📝Home/Valuable perspectives/Sociale innovatie in Nederland/The Double Bind of Social Innovation

The Double Bind of Social Innovation

Nederlands

Overzicht van sociale innovatie in Nederland

Bartels' “The Double Bind of Social Innovation” onderzoekt de relationele dynamiek van verandering en weerstand in buurtbestuur in Amsterdam, waarbij systemische uitdagingen en noodzakelijke transformaties worden belicht.

Ideeën

  • Dubbele binding: Sociale innovatie wordt tegelijkertijd aangemoedigd en tegengewerkt.
  • Institutionele belemmeringen: Verankerde denk- en organisatiepatronen belemmeren sociale innovatie.
  • Navigeren in dynamiek: Innovatoren moeten hiërarchische en competitieve dynamieken overwinnen.
  • Bewoners empoweren: Het versterken van bewoners kan defensiviteit bij publieke professionals veroorzaken.
  • Transformatie van relaties en bestuur: Sociale innovatie streeft naar transformatie van sociale relaties en bestuursstructuren.
  • Participatieve methoden: Deze kunnen helpen innovatieve praktijken te begrijpen en te verbeteren.
  • Integratieve dynamiek: Essentieel voor productieve relationele processen.
  • Meervoudige vormen en betekenissen: Sociale innovatie omvat diverse vormen, betekenissen en belanghebbenden.
  • Theoretische concepten: Dynamisch worden en relationele procesontologie zijn cruciaal.
  • Holistische benadering: Nodig voor effectieve sociale innovatie.
  • Evolutie door co-creatie: Sociale innovaties evolueren voortdurend door wederzijdse invloed.
  • Integratie van verschillen: Relationele dynamiek moet zich richten op het integreren van verschillen en samenwerking.
  • Ervaringsgerichte inclusie: Cruciaal voor het verankeren van innovatie in bestuursystemen.
  • Duurzame verandering: Vereist transformatie van meerlagige bestuursystemen.
  • Institutionele weerstand: Innovatoren moeten bereid zijn institutionele weerstand constructief te confronteren.
  • Belemmeringen door bestaande macht: Bestaande machtsverhoudingen en institutionele configuraties hinderen innovatie.
  • Behoefte aan innovatieve oplossingen: Budgettaire beperkingen en bezuinigingen drijven de noodzaak voor innovatie.
  • Stedelijke omgeving: Primaire locatie voor sociale innovatie door dringende sociale kwesties.
  • Moeilijkheden voor institutionele actoren: Deze hebben vaak moeite om innovatieve praktijken te accommoderen.
  • Noodzaak voor institutionele veranderingen: Succesvolle sociale innovatie vereist substantiële veranderingen in institutionele attitudes en processen.
  • Belang van relationele dynamiek: Onderzoek benadrukt het belang van relationele dynamiek en multi-scalaire netwerken.
  • Mainstreaming van sociale innovatie: Steeds meer geïntegreerd in beleidsdiscours voor bestuursherformering.
  • Hinder door dubbele binding: Kan leiden tot defensieve reacties en duurzame verandering belemmeren.
  • Participatieve evaluatiemethoden: Kunnen helpen de dynamische aard van innovatieve praktijken vast te leggen.
  • Contextafhankelijkheid: Sociale innovaties zijn contextafhankelijk en beïnvloed door lokale territoriale arrangementen.
  • Relationele procesontologie: Biedt een theoretisch kader voor het begrijpen van sociale innovatie.
  • Noodzaak en belemmering van transformatie: De dubbele binding vereist maar hindert ook transformatieve verandering.
  • Kenmerken van relationele dynamiek: Worden gekarakteriseerd door integratie, hiërarchie of competitie.
  • Holisme: Sociale innovatie maakt deel uit van een groter geheel, verbonden met andere situaties via multi-scalaire netwerken.

Citaten

  • “Social innovation faces a double bind of being concurrently encouraged and discouraged to do things differently.”
  • “BPTs successfully enabled residents to transform their neighborhoods by ‘doing what’s necessary’.”
  • “Empowering residents but triggering defensiveness amongst the professionals in charge.”
  • “The line manager subtly belittles the team’s success in getting two Moroccan mothers to organize weekly activities.”
  • “BPT members constantly have to justify and defend what they do and why to actors keeping to a hierarchical administrative system.”
  • “Innovations are always disruptive of what is there, their nature, value and outcomes are inevitably contested.”
  • “Social innovators must be prepared to constructively confront rationalistic evaluation, defensiveness, and experiential detachment.”
  • “Evaluating in a safe setting with a small group to avoid positional debate and frustration.”
  • “The immense relational potential of connecting with ‘just’ two mothers for transforming a neighborhood is lost on institutional actors.”
  • “Disrupting the status quo and upsetting colleagues invested in it is a necessary evil for relationally confronting and creatively integrating differences.”
  • “Social innovation is part of a larger, all-inclusive whole, connected with other situations through multi-scalar networks.”
  • “Dynamic becoming means that social innovations are constantly shape-shifting and evolving.”
  • “Relational process ontology sees the world in terms of the innate social bonds between people and the dynamic interplay of all interrelated elements in their environment.”
  • “Holism denotes that relational dynamics should constantly widen the total situation by enabling ever-increasing inclusion of people, factors, and reflections.”
  • “Institutional actors tend to dominate conversations with their professional views and emotional needs rather than integrating these with residents’ views and needs.”

Feiten

  • Sociale innovatie wordt steeds meer geïntegreerd in beleidsdiscours voor bestuursherformering.
  • De Nederlandse overheid bevordert een overgang van een verzorgingsstaat naar een participatiesamenleving.
  • Stedelijk bestuurbeleid biedt vaak geen gunstige voorwaarden voor duurzame innovaties.
  • De financiële crisis leidde tot bezuinigingsmaatregelen en verhoogde druk op sociale diensten.
  • Onderzoek naar sociale innovatie benadrukt het belang van relationele dynamiek en multi-scalaire netwerken.
  • Sociale innovatie omvat het transformeren van sociale relaties, het verbeteren van participatie en het verbeteren van dienstverlening.
  • Machtsongelijkheden en institutioneel conservatisme zijn significante belemmeringen voor sociale innovatie.
  • Participatieve evaluatiemethoden kunnen helpen de dynamische aard van innovatieve praktijken vast te leggen.
  • Integratieve dynamiek omvat het verenigen van verschillen en het bevorderen van samenwerkingsprocessen.
  • De dubbele binding van sociale innovatie kan leiden tot defensieve reacties en verandering belemmeren.
  • Duurzame sociale innovatie vereist holistische benaderingen en systemische transformaties.
  • Sociale innovaties zijn vaak contextafhankelijk en beïnvloed door lokale territoriale arrangementen.
  • Bewoners empoweren en bestuursystemen transformeren zijn sleuteldoelen van sociale innovatie.
  • Relationele procesontologie biedt een theoretisch kader voor het begrijpen van sociale innovatie.

Aanbevelingen

  • Bevorder integratieve dynamiek om conflicterende druk in sociale innovatie te navigeren.
  • Gebruik participatieve evaluatiemethoden om de holistische aard van innovatieve praktijken vast te leggen.
  • Moedig institutionele actoren aan om betrokken te zijn bij ervaringsleren en zich aan te passen aan innovatieve benaderingen.
  • Adresseer onderliggende patronen en gedeelde belangen om bewoners effectief te empoweren.
  • Bevorder substantiële veranderingen in institutionele attitudes en processen om sociale innovatie te ondersteunen.
  • Erken de contextafhankelijkheid van sociale innovaties en pas strategieën dienovereenkomstig aan.
  • Richt je op het transformeren van meerlagige bestuursystemen voor duurzame verandering.
  • Integreer verschillen en bevorder samenwerkingsprocessen voor effectieve relationele dynamiek.
  • Moedig institutionele actoren aan om open te staan voor leren en zich aan te passen aan innovatieve praktijken.
  • Gebruik relationele procesontologie om de evaluatie en verbetering van sociale innovatiepraktijken te begeleiden.
 

English

Summary

Bartels’ “The Double Bind of Social Innovation” examines the relational dynamics of change and resistance in neighborhood governance in Amsterdam, highlighting systemic challenges and necessary transformations.

Ideas

• Social innovation faces a double bind of being simultaneously encouraged and resisted.
• Institutionalized ways of thinking and organizing often impede social innovation.
• Social innovators must navigate hierarchical and competitive dynamics.
• Empowering residents can trigger defensiveness among public professionals.
• Social innovation aims to transform social relationships and governance structures.
• Participatory methods can help in understanding and improving innovative practices.
• Integrative dynamics are essential for fostering productive relational processes.
• Social innovation involves multiple forms, meanings, and stakeholders.
• Dynamic becoming and relational process ontology are key theoretical concepts.
• Holistic and inclusive approaches are necessary for effective social innovation.
• Social innovations constantly evolve through co-creation and reciprocal influence.
• Relational dynamics should focus on integrating differences and fostering collaboration.
• Empowering residents involves addressing underlying patterns and shared interests.
• Experiential inclusion is crucial for embedding innovation in governance systems.
• Sustainable change requires transforming multi-level governance systems.
• Social innovators must be prepared to confront institutional resistances constructively.
• Institutional resistance to change is a significant barrier to social innovation.
• Existing power relations and institutional configurations inhibit innovation.
• Budget cuts and austerity drive the need for innovative solutions.
• Urban settings are primary sites for social innovation due to pressing social issues.
• Institutional actors often struggle to accommodate innovative practices.
• Successful social innovation requires substantive changes in institutional attitudes and processes.
• Social innovation research emphasizes the importance of relational dynamics and multi-scalar networks.
• Social innovation is increasingly mainstreamed in policy discourse for governance reform.
• The double bind can lead to defensive responses and hinder sustainable change.
• Participatory evaluation methods can help in capturing the dynamic nature of innovative practices.
• Social innovations are context-dependent and influenced by local territorial arrangements.
• Relational process ontology provides a theoretical framework for understanding social innovation.
• The double bind necessitates but also inhibits transformative change.
• Relational dynamics are characterized by integration, hierarchy, or competition.
• Holism denotes that social innovation is part of a larger, all-inclusive whole.

Quotes

• “Social innovation faces a double bind of being concurrently encouraged and discouraged to do things differently.”
• “BPTs successfully enabled residents to transform their neighborhoods by ‘doing what’s necessary’.”
• “Empowering residents but triggering defensiveness amongst the professionals in charge.”
• “The line manager subtly belittles the team’s success in getting two Moroccan mothers to organize weekly activities.”
• “BPT members constantly have to justify and defend what they do and why to actors keeping to a hierarchical administrative system.”
• “Innovations are always disruptive of what is there, their nature, value and outcomes are inevitably contested.”
• “Social innovators must be prepared to constructively confront rationalistic evaluation, defensiveness, and experiential detachment.”
• “Evaluating in a safe setting with a small group to avoid positional debate and frustration.”
• “The immense relational potential of connecting with ‘just’ two mothers for transforming a neighborhood is lost on institutional actors.”
• “Disrupting the status quo and upsetting colleagues invested in it is a necessary evil for relationally confronting and creatively integrating differences.”
• “Social innovation is part of a larger, all-inclusive whole, connected with other situations through multi-scalar networks.”
• “Dynamic becoming means that social innovations are constantly shape-shifting and evolving.”
• “Relational process ontology sees the world in terms of the innate social bonds between people and the dynamic interplay of all interrelated elements in their environment.”
• “Holism denotes that relational dynamics should constantly widen the total situation by enabling ever-increasing inclusion of people, factors, and reflections.”
• “Institutional actors tend to dominate conversations with their professional views and emotional needs rather than integrating these with residents’ views and needs.”

Facts

• Social innovation is increasingly mainstreamed in policy discourse for governance reform.
• The Netherlands’ government promotes a transition from a welfare state to a participatory society.
• Urban governance policies often fail to provide conditions conducive for sustainable innovations.
• The financial crisis led to austerity measures and increased pressure on social services.
• Social innovation research emphasizes the importance of relational dynamics and multi-scalar networks.
• Social innovation involves transforming social relationships, enhancing participation, and improving service provision.
• Power inequalities and institutional conservatism are significant barriers to social innovation.
• Participatory evaluation methods can help in capturing the dynamic nature of innovative practices.
• Integrative dynamics involve unifying differences and fostering collaborative processes.
• The double bind of social innovation can lead to defensive responses and inhibit change.
• Sustainable social innovation requires holistic approaches and systemic transformations.
• Social innovations are often context-dependent and influenced by local territorial arrangements.
• Empowering residents and transforming governance systems are key goals of social innovation.
• Relational process ontology provides a theoretical framework for understanding social innovation.

References

• Bartels, K. (2017). “The double bind of social innovation: Relational dynamics of change and resistance in neighbourhood governance.” Urban Studies.
• Follett, M. P. (1919). “Community is a Process.”
• Jessop, B., Moulaert, F., Hulgård, L., et al. (2013). “Social innovation research: a new stage in innovation analysis?”
• Moulaert, F., Martinelli, F., Swyngedouw, E., et al. (2005). “Towards Alternative Model(s) of Local Innovation.”
• Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J., and Mulgan, G. (2010). “The open book of social innovation.”
• Nicholls, A., Simon, J., and Gabriel, M. (2015). “New Frontiers in Social Innovation Research.”

Recommendations

• Foster integrative dynamics to navigate conflicting pressures in social innovation.
• Use participatory evaluation methods to capture the holistic nature of innovative practices.
• Encourage institutional actors to engage in experiential learning and adapt to innovative approaches.
• Address underlying patterns and shared interests to empower residents effectively.
• Promote substantive changes in institutional attitudes and processes to support social innovation.
• Recognize the context-dependency of social innovations and tailor strategies accordingly.
• Focus on transforming multi-level governance systems for sustainable change.
• Integrate differences and foster collaborative processes for effective relational dynamics.
• Encourage institutional actors to be open to learning and adapting to innovative practices.
• Use relational process ontology to guide the evaluation and improvement of social innovation practices.