Research Article
Page 1 of 6
Revealing the social face of innovation
Revealing the social face of innovation
AUTHORS:
Tim G.B. Hart1,2
Kgabo H. Ramoroka3
Peter T. Jacobs3
Brigid A. Letty4
AFFILIATIONS:
1
Economic Performance and
Development, Human Sciences
Research Council, Pretoria,
South Africa
2
Department of Sociology
and Social Anthropology,
Stellenbosch University,
Stellenbosch, South Africa
3
Economic Performance and
Development, Human Sciences
Research Council, Cape Town,
South Africa
4
Institute for Natural Resources,
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
CORRESPONDENCE TO:
Tim Hart
EMAIL:
thart@hsrc.ac.za
POSTAL ADDRESS:
Economic Performance and
Development, Human Sciences
Research Council, Private Bag
X41, Pretoria 0001, South Africa
DATES:
Despite the introduction of social innovation in the 1996 White Paper on Science and Technology, the concept
of social innovation has not been actively implemented or even diffused outside of the policy arena in South
Africa. Perceptions about what the concept of social innovation should encompass are contested and range
from ideas of social welfare outcomes, public goods and a primary focus on the poor. More recently, the
emphasis has been on inclusive development that embraces and supports the poor as innovators and which
incorporates elements of social and economic development. While contestation in terminology persists,
evidence from South Africa’s rural areas suggests that although there may be limited state intervention,
hampered by structural constraints, and limited understanding of contemporary ideas about innovation and
social innovation, local actors practise a variety of forms of social innovation. In most instances, the purpose
is to improve social and economic well-being of the poor. Such innovation activities occur almost as widely
and as often as strictly commercially oriented innovation activities. However, it is unclear from observed
social innovation practices who should benefit from these practices (the poor or everyone), how (directly
or indirectly) and when (immediately or gradually). It is suggested that extensive use of the actor-oriented
sociological approach to understanding social dynamics in both science and development can provide a
means of understanding the subtleties involved in innovation practices and its use should be adopted to
address structural challenges within the National System of Innovation that mediate against the contribution
of innovations to the poor for inclusive development.
Introduction
Two years after South Africa’s first democratic elections, the National Department of Arts, Culture, Science and
Technology introduced the 1996 White Paper on Science and Technology1 – a necessary and progressive document
that aimed to change the thinking about innovation in South Africa and restructure the country’s National System
of Innovation (NSI). The White Paper was guided by the experiences of innovation systems in other countries,
particularly those in North America and Western Europe, and in emerging economies in Asia and Latin America.
It emphasised the changes required to shift South Africa’s relatively dysfunctional NSI away from its historical
focus on labour-intensive commodity production and the military-industrial complex of the latter apartheid years.
Unfortunately, policy implementation and related strategies have struggled:
•
to effectively change the structure of the NSI
•
to make the NSI more representative of key innovation actors by accommodating the marginalised, the private
sector and civil society
•
to broaden the understanding around innovation activities and reduce the bias of the traditional focus on
technical- and business-oriented outputs
•
to expand the ideas about and practices related to social innovation as a means of making the outputs of
innovation more relevant to society to encourage inclusive development.
Received: 11 Apr. 2014
Revised: 31 Oct. 2014
Accepted: 16 Jan. 2015
KEYWORDS:
social innovation; inclusive
development; rural
municipalities; actor-oriented
approach
HOW TO CITE:
Hart TGB, Ramoroka KH,
Jacobs PT, Letty BA. Revealing
the social face of innovation.
S Afr J Sci. 2015;111(9/10),
Art. #2014-0126, 6 pages.
http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/
sajs.2015/20140126
© 2015. The Author(s).
Published under a Creative
Commons Attribution Licence.
South African Journal of Science
http://www.sajs.co.za
While many of the structural constraints of the system undoubtedly remain, the notion of social innovation is
probably the least examined area, being largely overlooked beyond any ‘trickle-down’ social and economic benefits
that arise from technical and business innovations. The 2012 Final Report of the Ministerial Review of South
Africa’s Science, Technology and Innovation Landscape2 also drew attention to the need to focus on the poor and
ensure they benefit from NSI activities, but the report struggles to portray what the idea of social innovation should
encompass, its purpose beyond notions of poverty reduction and how to ensure its place in the NSI so that it has
far-reaching, direct and positive social outcomes for marginalised members of society.
Despite the trend in recent years to acknowledge the desirability for the use of innovations to improve society at
large, as well as specific vulnerable groups within society,3,4 the meaning and use of social innovation is contested
and numerous broad and narrow definitions exist. Their existence makes it challenging to implement such an
idea effectively and efficiently into South Africa’s science, technology and innovation (STI) landscape. In trying to
address this challenge, we ask some pertinent questions and attempt to answer them pragmatically:
•
Do we need a special category of innovation such as social innovation?
•
Does social innovation require its own specific place in the NSI?
•
Are current definitions and understandings of this term useful to policymaking and intervention?
•
How could we improve our understanding of innovation generally, and social innovation particularly?
We start by briefly reviewing key innovation policy documents since 1996 to understand how social innovation
is interpreted within South Africa’s policy environment. To contextualise this understanding more broadly, our
focus then shifts to the contemporary global understandings of innovation and social innovation in particular.
Using evidence obtained from the Rural Innovation Assessment Toolbox (RIAT) pilot study conducted during
2012 and 2013, we show that understandings of innovation and social innovation are extremely blurred in South
1
Volume 111 | Number 9/10
September/October 2015
Research Article
Page 2 of 6
Revealing the social face of innovation
Africa’s rural areas because STI policy ideas have not been effectively
disseminated to innovators in these areas. Why does this situation arise?
The absence of a clear understanding and reasons for differences in
innovation perceptions and practices suggests that social innovation
cannot be simply included into STI policies with the expectation that
doing so will ensure broader societal benefits. Drawing on work from the
sociology of science and rural development, we argue that in order to
bring about change that will reduce structural obstacles within the NSI,
particularly those that mediate against social and economic innovation
for and by the poor and vulnerable sectors of society, one needs to
explore the roles of actors throughout the innovation system and
consider their perceptions and world views and what motivates them.
These factors are fundamentally different. The most pragmatic way to
do this is to adopt an actor-oriented sociology of innovation approach to
understanding the social subtleties in the innovation process. Subtleties
include what models are dominant and why; who gets what resources
for innovation purposes; and what ideas and products are diffused and
encouraged. Greater understanding of existing challenges will enable us
to effectively address challenges and encourage the STI landscape to be
more inclusive, not only in what it does, but in how it does it.
of the NSI’s contribution to technology and innovation for poverty reduction
strategies and improved coordination in terms of resource provision,
development and implementation. However, there is no indication in these
two documents of the acknowledgement or relevance of less technologically
centred innovations such as social organisation and innovative networks that
mitigate risk and increase broader participation in society.
Acknowledging the absence of clarity about social innovation and the
poor in previous strategies and policy instruments, the 2012 Ministerial
Review specifically aimed to illustrate what the idea of social innovation
could encompass.2 Firstly, the Review Committee equated social
innovation with innovation for development (a term itself shrouded in
multiple understandings, meanings and practices7) and stated that social
innovation should address priorities arising from unemployment and
poverty. For the Committee, this means that social innovation must have
social purposes and involve the full range of societal actors, including
the public sector, private sector, civil society and the poor. In some way
it must be inclusive. However, this focus appears to be strongly related
to national development priorities and fails to emphasise the importance
of social innovation to local development.8,9 Secondly, following
observations by rural researchers,10 the Review Committee also
acknowledged that development for the poor should consider not only
the poor as consumers of innovation, but also their immense potential
for creative and active agency,2 while noting that structural conditions
limit their ability to exercise their agency to the fullest. The recognition of
the poor as both innovators and consumers of innovations is in itself an
important shift away from the narrow view that innovations benefit the
poor by means of technological trickle-down effects.
Innovation policy and strategy in South Africa
The 1996 White Paper recognised the importance of both formal –
government, higher education and research institutions, private sector
and civil society and informal – households and individuals – actors
in the NSI.1 Highlighting the experiences of developing economies in
Asia and Latin America, the 1996 White Paper acknowledged that an
exclusive focus on technical- and business-oriented innovation was
insufficient and that social innovation should be included in the national
innovation strategy. Unfortunately, social innovation was never clearly
articulated and was only vaguely considered to relate to innovations
that produced or improved social or welfare benefits. This was qualified
with a need for a primary focus on the vulnerable sectors of society,
particularly the poor and unemployed. Only the first and the last of
the six goals indicated in the White Paper made any mention of social
innovation, but failed to define this clearly. Goal One emphasised the
need to ‘establish an efficient, well-coordinated and integrated system
of technological and social innovation’ while Goal Six acknowledged a
need for improved ‘support to all types of innovation fundamental to
sustainable economic growth, employment creation, equity through
redress and social development’1. Despite the lack of clear articulation
of social innovation, the impression conveyed is that social innovation
and development are intertwined in some way.
Rather than adopting a broad definition of social innovation, following
Petersen11, the Review Committee considered the primary focus of
social innovation in the South African context to be ‘on any appropriate
technologies or interventions that can address the challenges of poor
communities’2. Of course such challenges faced by poor communities
and the possible solutions to these are not simply social but include
economic, historical, political and spatial considerations. Although not
clearly stated, the adoption of Petersen’s perspective suggests that the
Committee is in fact more concerned with promoting innovations that are
inclusive and have a developmental focus, rather than simply focusing
on innovations that have welfare and social benefits. In other words,
the Committee seems to be promoting innovations for development,
which include the poor as actors and beneficiaries, and involve technical
and social innovations with poverty mitigating economic and social
outcomes. The remainder of the Review Committee’s discussion on
social innovation concentrates on listing current and potential flagship
projects, strategies and organisations across civil society, the private
and the public sectors who could participate in such projects.2 Perhaps
the most salient features of the Review Committee’s discussion is the
acknowledgement that the poor are themselves creative and innovative
actors and agents in their livelihood and social improvement strategies,
but that these activities are often constrained. Unfortunately, ways to
overcome fundamental constraints, such as access to resources as
a result of prevailing structural conditions within the NSI and society,
are not addressed by the Review Committee, possibly because there
is limited awareness of the multiple constraints, and especially how
these are manifested amongst marginal groups and actors. Also, the
Committee seems to confuse social innovation with processes and
outcomes that are perhaps better-termed pro-poor innovation given
that the focus is not simply on welfare and well-being but more on the
role technological products can play with regard to creating economic
and social improvements in the lives of the poor and marginalised. This
perspective is only one perspective on social innovation.
Succeeding policy documents, such as the Innovation towards a
Knowledge-based Economy: Ten-year Plan for South Africa 2008–2018,5
generally underplayed the idea of social innovation in terms of improved
social or welfare benefits in favour of highly technical innovations in line
with the Global Grand Challenges, through which any benefits to the poor
would occur slowly and indirectly at best. As part of the Human and
Social Dynamics Global Grand Challenge, the Department of Science and
Technology (DST) recognised the importance of human behaviour in relation
to science and technology and proposed areas of multidisciplinary research
to better understand such behaviour as a means of using and informing
technological innovations and contributing to greater global understanding of
human behaviour. It is proposed that the reduction of persistent and chronic
poverty in the country will transpire through technological intervention in the
provision of better and affordable services, such as health, energy, water and
sanitation. Information and communication technologies (ICTs) are seen as
crucial for information dissemination and education. However, these ideas
are not clearly linked to the development of the poor and marginalised and
aim instead at macro or national contributions to specific sectors such as
agriculture, space technology, energy and the green economy, and security.
This 10-year plan is partly a quick reaction to some of the key criticisms of
the 2007 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
Review of the Innovation Policy of South Africa6 and focuses on developing
high-level innovation skills in ways that could increase business and research
collaboration with OECD countries. The OECD Review noted that ‘trickledown’ benefits are insufficient to immediately address unemployment and
poverty. The reviewers highlighted the importance for improved prioritising
South African Journal of Science
http://www.sajs.co.za
What do we understand innovation to be?
Increased interest in and research about innovation has acknowledged the
importance of innovation in service and low-technology manufacturing
industries, i.e. those outside the mainstream research and development
intensive industries, such as high-technology manufacturing.3,12-14 Such
acknowledgement has led to broadening the definition of innovation to one
that moves beyond traditional industries and the traditional approach of
2
Volume 111 | Number 9/10
September/October 2015
Research Article
Page 3 of 6
Revealing the social face of innovation
concentrating on technological product and process innovation. The result
is the consideration of social arrangements or organisational structures
and social outcomes or products that are equally and fundamentally
important for an innovative economy and society as a whole.
neighbourhood or kin-based work parties, grazing and land-management
committees, and even various product distribution and sales methods.
We term this the social collaboration definition.
The third definition of social innovation is a combination of the first
two. Social innovations are those new products, services, models and
practices that concurrently meet social requirements and involve new
social collaborations. To be considered social innovations under this
definition, innovations must have both a social means and end, in that
potential recipients must decide what has to be done and do it (but can
draw on external resources and advice). We term this the social means
and ends definition. Furthermore, such innovations must achieve broad
systemic transformation,14 in the sense that the prevailing structure of
the innovation system (global, national, regional and local) is altered
and improved. However, like the first definition, innovations occurring in
commercial enterprises are excluded. A social process is used to bring
about a social outcome and it is the presence of new social processes
that catalyse systemic change.
According to the third edition of the OSLO Manual12 and a review of
innovation by Gault13, the contemporary understanding of innovation
is that it involves both processes and the outputs of these processes.
The innovation processes are generally accepted to consist of four
activities: adoption (the use of innovations), adaption (the improvement
of innovations), diffusion (the sharing or transfer of innovations) and
invention (the creation of new innovations).12 These activities need not
be linear although they can be. The outputs of the innovation processes
are now generally agreed to include four main types: product (goods
and services) innovations, process innovations, marketing strategies
and organisational arrangements.12,13 In order to be considered an
innovation, the product, process, marketing strategy or organisational
arrangement must at least be novel to the user, and must be valorised
or wanted.13 Novelty or newness need not extend beyond the firsttime user to society15, while traditionally, value has been couched in
commercial terms in the sense that the innovation exclusively improves
profits or improves processes that in turn improve profits. Value can
also be simply the improvement of knowledge, such as in the case of
research undertaken by different disciplines for immediately contributing
to the body of knowledge, improving methods to do so, or having the
expectation of contributing to social and economic needs over the long
term. It is probably only since the turn of this century that social value
(such as improving well-being and welfare) has been acknowledged as
a means to valorise innovation.16 Very simply, value implies usefulness
to the user – the more useful, the greater the value.
However, is it correct, or even relevant and helpful, to distinguish
innovations with social purposes and means from other innovations,
purely based on the processes involved and the intended outcomes,
benefits and beneficiaries? Clearly, given the numerous examples, the
social collaboration definition focuses on the social arrangement of
people irrespective of their location in formal or informal commercial
or social enterprises and the formal or informal nature of the social
arrangement. Consequently, if we are to talk about social innovation,
it seems rather naïve to ignore social innovations occurring in
commercially oriented enterprises20, irrespective of the scale of such
enterprises21. The sustained presence of social arrangements suggests
that they must have benefits for all actors involved. Evidence from the
RIAT pilot study suggests that perhaps we should not be too quick to
narrow the parameters of social innovation.
Despite the multiple and contrasting ideas about innovation and how to
achieve greater impacts from innovation, some neoliberal economists
still argue that the benefits of innovation ultimately trickle-down indirectly
to the most needy and that therein lies the social and economic value of
all types of innovations, irrespective of purpose. For example, innovative
firms can employ a small number of extra people to develop products
that generate revenue as well as improve other aspects of society, such
as lowering the carbon footprint or providing improved medicines,
transportation systems or communication systems – activities that can
be considered socially innovative. However, the increasing awareness of
the need for more direct benefits for the large number of marginalised
and vulnerable members of society, and their role as innovators, has
resulted in the call for more direct socially focused innovations.
Evidence from innovating enterprises in South
Africa
Using a purposive snowball sampling technique as part of the RIAT
pilot study in four South African rural district municipalities (RDMs),
we formally interviewed representatives from 482 formal and informal
enterprises using a structured questionnaire which comprised qualitative
and quantitative questions. The methodology was approved by the
Research Ethics Committee of the Human Sciences Research Council
(protocol no. REC5/24/04/13). Identified enterprises were screened by
interviewees and had to have been engaged in at least one of the four
innovation activities during 2011 or 2012. Enterprises from the primary
sector (agriculture, forestry, mining and minerals) accounted for 30% of
the sample. Those from the secondary sector (manufacturing and energy)
accounted for 16% of the sample and those from the tertiary sector
(providers of tertiary services including ICT, health, education, finance
and community services) accounted for 54%. While not conclusive,
this evidence suggests that the tertiary sector enterprises are important
innovation actors in the sampled RDMs. Although the public enterprises
had the largest share of actors (71%) in the tertiary sector, almost half of
the private (49%) and non- profit (48%) enterprises were also involved
in this sector. This evidence suggests that social innovation, at least in
terms of providing basic services and welfare benefits, is undertaken by
a significant share of enterprises based in the RDMs.
Contemporary understandings of social
innovation
A review of recent international literature on social innovation17 suggests
that although the term is contested, there are three primary definitions
of social innovation used globally. However, each definition has its own
dissenters who propose further qualifications to emphasise what should
be categorised as a social innovation.
Firstly, social innovations are largely considered to be products (goods
and services) with human welfare or social benefit outcomes, including
better health, education, improved water access, cost-efficient energy
devices and products that improve communication and transportation.
The output is socially oriented and for our purposes, we term this
the social product definition. However, some emphasise that to be
considered as social innovations, such products must be social and
public goods.18 In this regard, innovations in the private sector, such as
vaccines, are excluded, as they are not public goods although they have
social benefit. Others argue that Internet search engines developed in the
private sector and owned by private enterprises are social innovations
because the value to society outweighs profits to private sector.19
Main innovation activities
Most respondents perceive that innovation is something new but should
involve technology and improve the revenue of the user. Such ideas
reaffirm traditional perceptions of innovation being linked to technology
and business. Broad ideas of innovation activities were not initially
acknowledged by respondents but when directly asked about innovation
activities, we see in Table 1 that of those respondents involved in
innovation activities during 2012, many were actively engaged in
activities such as adoption (53%), adaption (29%) and diffusion (24%)
of existing innovations. Only a handful of rural-based enterprises were
engaged in the invention of new innovations (7%). Public enterprises
The second definition of social innovation considers the organisation or
arrangement of people and things within enterprises or social settings
(informal or formal organisations and arrangements).17 There is a social
process. Examples include trade unions, bargaining councils, worker
forums, job sharing, stokvels, neighbourhood watch committees, rural
South African Journal of Science
http://www.sajs.co.za
3
Volume 111 | Number 9/10
September/October 2015
Research Article
Page 4 of 6
Revealing the social face of innovation
and non-profit enterprises, many of which are involved in the community
services sector, tended to be more active with regard to adopting and
diffusing innovations. On the other hand, the private sector enterprises,
which are mainly profit driven, tended to be more involved in adoption
and subsequent adaption.
found among public enterprises and less than 20% of both private and
non-profit organisations had any awareness of the concept. These figures
are fairly dismal, but reinforce the fact that social innovation has not been
actively articulated or disseminated since its initial inclusion into South
African innovation policy in 1996.
Awareness of science, technology and innovation policy and
support
Reasons for innovating
Table 3 illustrates the responses of the enterprises with regard to their main
reasons for innovating. Commercial purposes include increasing profits
of enterprise and market share, meeting subsistence and survival needs,
and innovation to improve the body of knowledge (activities undertaken
by research institutes). Social improvement includes products, services
and arrangements that directly improve society and the poorer members
in particular, and is involved in research with this focus. While 2% of the
respondents were uncertain why their enterprises were innovating, more
than half (56%) reported that this was for commercial purposes. The
majority of public sector enterprises (76%) were innovating for social
improvement purposes and the majority of private sector enterprises
(86%) were innovating for commercial purposes. Interestingly, the gap
between these purposes is not so great for the non-profit enterprises
although the greatest share (56%) focused on social improvement. This
gap might be because of the high level of competition for resources
to provide services in this sector and the resultant need to supplement
grant income in creative ways – ways that require innovations that
increase income. In addition, it might reflect the fact that some nonprofit enterprises, especially those linked to government projects and
Only 28% of the enterprises acknowledged an awareness and
understanding of South Africa’s STI policies. Often this knowledge was
based on specific sector-related polices, such as those emanating from
specific line departments other than DST, rather than the national strategy
as a whole. Almost two-thirds (63%) of the enterprises investigated
were aware of government support for innovation activities in the
private sector. However, the most aware were the non-profit enterprises
(73%). Slightly more than a third (38%) of all enterprises had applied
for government support, with the private sector enterprises having the
lowest share of applicants (22%) and the non-profit enterprises having
the highest share, at 59%.
Social innovation awareness
The awareness of social innovation amongst these rural-based enterprises
was even lower than their understanding of STI policies. In Table 2 we
see that only 22% of the respondent rural enterprises were aware of the
concept of social innovation. The greatest share of awareness (36%) was
Table 1:
Share (%) of enterprises engaged in innovation activities by enterprise type during 2012
Innovation activity
Valid
observations†
Share (%) of public
enterprises
(n=96)
Share (%) of private
enterprises
(n=201)
Share (%) of non-profit
enterprises
(n=179)
Share (%) of all enterprises
innovating during 2012
(n=476)
Yes
34
7
7
7
7
No
441
93
93
93
93
Yes
252
45
58
52
53
No
224
55
42
48
47
Yes
139
20
37
26
29
No
338
80
63
74
71
Yes
116
29
19
28
24
No
359
71
81
72
76
Invent
Adopt
Adapt
Diffuse
†
Valid observations refers to the number of non-missing values
Table 2:
Share (%) of enterprises aware of the term social innovation by enterprise type
Aware of social
innovation
Share (%) of public enterprises
(n=97)
Share (%) of private enterprises
(n=202)
Share (%) of non-profit enterprises
(n=179)
Share (%) of all enterprises
(n=478)
Yes
37
19
17
22
No
63
81
83
78
Table 3:
Share (%) of enterprises engaging in innovation activities for commercial or social welfare purposes by enterprise type
Main purpose of innovation
activities
Share (%) of public enterprises Share (%) of private enterprises Share (%) of non-profit enterprises
(n=98)
(n=202)
(n=182)
Share (%) of all enterprises
(n=482)
Commercial purposes
22
86
41
56
Social improvement purposes
76
13
57
42
2
1
2
2
Uncertain
South African Journal of Science
http://www.sajs.co.za
4
Volume 111 | Number 9/10
September/October 2015
Research Article
Page 5 of 6
Revealing the social face of innovation
to producing social goods and services exclusively for the poor.
Alarmingly, while innovation occurs in rural areas, very little seems to
be immediately linked to or acknowledged by the broader system of
innovation unless it is highly formalised. This is especially the case for
non-traditional innovations and those undertaken by the poor in marginal
areas. These factors make it necessary to consider the prevalence of
structural challenges that possibly permeate the NSI and mediate against
increased innovation in rural areas. A simple focus on social innovation
in any of the three definitions is inadequate. The focus must be broader
in our view, so that it includes both social and economic purposes of
innovation, as well as technological and social processes and products.
Currently any ‘labelling’ of something as a social innovation runs the risk
of confining it too simply to the social product definition.
community groups, aim to generate an income for members as part of
poverty-reduction strategies.
Local understandings of social innovation
Local understandings of social innovation are often contested and do
not always coincide with those used by policymakers and researchers.
Responses to in-depth qualitative questions indicate that a fair number
of respondents representing rural enterprises believe they are involved in
innovation activities that have social or welfare purposes, in the sense
that there is a very direct link to providing or improving social services,
addressing community needs and helping others in their immediate
proximity. This belief was particularly so for respondents from public and
non-profit enterprises who mentioned targeting the poor, less fortunate
and marginalised. However, some of the respondents representing
private enterprises perceived their profit-making products, processes
and strategies as being social innovations in that these ultimately have a
social benefit, even if only indirectly.
Similar to Neumeier23, we propose that a first step out of the existing
policy and real-world impasse would be to adopt a sociological actororiented approach to understanding the social life of innovation generally,
irrespective of the social, technical or economic outputs, purposes
and class of beneficiaries. An actor-oriented sociological approach to
innovation would enable a better understanding of the social, cultural,
political, economic, historical and structural factors that influence
innovation activities and the capability to innovate. The actor-oriented
works of Latour24 on the sociology of science, Long25 on the sociology
of rural development and Mosse and Lewis26 on local and international
development, provide relevant insights into the ‘social life’ or ‘real world’
of science and development projects. By focusing on the actors we
are able to understand what is taking place and why, along with the
relationships between the various actors involved at different levels of
the global, national, regional and local innovation system and innovation
activity.24 A similar sociological perspective of innovation would show
that actors are often in conflict with one another over resources and have
different perceptions on needs and contrasting world views, despite
outward appearances of collaboration.23,25 Inconsistencies in processes
and support are revealed when often there first appear to be none,
deepening our understanding of the dynamic and changing relationships
between people and people, and people and things.24
Some farmers indicated that the use of improved seeds, plant material
and inputs that improved food quality and availability improved national
food security, even if the use of these technological innovations ultimately
increased food prices. Similarly, some credit providers argued that the
use of innovative microfinance arrangements that ensure the repayments
of loans, rather than their affordability, were also social innovations in
that by ensuring repayment they were ultimately able to provide credit to
more people. Others suggested that creating a few jobs for other people,
while significantly increasing the income of the innovating entrepreneur,
were also social innovations because these activities enabled others to
earn an income, thereby reducing unemployment, even if this income
was far below that of the entrepreneur.
Undoubtedly, the above are innovations – but are they social innovations?
While the social impacts of these examples are very indirect and at best
have a limited and gradual effect on the well-being of the less fortunate,
they also have potentially far-reaching negative effects. These negative
effects include raising the price of foodstuffs and decreasing farm
employment opportunities, increasing the debt of those whom can ill
afford it and increasing the number of low-paid jobs. Although there
are some elements of social benefit, the primary aim of such ‘social
innovations’ still appears to be the immediate improvement of enterprise
turnover and revenue, and as a result there is no tangible benefit for the
poor.
Any discussion about the social qualities of innovation must also look
at the social process or life of innovation. This is a necessary first step
to understanding innovation processes, challenges and contributions to
society. To ignore this would be to overlook a crucial element of innovation,
i.e., it is not simply a technocratic process, but one that is governed
by political, social, economic and historical factors. Most innovations
have some degree of social benefit, either for immediate users or for
others who are indirect beneficiaries. This characteristic enables people
to suggest that almost all innovations have a social benefit. As noted in
the current study, some innovations may have negative long-term effects
that are not immediately acknowledged or realised. It is important to
understand why some innovations are acknowledged, encouraged and
supported, rewarded and diffused while others are simply ignored or
unrecognised as innovations. This necessitates a deep understanding of
the actors involved at different tiers of the innovation system.
In these four RDMs, the perceptions of innovators about the purpose
and beneficiaries of social innovation are blurred, although there is an
indication that the poor or less fortunate should benefit more directly – a
view mainly expressed by public and non-profit sector organisations.
Given this context, to simply introduce a new and rather broad concept,
such as social innovation, into South Africa’s innovation system is likely
to create more problems than it solves. Already there are numerous
terms used in the development discourse that are simply buzzwords
adopted by actors and agencies to promote and generate support for
their ideals. These terms include empowerment, pro-poor, participation
and poverty reduction. Unfortunately, they have multiple meanings and
can be used and translated by actors and agencies as they desire and
for very different purposes.22 The concept of social innovation, with its
multiple foci and qualifications faces similar challenges.23
The RIAT pilot study shows that, in rural areas, awareness of STI policy
by innovating enterprises is low, especially innovations with social
objectives, and that while awareness of the availability of support is
relatively high, the support seeking activities are low. The study also
suggests that a significant share of innovation takes place in the tertiary
or service sector. However, innovation in rural areas is generally equated
with agricultural innovation and less so with mining (the two key actors
in the primary sector). Why does innovation in the tertiary sector
remain unacknowledged? Invention is low in rural areas but there is no
clear explanation for this unless it has to do with how resources are
currently distributed within the NSI. Innovations with social foci are not
as prevalent as those with a commercial focus but comprising 42% of
the sample they are significant and deserve to be acknowledged. Even
if the focus of such innovations is not in line with the multiple current
definitions, their contribution to society needs to be a focus of policy
research, and better understood.
Towards an actor-oriented sociology of
innovation
At present, South African innovation policy tends to lump social
innovation with pro-poor development, focusing on products that better
serve the poor, and closely linking the definition of social innovation to a
social product. We see from the international literature that this definition
is insufficient.20,21,23 It ignores innovation as social collaboration – i.e.
innovative social processes. It also excludes the broader product
and means definition, with its structural altering intentions. However,
our research indicates that clear definitions of social innovation are
not possible, as they do not exist neatly in South African rural areas.
Furthermore, innovation of a social nature is not simply confined
South African Journal of Science
http://www.sajs.co.za
5
Volume 111 | Number 9/10
September/October 2015
Research Article
Page 6 of 6
Revealing the social face of innovation
2.
DST (Department of Science and Technology). Department of Science and
Technology Ministerial Review Committee on the science, technology and
innovation landscape in South Africa: Final report 2012 March. Pretoria:
Department of Science and Technology; 2012.
3.
Marcelle G. Editorial. Int J Technol Learn Innov Dev. 2012;5(1/2):1–11.
4.
Gupta AK. Innovations for the poor by the poor. Int J Technol Learn Innov Dev.
2012;5(1/2):28–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJTLID.2012.044875
5.
DST (Department of Science and Technology). Innovation towards a knowledgebased economy: Ten-year plan for South Africa (2008–2018). Pretoria:
Department of Science and Technology; 2007.
6.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). OECD reviews
of innovation policy: South Africa. Brussels: OECD; 2007.
Conclusions
The evidence from the RIAT pilot study used in this paper shows that
there are gaps in policy implementation since the introduction of the
White Paper on Science and Technology in 1996, while the review of
recent policy papers shows that these papers do not sufficiently address
the gaps. As Neumeier23 points out, there is a need to go beyond the
simple assessment of rural innovation projects and activities to explicitly
investigate and interrogate factors that promote or constrain innovation
in the area between top-down and bottom-up rural development
approaches. A sociological approach presents a refreshing research
focus to understand the social face of innovation activities and outcomes
generally, without the obscurity created by multiple definitions of social
innovation. It is an approach that is more encompassing than those
currently suggested in policy documents and is drawn from evidence of
innovating enterprises in marginal rural district municipalities.
An actor-oriented sociological approach to innovation provides a point
of departure for a deeper understanding of capabilities and access to
resources, decision-making and the reasons for these. Perhaps more
importantly, when structural transformation is necessary, as in South
Africa, this approach could highlight the existing power relations
within the NSI, across the broader STI and development policy-making
frameworks, and the effects of these relationships at different levels of
these frameworks. Inevitably, this approach will deepen our awareness
of who benefits (and who does not) from innovation policies and
interventions and why and how this occurs. It would also identify more
clearly the social and economic factors that underpin the innovation
process, purposes and outcomes more clearly and would put these in
a context in which it would be easier to understand the developmental
impacts of innovation and innovations broadly without being confined
simply to process and outcomes.
Gerometta J, Haussermann H, Longo G. Social innovation and civil society in urban
governance: Strategies for an inclusive city. Urban Stud. 2005;42(11):2007–
2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00420980500279851
12. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development/Statistical Office of
the European Communities (OECD/Eurostat). The measurement of scientific and
technological activities – Oslo manual: Guidelines for collecting and interpreting
innovation data. 3rd ed. Paris: OECD/Eurostat; 2005.
13. Gault F. Innovation strategies for a global economy: Development, implementation,
measurement and management. Ottawa: International Development Research
Centre; 2010.
14. Young Foundation / Social Innovation eXchange (YF/SIX). Study on social
innovation. A paper prepared by the Social Innovation Exchange (SIX) and the
Young Foundation for the Bureau of European Policy Advisors [document on the
Internet]. c2010 [cited 2012 Dec 06]. Available from: http://youngfoundation.org/
wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Study-on-Social-Innovation-for-the-Bureau-ofEuropean-Policy-Advisors-March-2010.pdf
15. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press; 1995.
16. Moulaert F, Martinelli F, Swyngedouw E, Gonzalez S. Towards alternative
model(s) of local innovation. Urban Stud. 2005;42(11):1969–1990. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/00420980500279893
17. Hart T, Jacobs P, Mangqalaza H. Key concepts in innovation studies – Towards
working definitions. RIAT Concept Paper Series – Concept Paper 2. Pretoria:
Human Sciences Research Council; 2012.
18. Harris M, Albury D. The innovation imperative. The LAB Discussion Paper, 2009
March. London: NESTA; 2009.
In this article, we draw on evidence obtained during the Rural Innovation
Assessment Toolbox (RIAT) Pilot study undertaken by Economic
Performance and Development (EPD) researchers of the Human
Sciences Research Council during 2012 and 2013. We acknowledge
the financial support of the Department of Science and Technology as
well as the collegial inputs and discussions with fellow researchers
Brandon Bodenstein, Hlokoma Mangqalaza, Alex Mhula and Makale
Ngwenya. The comments and suggestions of the Associate Editor, Pearl
Sithole, and two unknown reviewers are deeply appreciated. The views
expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those
of any other party.
19. Phillis JA, Deiglmeier K, Miller DT. 2008. Rediscovering social innovation. Stanford
Soc Innov Rev. 2008;Fall:33–43.
20. Datta PB. Exploring the evolution of a social innovation: A case study from India.
Int J Technol Manag Sustain Dev 2011;10(1):55–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1386/
tmsd.10.1.55_1
21. Godoi-deSousa E, Valadao Junior VM. Social enterprises in Brazil: Socially
produced knowledge versus social innovation. J Technol Manag Innov
2013;8:166–176.
22. Cornwall A, Brock C. What do buzzwords do for development policy? A critical
look at ‘participation’, ‘empowerment’ and ‘poverty reduction’. Third World Q.
2005;26(7):1043–1060. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01436590500235603
Authors’ contributions
23. Neumeier S. Why do social innovations in rural development matter and should
they be considered more seriously in rural development research? – Proposal for a
stronger focus on social innovations in rural development research. Sociol Ruralis.
2011;52(1):48–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2011.00553.x
T.G.B.H. was the lead author who conceptualised the study and
conducted the literature review and qualitative analyses. K.H.R. and P.T.J.
conducted the quantitative analysis and contributed to rewriting various
drafts. B.A.L. assisted in the qualitative and thematic analysis and the
rewriting of various drafts.
24. Latour B. Aramis or the love of technology [translated by Catherine Porter].
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1996.
25. Long N. Development sociology: Actor perspectives. London: Routledge; 2001.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203398531
References
26. Mosse D, Lewis D. Theoretical approaches to brokerage and translation in
development. In: Lewis D, Mosse D, editors. Development brokers and translators:
The ethnography of aid and agencies. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian; 2006. p. 1–26.
DACST (Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology). White paper on
science & technology: Preparing for the 21st century. Pretoria: Department of
Arts, Culture, Science and Technology; 1996.
http://www.sajs.co.za
9.
11. Petersen F. 2011. Specialist report on social innovation and sustainability. Paper
prepared for the Ministerial Review Committee on the science, technology and
innovation landscape in South Africa. Pretoria: DST; 2011 [unpublished report].
Acknowledgements
South African Journal of Science
Willis K. Theories and practices of development. New York: Routledge; 2009.
Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy, Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD). Fostering innovation to address social
challenges. Paris: OECD; 2011.
10. Cousins B. Rural innovation systems. Paper prepared for the Ministerial Review
Committee on the science, technology and innovation landscape in South Africa.
Pretoria: DST; 2011 [unpublished report].
In order to determine the broader developmental contributions of innovation,
the adoption of an actor-oriented sociology of innovation appears to have
much to offer to our understanding of innovation actors, agency, processes
and their outcomes along with the nature of the innovation system. This
can be considered a necessary step to deepening our understanding of
the national, sub-national, regional and sectoral innovation systems in
South Africa and lead towards identifying the structural and systemic
changes, beyond repetitive quantitative monitoring and the simple creation
of new entities and new foci, as proposed in the 2012 Ministerial Review
document. Innovation, including social innovation in its broadest sense,
cannot be truly understood without a sociological perspective.
1.
7.
8.
6
Volume 111 | Number 9/10
September/October 2015