its kind, is a 17-item checklist to improve reporting completeness and promote transparency in the development, implementation, and evaluation of social innovations in healthThe research checklist was developed through a three-step process, including a global open call for ideas, a scoping review, and a three-round modified Delphi processUse of this research checklist will enable researchers, innovators and partners to learn more about the process and results of social innovation in health research

Download Full-text

Social Innovation For Health Research (SIFHR): Development of the SIFHR Checklist

PLoS Medicine ◽

10.1371/journal.pmed.1003788 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 18 (9) ◽

pp. e1003788

Author(s):

Eneyi E. Kpokiri ◽

Elizabeth Chen ◽

Jingjing Li ◽

Sarah Payne ◽

Priyanka Shrestha ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Scoping Review ◽

Health Research ◽

Social Innovation ◽

Scale Up ◽

Healthcare Delivery ◽

User Engagement ◽

Innovation Research ◽

Study Results ◽

Social Innovations ◽

Multi Stakeholder

Background Social innovations in health are inclusive solutions to address the healthcare delivery gap that meet the needs of end users through a multi-stakeholder, community-engaged process. While social innovations in health have shown promise in closing the healthcare delivery gap, more research is needed to evaluate, scale up, and sustain social innovation. Research checklists can standardize and improve reporting of research findings, promote transparency, and increase replicability of study results and findings. Methods and findings The research checklist was developed through a 3-step community-engaged process, including a global open call for ideas, a scoping review, and a 3-round modified Delphi process. The call for entries solicited checklists and related items and was open between November 27, 2019 and February 1, 2020. In addition to the open call submissions and scoping review findings, a 17-item Social Innovation For Health Research (SIFHR) Checklist was developed based on the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) Checklist. The checklist was then refined during 3 rounds of Delphi surveys conducted between May and June 2020. The resulting checklist will facilitate more complete and transparent reporting, increase end-user engagement, and help assess social innovation projects. A limitation of the open call was requiring internet access, which likely discouraged participation of some subgroups. Conclusions The SIFHR Checklist will strengthen the reporting of social innovation in health research studies. More research is needed on social innovation for health.

Download Full-text

Institutional Entrepreneurs and Social Innovation in Danish Senior Care

Administration & Society ◽

10.1177/0095399715624945 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 51 (2) ◽

pp. 250-271 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Per H. Jensen ◽

Barbara Fersch

Keyword(s):

Social Innovation ◽

Institutional Entrepreneurship ◽

Welfare Policies ◽

Scarce Resources ◽

Institutional Entrepreneurs ◽

The Social ◽

Social Innovations ◽

Agents Of Change ◽

New Ideas ◽

Exogenous Factors

This article discusses the social, political, and administrative dynamics behind shifting welfare policies and social innovations in the senior care provided by Danish municipalities. The main argument is that institutional entrepreneurs are key agents of change and that institutional entrepreneurship is rooted in exogenous (e.g., scarce resources) and endogenous (e.g., cognition) factors. The article shows how exogenous factors challenge existing practices or necessitate change, while new ideas among institutional entrepreneurs in politics and administration give direction to institutional change.

Download Full-text

NiAl precipitation in Fe-12w/o Cr-5w/o Ni-4w/o Al

Proceedings, annual meeting, Electron Microscopy Society of America ◽

10.1017/s042482010007480x ◽

1983 ◽

Vol 41 ◽

pp. 202-203

Author(s):

L.E. Murr ◽

J.S. Dunning ◽

S. Shankar

Keyword(s):

Solid Solution ◽

Stainless Steel ◽

Stainless Steels ◽

Alloy Composition ◽

Chromium Content ◽

Scale Up ◽

Optical Metallography ◽

Property Evaluation ◽

310 Stainless Steel ◽

Microstructural Studies

Aluminum additions to conventional 18Cr-8Ni austenitic stainless steel compositions impart excellent resistance to high sulfur environments. However, problems are typically encountered with aluminum additions above about 1% due to embrittlement caused by aluminum in solid solution and the precipitation of NiAl. Consequently, little use has been made of aluminum alloy additions to stainless steels for use in sulfur or H2S environments in the chemical industry, energy conversion or generation, and mineral processing, for example.A research program at the Albany Research Center has concentrated on the development of a wrought alloy composition with as low a chromium content as possible, with the idea of developing a low-chromium substitute for 310 stainless steel (25Cr-20Ni) which is often used in high-sulfur environments. On the basis of workability and microstructural studies involving optical metallography on 100g button ingots soaked at 700°C and air-cooled, a low-alloy composition Fe-12Cr-5Ni-4Al (in wt %) was selected for scale up and property evaluation.

Download Full-text