STREAM 3
Heterodoxies of social innovation 

Defining social innovation has become an academic industry. Of the multiple definitions in existence, one of the most popular (Phills et al. 2008) sets the scene nicely:

​

“Social innovation is defined as a novel solution to a social problem that is more effective, efficient, sustainable, or just than existing solutions and for which the value created accrues primarily to society as a whole rather than private individuals.”

​

We provocatively suggest that the only common features to most definitions are the elements of newness (novel) and niceness (value to society). Accordingly, social innovation equates to ‘nice new things’. Thousands of pages of academic text are devoted to why some innovations are nice, or some nice things are new, and how we might facilitate the conditions whereby more nice new things are created. 

While applauding these efforts to create a better world, this stream, inspired by a recent paper by Pidduck and Tucker (2022), invites contributions that deviate from conventional wisdoms - i.e., heterodoxies of social innovation. ‘Heterodoxy’ broadly alludes to social innovation approaches and research that depart from mainstream – that is, ‘orthodox’ – approaches. In economic theory, where the term is most widely used, heterodoxy refers to a set of perspectives that contradict and challenge the basic premises of mainstream theories (especially neoclassical economics) (Dequech, 2007). Heterodox approaches often act as conduits of theory advancement and broadening of perspective by introducing a set of different assumptions, methods, and goals than mainstream approaches, while prioritizing different factors, such as social, cultural, and political considerations.

Embracing heterodox scholarship’s spirit of critical engagement and theoretical pluralism and ‘break-through’, heterodoxy forms the conceptual cornerstone of our stream, whose primary aim consists in pushing the field in surprising new directions. Seeking to provide a home for the unconventional, we welcome heterodox research that challenges the limitations of mainstream social innovation approaches to create something different. We hence aim this stream to be a location for methodological and theoretical pluralism and particularly seek contributions that explore social innovation along unconventional (extreme) contexts, alternative theories, and uncommon methodologies.

A tentative (but non-comprehensive) list of topics can be found below:

• What are the dark sides, downsides, and destructive sides of social innovation?

• Objective and value-neutral? How do ideologies inform and shape social innovations?

• Who decides which innovations have value and create social benefit?

• Who governs social innovation(s)?

• What happens when social innovations go ‘wrong’?

• New theoretical approaches to understanding and explaining social innovation(s)

• How does social innovation challenge orthodox practices or ‘ways of doing things’?

• How do social innovations break free from the ‘orthodox social imaginary’?

• To what extent is social innovation becoming the new orthodoxy of policy makers, and how does this shape the way society is governed?

• These suggestions aim to inspire the imagination rather than close down avenues of inquiry. We genuinely welcome all papers that deviate from accepted standards and beliefs surrounding social innovation.

 

REFERENCES

Dequech, D. (2007). Neoclassical, mainstream, orthodox, and heterodox economics. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 30(2), 279-302.
Phills, J.A., Deiglmeier, K. and Miller, D.T., 2008. Rediscovering social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(4), pp.34-43.
Pidduck, R.J. and Tucker, R., 2022. Meaningful heterodoxies: Advancing entrepreneurship through engagement with unorthodox phenomena. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 18, p.e00319.