CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS

published: 26 February 2021

doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2021.642289

Ecosystems of Co-Creation
Jennifer Eckhardt *†, Christoph Kaletka *†, Daniel Krüger *†, Karina Maldonado-Mariscal *†
and Ann Christin Schulz *†

Sozialforschungsstelle Dortmund, Faculty for Social Sciences, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany

Citizen science is becoming increasingly important as a new and participative mode of

knowledge production. An essential element of citizen science is co-creation. Co-creation
is by no means limited to a modus operandi for participatory science, but introduces a form
of collaborative way of working with society in the sense of citizen science. Results from the
H2020 SISCODE project show that co-creation is located inside and between different
sectors of society. This article focuses on the question of how co-creation can be better
understood in different contexts, and presents a heuristic model that has already been
used for case study analyses in the SISCODE project. After an introduction to the field of
Edited by: co-creation and a brief description of the heuristic model, its capability is exemplarily
Andrzej Klimczuk,
Warsaw School of Economics, Poland demonstrated via application to two selected cases, followed by a discussion of central
Reviewed by: learnings and implications for further research on co-creation.
Sergio Barile,
Keywords: co-creation, social innovation, design, citizen science, ecosystem
Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
Hans Põldoja,
Tallinn University, Estonia INTRODUCTION
*Correspondence:
Jennifer Eckhardt In the last decades, there has been an increasing political will in the European Union to democratize
jennifer.eckhardt@tu-dortmund.de innovation processes and to strengthen societal participation in innovation and research. A major
Christoph Kaletka reason for this development seems to be the goal to find better solutions for social problems with the
christoph.kaletka@tu-dortmund.de
participation of all actors affected by these solutions (BEPA, 2010). For this purpose, the concept of
Daniel Krüger
daniel2.krueger@tu-dortmund.de
responsible research and innovation (RRI) and the idea of mission-oriented research were
Karina Maldonado-Mariscal established (Mazzucato, 2018) and became prominent. The call for more participation of civil
karina.maldonado@tu-dortmund.de society in research and innovation is linked to the rise of citizen science, a concept that refers to the
Ann Christin Schulz opening of science toward society (Hecker and Wicke, 2019; Ostermann-Miyashita et al., 2019).
annchristin.schulz@tu-dortmund.de Tried out by natural sciences with a focus on sustainability, this concept is nowadays shaping
†
These authors have contributed practice-oriented research in social science, too (Kullenberg and Kasperowski, 2016; Hecker et al.,
equally to this work 2018). Not only science opens up to society but also politics and business involve citizens in
producing new knowledge and in developing innovations. The results are increasingly participatory,
Specialty section: joint innovation processes produced by various stakeholders with diverse knowledge and stakes and
This article was submitted to from various contexts. Such joint, participatory innovation processes are described with the concept
Sociological Theory, of co-creation (Leclercq et al., 2016; Hochgerner, 2018). In this respect, co-creation, understood as a
a section of the journal
participatory multi-stakeholder innovation process, forms the context in which citizen science is
Frontiers in Sociology
realized. However, despite a consensus on the participative, cross-sectoral character of co-creation,
Received: 15 December 2020
comprehensive definitions are still not established in research. Co-creation can be understood as a
Accepted: 20 January 2021
method, process, or service (Sanders and Stappers, 2008; Brandsen and Honingh, 2018). It can be
Published: 26 February 2021
used in the public sector, society, business, and universities (Voorberg et al., 2014; Jørgensen, 2018).
Citation:
One of the main characteristics of co-creation is the value of collaboration with different
Eckhardt J, Kaletka C, Krüger D,
Maldonado-Mariscal K and Schulz AC
stakeholders, the creation of a collaborative platform, and the involvement of stakeholders in
(2021) Ecosystems of Co-Creation. different innovation processes (Leclercq et al., 2016; Hochgerner, 2018). Some authors recognize at
Front. Sociol. 6:642289. least three types of co-creation with citizens: co-implementation, codesign and initiation, and
doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2021.642289 processes in which citizens participate in different ways (Voorberg et al., 2014).

Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 1 February 2021 | Volume 6 | Article 642289

Eckhardt et al. Ecosystems of Co-Creation

In SISCODE (codesign for society in innovation and science), pattern to describe both social innovation and—with adaptions
a three-year European Union–funded project, the use of co- presented in this paper—co-creative initiatives and practices.
creation led by design principles takes center stage. Assuming Leading over to the case-study examples of its application,
that the use of design methods and principles plays a crucial role Application to Co-creation Initiatives briefly explains how the
in co-creation and its successful implementation, SISCODE heuristic was adapted for the SISCODE project.
wants to make sense of practices of co-creation by design
(“co-design”) in different contexts. From the successful
implementations of co-design, conclusions should be drawn Co-Creation and Its Different Contexts in
for a better exploitation of co-design in the fields of RRI and Innovation
policy-making. To do so, a theoretical background through an Co-creation has been a widespread concept implemented in
analysis of European cases and real-life experimentations was marketing, whereas other fields have recognized its valuable
developed. The research heuristic, used as a lens to examine elements of collaboration, value-creation, and as an
practices of co-creation and factors influencing their success and engagement platform (Leclercq et al., 2016). Research shows
failure, is presented in this article. In line, this article argues that that the understanding of co-creation is changing and
success and failure of participatory innovation processes must be nowadays it is not only seen as a method but also as a process
understood through different and interlinked factors on where different stakeholders are involved in different stages of an
distinguishable levels within any given ecosystem. Its specific innovation (Leclercq et al., 2016; Hochgerner, 2018), or as a part
contribution is the exemplary application and discussion of a of a system where organizations are involved to make decisions.
social innovation ecosystem heuristic, developed by Kaletka et al., Some of these perspectives are presented in the following.
(2017, 85), to the field of co-creation. Furthermore, the discussion Co-creation as a method is used in design as a way to promote
also highlights potential for a further development and participatory practice (Sanders and Stappers, 2008). Design co-
application of the model, based on the experiences made creation is also a method in action research, in which workshops
during its actual application in the process of analysis in the with stakeholders are facilitated in formal design (Jones, 2018, 8).
SISCODE project. Therefore, the aim is to answer two questions: Besides these methods, co-creation is also used as design focus on
(1) What can be learned from the application of the research collaborative processes involving different stakeholders to
heuristic from social innovation research to the analysis of co- generate ideation to guarantee first-stage participation of all
creation ecosystems in SISCODE? (2) What conclusions can be actors affected by a future solution.
drawn from this application for future research? This article, Co-creation as a process or service is a perspective that comes
hence, contributes to a better understanding of the research object from business, which became popular in the public sector
of co-creation. Although co-creation concerns traditional (Brandsen and Honingh, 2018, 9). In contrast to Brandsen
research fields, it is at the same time a separate field of and Honingh (2018), Voorberg et al., (2014) distinguished
research, not despite its interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary between three types of co-creation: citizens as co-implementer
character, but precisely because of this character. While co- (citizens are involved in services implemented by government),
creation is a modus operandi of specific participatory activities citizens as codesigner (citizens are involved in the process of
across fields like policy-making, service, and product service), and citizens as initiator (citizens take up the initiative).
development, it is not limited to single domains and cannot be Besides the public sector, co-creation is also concerned at a
understood with a focus limited to, for example, politics, strategic level—when citizens are involved in initiating the
engineering, or economics. A major starting point for this general planning of a service (Brandsen and Honingh, 2018,
article is the thesis that co-creation can only be understood 13). In this interpretation of co-creation, service is in foreground,
from a transdisciplinary perspective, hence, taking into whereby its initiation and planning are in the focus.
account its context-specificity with a variety of problems Regardless of whether co-creation is conceptualized as a
addressed by a variety of actors. method, process, or service, it can be summarized as an
intervention that changes the way things are done in several
fields. In particular, it addresses changes in traditional cultural
ECOSYSTEMS OF CO-CREATION AS AN and organizational practices from a top-down approach to a
EMPIRICAL FIELD bottom-up approach in which citizens or end-users become
actors in a development process. The field in which co-
This section creates an overview of the terms and concepts used in creation takes place is a crucial dimension to observe when
this article with the aim to provide guidance and a joint trying to describe and analyze the modes of action of co-
understanding. As this article seeks to share experiences from creation and the changes it triggers.
studying practices of co-creation in different fields of action and The following explanations seek to shed light on an
various settings, Co-Creation and Its Different Contexts in understanding of co-creation in its contexts, leading to the
Innovation elaborates different approaches to co-creation to general notion of co-creation as a partial practice of social
illustrate its conceptual proximity to the field of social innovation processes and participative innovation processes in
innovation despite their differences. Building on that, An Open more general terms. As elaborated, co-creation is a way to
Heuristic to Social Innovation Ecosystems details this proximity to collaborate for decision-makers, experts, and other
introduce an open heuristic model, which can serve as a search stakeholders in various contexts (Jones, 2018, 14). In large

Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 2 February 2021 | Volume 6 | Article 642289

Eckhardt et al. Ecosystems of Co-Creation

organizations, for example, in the public sector or healthcare and the participation of all actors involved are a success factor for
system, the collaboration through co-creation activities is used to its emergence and fruitful development (cf. Carayannis and
optimize products or services (ibid). Co-creation promotes a Campbell, 2009). Therefore, co-creation can be conceptualized
culture of innovation (Sørensen and Torfing, 2015) because it as an important partial practice within the process of
engages stakeholders who are not usually involved. Through this (participatory) social innovation processes. In either way, the
process, different stakeholders do not only collaborate but also question rises why some practices gain momentum, become
experiment. It also allows the development of their skills and implemented, normalized, and routinized, and some other
opens up a new field for innovation practices, which can be practices decline and vanish. At this point the latest the
applied in different societal sectors and social services. In the totality of contextual factors, influencing the pathway of
public sector, it refers, for example, to the commitment of citizens practices of social innovation and co-creation, for example,
in policy-making through the early-stage participation of citizens cultural and organizational structures, becomes relevant. The
in the definition and solution of local problems. In business, it next section is dedicated to a deeper description of this
refers to providing the “user” with an active and collaborative role ecosystem and lays down a way to openly examine it in
at various stages of the process (Maase and Dorst, 2006; Voorberg empirical research in the field.
et al., 2014), what is often used by entrepreneurs and start-ups.
Finally, co-creation in academia and science is observed through
spaces of exchange between citizens and researchers, whereby An Open Heuristic to Social Innovation
citizens participate in the research process (e.g., citizen science) Ecosystems
(Voorberg et al., 2014). The concept of ecosystems originally comes from the natural
An overall perspective of co-creation shows that it pursues a sciences, where it defines a community of organisms and their
nonlinear logic, which embodies a multi-dynamic and multi- environment in an interactive and complex system (Willis, 1997).
contextual process. It is often described as a bottom-up approach This concept has been transferred across disciplines, including
(Kumari et al., 2019) that operates on different levels whereby the social sciences, where community capacity has been added as
citizens and other stakeholders are the key actors. Stakeholders a key element (Donoghue and Sturtevant, 2007).
with different backgrounds in culture, belief, and knowledge take A review of the literature shows that the concept of the
different roles and integrate them into a co-creation process. To ecosystem provides a framework for understanding and
take this into account, the tools, instruments, and methods used studying the interaction of various actors, institutions, and
within the co-creation process need to be well aligned and suitable contexts in society (Kumari et al., 2019). One of the main
for the respective contexts to promote its success. research questions in the literature is as follows: What are the
As recent research indicates, processes of co-creation are key dimensions and what are the barriers and drivers of an
frequently driven by design principles, often without any ecosystem (Bason, 2010, 25)? However, there is a lack of common
notice or intention from initiators or participants (Rizzo et al., understanding of the concept, so there are major difficulties in
2018; Smallman and Patel, 2018). The introductorily mentioned comparing ecosystems (O’Neill et al., 1986; Edquist, 2011).
project SISCODE is dedicated toward these specific practices of Although there is a gap in the literature with a unified
co-creation and delivers insights and evidence to stimulate perspective (Terstriep et al., 2020), more recently, some efforts
openness toward co-creation in science, technology, and have been made to understand the social, cultural, and
innovation (STI), policy-making, as well as in responsible institutional aspects of an ecosystem. For example, earlier
research and innovation (RRI). In the project, co-creation is research shows a focus on the business ecosystem (Anggraeni
understood as “a bottom-up and design-driven phenomenon et al., 2007; Williamson and De Meyer, 2012; Spigel, 2017), while
that is flourishing across European contexts like FabLabs, other studies explore innovation ecosystems (Adner, 2006;
Living Labs, Social Innovation, smart cities, communities, and Adner, 2012) and more recently social innovation ecosystems
region” (Eckhardt et al., 2020a, 10). The overall aim of the project (Kaletka et al., 2017; Pel et al., 2020; Terstriep et al., 2020).
is the description of various co-creation approaches in different Authors such as De Vasconcelos Gomes et al., (2018) recognize
fields and their respective ecosystems to understand social that there is a transition in the theoretical perspectives of business
dynamics (Eckhardt et al., 2020a, 11). Once implemented, the ecosystems to innovation ecosystem. They point out that one of
cultural and organizational transformation through co-creation the main differences between business ecosystems and the
can be seen in established practices and power-shifting policies. innovation ecosystem lies in the value of co-creation practices
These explanations already point to the close relation of co- “innovation ecosystem is related to value creation while business
creation to social innovation, understood as a new configuration ecosystem refers to value capture” (De Vasconcelos Gomes et al.,
of practices with the overall goal to address social problems in a 2018, 31).
way they were not addressed through established practices before Social innovation ecosystems are complex systems of
(cf. Howaldt and Schwarz, 2010). As co-creation involves new interaction between various stakeholders. Co-creation practices
social practices and new modes of interaction, it can be in social innovation ecosystems refer to the agreement between
considered as an emerging and currently diffusing social multiple stakeholders (Kumari et al., 2019; Jütting, 2020; Pel et al.,
innovation itself. Furthermore, Terstriep et al., (2020) 2020) to achieve a common goal. This means that within an
emphasized that processes of social innovation are often ecosystem, there is more capacity generation than as an
determined by co-creation, because cross-sectoral cooperation individual; this is because actors enhance their own capacities

Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 3 February 2021 | Volume 6 | Article 642289

Eckhardt et al. Ecosystems of Co-Creation

by acting together (Jütting, 2020). These agreements between Of course, they cannot be distinguished incisively as their
multiple stakeholders are seen as networks, which help to create overlapping is possible. Furthermore, they are highly interrelated
and share new social practices (Pel et al., 2020). and dependent upon another. The context factors of relevance
Other perspectives on the ecosystem focus on geographical must be determined and put into relation during the research
space, which means that national, regional, and local innovation process. Hence, the model can be understood as one possible
systems exist (Edquist, 2011). However, this perspective may raise initial structured approach to an ecosystem in which a specific
concerns about the strong diversity of rules, norms, and practices, social innovation process takes place to explore specific dynamics
as recognizes that comparison are difficult (Edquist, 2011, 37). of interest and their driving and hindering factors.
Scholars such as Terstriep et al., (2020) applied a regional In example, Komatsu Cipriani et al., (2020) applied the model
perspective to social innovation ecosystems, including actors, for the analysis of social innovation cases “in order to understand
institutions, knowledge, and innovation pathways as main the ability of design to foster the development of robust
elements of analysis. This perspective has the advantage of ecosystems” (Komatsu Cipriani et al., 2020:1012), whereas
showing multilayers that define each process of the innovation. Eckhardt et al., (2017) applied it to digital social innovation
In order “to understand the ecosystem as the comprehensive and its potential for inclusive societies. In the SISCODE project,
organizational, institutional, and cultural setting in which the SI the heuristic model was adapted to examine co-creation processes
[social innovation] is embedded” (Kaletka et al., 2017, 85), the alongside the findings and theoretical groundwork provided in
SISCODE cases were examined alongside a multilayered heuristic the first project stages (Rizzo et al., 2018; Smallman and Patel,
model in an explorative research process. Building upon a 2018). In the following section, the adaption of the heuristic
theoretical approach from media science, known as the model is presented.
“Onion-Model” (Weischenberg, 1990, 53), which strives to
explain different spheres affecting journalistic acting and Application to Co-creation Initiatives
content generation, the heuristic provides a kind of searchlight Social innovations can be the goal and result of co-creation, for
to the right questions to ask, depending upon the research instance, political innovations, technical innovations, or service
interest. The model is providing a starting point taken up and innovations. In both social innovation and co-creation research,
extensively adapted for social innovation research. It elaborates the examination of ecosystems plays a decisive role in order to
four units to observe: a context of norms, a context of structures, a achieve a comprehensive understanding of its embeddedness.
context of functions, and a context of roles. These layers and their Against this background, the heuristic was adapted for the
interrelation can be used as a lens to describe certain dynamics analysis of co-creation by design in the European research
within a social innovation initiative or to identify and further project SISCODE and provided a basic, open, analytical grid
examine drivers and barriers affecting its development: for the data collection in the different phases of research. For this
analysis, 135 cases of co-creation from all over Europe have been
• The context of norms encloses a perspective on “societal collected and quantitatively evaluated (Eckhardt et al., 2019). In
framework conditions and challenges” like “professional addition, a qualitative in-depth examination of 55 cases was
and ethical standards, historical and legal conditions, carried out (Eckhardt et al., 2020a; Eckhardt et al., 2020b). As
codes, and other accepted social standards” (Kaletka a project with a European focus and cases from all over Europe,
et al., 2017, 85). Hence, this context can be seen as an SISCODE needed an instrument that made a context-sensitive
approach to analyze factors on the societal macro-level. analysis possible and that could do justice to the different
• The context of structures can be understood to enclose the environments of the single and diverse co-creation cases. In
meso-level, taking up a rather structuralist perspective. It this way, the heuristic serves as a central analytical tool and
explicitly encloses “constraints and path dependencies grid for the research activities in SISCODE. In line, the qualitative
because of existing institutions, economic, political, and analysis of the 55 cases was based on the content of the heuristic
technological imperatives.” For instance, “the setup of a model, and the data were coded by means of a qualitative content
city administration, restricting what can be achieved on the analysis, based on categories that go back to the heuristic model
role and functional context, or the political orientation of and its four contexts (i.e., norms, structures, actors and roles, and
the government.” (ibid.) functions).
• Both the context of functions and the context of actors are In the first phase of research, an extensive review of existing
aimed at the societal micro-perspective. For the context of practices and literature of co-creation in RRI and RRI policies has
roles, the authors suggested to look at “socio-demographic been set up (cf. Smallman and Patel, 2018; Deserti et al., 2019).
factors and roles of social innovation stakeholders and The main results fed into the heuristic as “sensitizing concepts” to
beneficiaries [. . .]. This includes these actors’ political enrich the presuppositions on contextual factors of influence for
and social attitudes, motivations, socialization, self- the processes of co-creation. The role of design as focus became a
concepts, image, capabilities, and skills.” (ibid.) cross-cutting theme to be observed. In example, the single layers
• The context of functions encloses “management were underpinned by the following presuppositions:
procedures, business, and governance models,” “how
different actors are interlinked and collaborate, how they • On a normative context, political and normative
adjust their roles in a wider network context, and how the frameworks had to be observed, as well as the attitudes
network is governed.” (ibid.) toward co-creation by design as an accepted practice were of

Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 4 February 2021 | Volume 6 | Article 642289

Eckhardt et al. Ecosystems of Co-Creation

FIGURE 1 | Ecosystem of Co-Creation (Source: own; based on Kaletka et al., 2017).

interest. It was an attempt to elaborate the overall culture EXEMPLARY APPLICATION OF THE
toward collaboration in different ecosystems. HEURISTIC MODEL
• Structurally, especially descriptive factors were thought to
be of interest for the embeddedness of co-creation (e.g., The following cases illustrate two processes of co-creation in
socioeconomic or demographic parameters) or the different contexts. The two examples were selected from the
technological and financial equipment of an initiative, as collection of 55 case studies and innovation biographies from
it became clear from initial research that resources always the SISCODE project (Eckhardt et al., 2020b) because they
determine the success of co-creation. represent exemplary cases that make the different levels of the
• On a functional context, it was taken into account that heuristic model of co-creation more visible. Thereby, these two
“Methods and objectives of co-creation need to be explicit cases were chosen because of their interesting and at some points
and carefully selected to be appropriate to the subject, controversial co-creation processes—Sharing City Umeå that
context, and people,” which elucidates the importance to faces more on social (new social practices through citizens
closely examine which tools and methods were used, how, engagement) than on technological innovation (of robots in
and their evaluation by different people with different roles elderly care) as Ilona robot. Moreover, both cases show how
in the process. In addition, it became evident how structural the heuristic model of co-creation works and which learnings
factors (regional level and institutional level) might arise. These cases have been further described and analyzed as
determine the tools and instruments. innovation biographies (Iasillo, 2020; Wascher, 2020). For both
• Last, initial research emphasized the predominant cases, interviews with experts on the cases were conducted to
significance of the “role-context,” leading to an emphasis complement information initially gained from desk research. For
of this layer of participating actors and their roles (e.g., as the first case, Ilona robot, two expert interviews were conducted,
experts or lay people, interested citizens, or scientists) in the and the co-creation process was documented through the Lahti
second, empirical research phase. Living Lab, where researchers identify the impacts and acceptance
of care robot implementation through the approach of Human
The adaptions resulted in the following Figure 1, as a Impact Assessment (Iasillo, 2020). For the second case, Sharing
schematic representation of the heuristic model: City Umeå, three interviews providing additional information
To further illustrate the empirical research, the next chapter were conducted (Wascher, 2020). The case studies and
presents two examples from RRI (Ilona robot) and policy-making innovation biographies provide the basis for the exemplary
(Sharing City). application of the heuristic model in this chapter.

Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 5 February 2021 | Volume 6 | Article 642289

Eckhardt et al. Ecosystems of Co-Creation

TABLE 1 | Overview of the Layers of the Co-creation Ecosystem (Source: own; based on Iasillo, 2020; Wascher, 2020).

Layers of Illona Robot Sharing City Umeå

Co-Creation

Actors • Municipality • Municipality

• Researchers • Municipal companies
• Elderly care staff • Construction companies
• Elderly • Local government (Umeå)
• Students of health care • Citizens
• Funders

Functions • Co-creation activities to test acceptance of a • Co-creation to encourage participation

robot among elderly and elderly care staff • User-centred design study for sustainable planning
• Participation of citizens and elderly in public health • Users’ involvement
• Interaction among municipality, • Problem identification refers to the goal to make
researchers, clients (elderly), and elderly care staff sustainable mobility easy and effective
• Prototyping to develop and test new solutions
• Idea around project is scaled with results of subprojects

Norms • More acceptance of clients (elderly) after • Sustainable urban development as a political strategy
interactions with the new technology (comprehensive plan for Umeå municipality)
• Cooperation and partnership • Partnerships
• Part of a long-term national innovation initiative

Structures • Demographic challenge of aging population in Finland • Promotion of climate-friendly choices in everyday life
• Elderly care services

The first case, Ilona Robot in Finland (Iasillo, 2020), represents December 2015 to April 2016 to improve technology-assisted
a case that introduces new technology for elderly care. This case care for elderly people through robots. During the design phase,
especially shows how different stakeholders, such as municipality, the Lahti municipal, the Lahti Living Lab, and care professionals
researchers, and elderly care staff, worked together, and how a planned co-creative activities, whereby the needs of policy-
culture of cooperation and partnership was used in a small makers, researchers, and care professionals, as well as the
municipality to modernize elderly care and change perception needs of clients were considered. In the implementation phase,
of care services in Finland with the first robot in elderly care. The Ilona robot was brought into two care homes and one geriatric
second case, Sharing City Umeå in Sweden (Wascher, 2020), rehabilitation hospital chosen by the municipality. In this stage,
shows the processes of co-creation for policy-making in different stakeholders participated: on the one hand, elderly as
sustainable cities, not only at the macro-level but also at the users; on the other hand, students of health care who were
local level. This case especially shows the involvement of local trained to become acquainted with new technologies in elderly
government in the development of new solutions and care. The interaction and impact of elderly care was monitored
partnerships with citizens and funders to manage the city’s by the Lahti Living Lab, and a change of mind was observed
population growth through social, ecological, cultural, and after seeing that clients interact with Ilona robot. Ilona robot is
economic sustainability. The following Table 1 provides an still in use in the three abovementioned facilities, and it is
overview of the main elements of both case studies and their started to use in a fourth one. Overall, Ilona robot is a top-
different layers of the heuristic model for the purpose of down initiative that focuses co-creation in RRI and policy-
comparison, whereas Ilona Robot and Sharing City Umeå making among different stakeholders.
provide an exemplary analysis of striking aspects of each layer.
The Context of Norms
Ilona Robot The case of the Ilona robot (Iasillo, 2020) shows the political
The case “Ilona Robot” is a design-driven phenomenon that was context and the political will in the region of Lahti, where it was in
developed in Finland. A service robot was introduced in elderly the interest of the municipality to spread acceptance and
care services in Lahti (a city in Southern Finland) in 2015–2016 to familiarity with the robot for the care of the elderly. This is
face the demographic challenge of aging population in Finnish not only because of its will but also because the financial resources
society. Thereby, the provision of sustainable care in times of a for health care are not only a matter of the central government but
shrinking workforce was facilitated by the interaction among of different levels of government, insurance, employers, and other
ecological, economic, and social actors as well as the introduction actors. Due to the decentralization of health care, it is possible for
of (new) technologies to shape the sustainable elderly care in the regions to make more autonomous decisions and implement
Lahti. To do so, co-creation activities are used to introduce the innovative policies in the municipalities. Besides the will of the
humanoid care robot “Ilona” as a new technology in elderly care, municipalities, there is also an attitude of the Finnish society that
considering the role of elderly patients and care professionals. perceives the robots as a positive element in the society (European
This initiative comes from the Lahti municipality that started Commission, 2015). This social attitude facilitates the
activities among city officials, researchers, and care workers in introduction of innovations in health care. This case has an

Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 6 February 2021 | Volume 6 | Article 642289

Eckhardt et al. Ecosystems of Co-Creation

exemplary culture of cooperation and partnership between the and a geriatric rehabilitation hospital. The co-creation activities
municipality, the university, the public sector, and the private took place with the monitoring of the Lahti Living Lab in 2015
sector, giving place to the first robot in elderly care in the and 2016, where researchers measured the Human Impact
municipality. Assessment to identify the acceptance of care robot among the
elderly and elderly care staff. The interaction among elderly care
The Context of Structures staff, students of health care, and care staff took place in two care
As a region with a significant decline in the industry in the 1990s, homes and one geriatric rehabilitation.
Lahti has shifted from the industrial sector to the service sector. Functions and impact: Some of the most important stages of
Finland, like many European countries, has a large population co-creation in this case were the sharing of responsibilities
over 65 years old, and in the last thirty years, this population has among stakeholders in the design and implementation phases.
almost doubled (13% in 1990 to 22% in 2019) (Statistics Finland’s For example, during the design phase, the municipality
PxWeb databases, 2020). In Lahti, for example, the population integrated different stakeholders, which revealed the strong
over 65 years old in 2019 was above the national average of 24% motivation of the public sector to collaborate, engage, and
(Statistics Finland’s PxWeb databases, 2020). Therefore, the integrate the user’s perspective into the public sector. In the
demography in Finland shows the need for a change in the implementation phase, elderly patients and health workers
health sector and a modernization of the elderly care. The play an important role, as they have the most interaction with
municipality of Lahti is a region with very few universities and the trainers from the company where the robot was purchased,
as such has a very low budget for research and development as well as the interaction for the activities with the robot itself.
(R&D). Compared to Helsinki, it has a 0.9% share of R&D, while The evaluation phase was carried out by the researchers of the
Helsinki has about 42% (Statistics Finland’s PxWeb databases, Living Lab in Lahti by observing and documenting at least
2017). The case of Ilona robot shows a structural context that twenty-seven activities between Ilona’s robot and the elderly
promotes innovation in the municipal area due to the high levels patients. The impact of these activities was assessed by
of decentralization, but also due to the strong needs of observing the impact of the Ilona robot on the care staff
modernization and change in elderly care. (e.g., working environment and competencies) and the
impact on the clients (e.g., interaction, and physical and
The Context of Actors emotional experience).
The case of the Ilona robot in Lahti is interesting because of the
strong involvement of local actors. For example, this initiative Sharing City Umeå
started with strong motivation from local residents and the The co-creation case Sharing City Umeå (Wascher, 2020) faces
municipality, which at the same time involved researchers the development of the city Umeå (in northern Sweden) by
from the Lahti University of Technology, LUT, within the testing new solutions and collaborations concerning
framework of the Living Lab in Lahti. This cooperation aimed sustainability. Thereby, the project is coordinated by the local
to integrate the main actors in elderly care, such as elderly care government that regards and manages the growing population of
staff and elderly patients themselves. In addition to the the city through social, ecological, cultural, and economic
participation of local residents, the municipality was very sustainability.
involved in this initiative. This case exemplifies a co-creative Based on the knowledge of a consumption habits survey in
work between all the actors involved, especially between the 2018 and a travel habit surveys conducted by the city years before,
municipality and the Living Lab researchers and between the local stakeholders gained concrete insights into the effects
researchers and the elderly care staff, together with the elderly different ways of traveling have on climate. In the following,
patients. new solutions concerning sustainability—especially in
mobility—were tested and supported by initiatives developed
The Context of Functions by the municipality in Umeå.
The participation of stakeholders in the case of the Ilona robot is In 2019, the idea of mobility service hubs brought together
crucial for the implementation and acceptance of the innovation. different types of sharing services and products to reduce peoples’
This case also shows different stages of collaboration, such as the travel needs in offering alternative and sustainable mobility
participation of citizens and users in the public sector. For solutions. Therefore, from 2020 on Umeå is considered as a
example, the first stage was the development of an initiate testing ground for service and mobility hubs to change citizens’
from Lahti’s residents and the municipality. Second, the behavior toward sustainable mobility. To do so, six best-practice
collaboration with the researchers from the Lahti Living Lab examples of service and mobility hubs in Europe were analyzed, a
was a crucial space for the development and implementation of case study research was done, and two focus group studies were
this initiative. This stage is very relevant as a space that makes performed, whereby the first one was about general mobility of
policy innovation in healthcare possible, and this stage also the future and the second one about sharing service and mobility
involved healthcare students. Third, an implementation stage solutions for the parking garage Nanna in Umeå (Eckhardt et al.,
in which the first healthcare institutions participated in the 2020b, 764). In this process, it came into light that user
implementation of this initiative from December 2015 to April involvement and citizens’ engagement are important to come
2016. Finally, a private company participated in the up with feasible, sustainable solutions and to create citizens’ long-
implementation by training health workers in two care homes term mobility needs. “Sharing City Umeå” thus helps to promote

Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 7 February 2021 | Volume 6 | Article 642289

Eckhardt et al. Ecosystems of Co-Creation

socially sustainable development in Umeå. Furthermore, Sharing improvement in the quality of life in the sense of sustainable
City Umeå describes co-creation that is derived from and change is pursued in a participatory approach in which citizens
embedded in distinct innovation systems that considers RRI in are actively involved in various subprojects of Sharing City Umeå.
innovation strategies and funding schemes. This interplay of the desired structural change in relation to
demographics and the setting of policy agendas enables the co-
The Context of Norms creation processes that are carried out in the case of Sharing City
The context of norms includes a range of different factors that Umeå. At the same time, the existing population structure has an
have a driving or hindering influence on co-creation. The case effect on the realization of the co-creation processes within the
of Sharing City Umeå exemplifies how different policies can subprojects on the micro-level and thus the achievement of goals
support co-creation through agenda setting on the macro- on the macro-level. The population growth of Umeå is to be
level. Sharing City Umeå is embedded in and linked to designed to be sustainable and citizens are to participate in the
different policy programs, starting from the macro-level design of sustainable solutions. The case shows that this public
(Sharing Cities Sweden and Viable Cities) and down to the participation actually meets with a positive response. A social
local level of local agendas. Furthermore, it is implemented by environment can be assumed in which value proposition tends to
the municipality of Umeå, hence directly linked to its local be present that enables sustainable solutions with the
policies toward sustainability. At the same time, Sharing City participation of citizens. This exemplifies not only a
Umeå in turn consists of various subprojects. What all these connection between demographic structure and administrative
different levels have in common is that they are closely related agenda setting but also a connection between demographic
to policies aimed at achieving sustainable change. These structure in the sense of the composition of milieus and the
policies thus initially offer a supporting framework for the success of the co-creation process insofar as stakeholders are
subprojects and do not only act as starting points but also act as willing to participate.
enablers. Of course, it has to be taken into account that the
central role of such policies in the specific context of Umeå and The Context of Actors
the larger context of Sweden do also lead to path dependencies: Diverse actors are involved in the co-creation process. On the
co-creation projects that do not address the issue of achieving one hand, companies focus on sustainable aspects in water,
more sustainability may not benefit from the framework energy, or other environmental points. On the other hand, the
conditions enabled by policies. For the specific case of parking space provides with the parking garage in Nanna,
Sharing City Umeå and its subprojects as a top-down where the emphasis was on. This case thus integrates actors
approach, however, such policies are main enablers. In who mainly deal with the societal challenge of environment
addition, the policy-driven program Sharing Cities Sweden protection and sustainability. Moreover, concerning the roles
pursues and promotes a participatory approach. In this regard, of the abovementioned actors, Sharing City Umeå is quite
this policy also represents a very specific enabler because it is interesting because of the actors’ overlapping roles. For
fostering the establishment of an environment that is example, the funder/investor motivated and supported the
characterized by several co-creation processes in several initiation of the initiative, which is why the role of funder/
parallel projects. In this respect, it is supportive not only investor and the role of initiator overlapped. Another
for projects that may or may not contain co-creation meaningful point is user involvement and citizen
processes but also specifically for co-creation processes engagement. By involving different groups of inhabitants of
themselves. Sharing Cities Sweden also strengthens the Umeå, different user perspectives are considered. Moreover,
exchange between municipalities in Sweden, and this all citizens had an intrinsic motivation and interest in
approach—at least indirectly—also strengthens the exchange participating. This exemplifies a co-creation process that
between the initiators and implementers of co-creation grounds on highly motivated citizens and their willingness
processes across local and regional contexts. At this point, to participate but not to initiate co-creation processes.
there is also a possible interaction of policy on the macro-level
of the context of norms observable with the concrete design of The Context of Functions
co-creation processes on the micro-level of the context of The role of methods in the case of Sharing City Umeå is very
functions. interesting and illustrates how methods are used to select target
groups as well as to collaborate. At first, the method of the
The Context of Structures stakeholder mapping was used in a workshop to explore possible
The case of Sharing City Umeå is an example of how structural target groups. After ranking, a consultancy and agency named
factors can play a role in the context of co-creation. At the same “Hello Future” was commissioned to design a focus group study.
time, it shows how such structural factors can be related to norms This organization is specialized in digital transformation and
if structures are to be changed through agenda setting and norm facilitates services of design and innovation processes. Moreover,
setting by administrative institutions. Specifically, the it creates long-term change and innovation. Due to its
Municipality of Umea is planning an increase in residents by commission by the municipality, Hello Future designed the
2050 and is actively trying to design this process. This structural abovementioned focus group study with the three selected
change in the demographic context is framed by policies that aim target groups (young people, families with children, and older
to improve the quality of life by strengthening sustainability. This couples without children at home), whereby a focused group was

Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 8 February 2021 | Volume 6 | Article 642289

Eckhardt et al. Ecosystems of Co-Creation

running in each target group. All are facilitated by Hello Future acknowledgment of theoretical contributions in the fields of
and started with an introduction to discuss the upcoming ideas. social innovation and co-creation. While social innovation
Thereby, the workshop leader explains and exemplifies the ideas. research will then be able to dive deeper into the potential and
Hello Future recorded, took notes, and identified existing needs pitfalls of collaborative development processes, co-creation
through the discussion. Based on the outcome, Hello Future then approaches can learn from SI’s perspective on (social) impact
collected recommendations linked to user-centered and design- and societal transformation. In this regard, further research could
driven approaches. In the focus group, the participants explore delve deeper into the relationship between co-creation and social
their needs and thoughts in a discussion to bring in their innovation. In this article, a strong proximity of both social
perspective as well as to create a good understanding of their phenomena was presented, but at the same time, the
needs. Because of this selective way of participants, who were on differences were highlighted. Accordingly, it seems to be
top recruited from a Facebook campaign, this method had an promising to analyze and understand both phenomena in
impact on the projects’ results. Moreover, such focus groups their common context.
are participatory workshops to exchange experiences and to One of the main limitations of this study is that it focuses on
discuss about sustainability in Umeå. A user-centered two case studies to explain a complex model of co-creation. It
approach like this also brings users’ perspectives into the certainly does not provide a complete overview of all types of co-
co-creation process and gets it forward. However, citizens creation processes nor can it be a generalization within all social
have not participated in the beginning (in the designing). innovation processes. But the two cases analyzed in this study
Thus, the focus groups frame co-creation in practice and provide examples where all layers of an ecosystem are possible to
enable an environment of collaboration. In summary, this observe and were documented. Nevertheless, we suggest that
shows that methods have an impact on co-creative activities more research is needed, especially to identify the drivers and
and the way of collaboration. barriers of co-creation practices and their forms of
institutionalization. The comparisons of two SISCODE cases
are an exemplary application of the model. Both are co-
DISCUSSION creation cases because of their collaborative phases. We see
that a normative setting which enables regions to make
In this article, the concept of social innovation ecosystems was relatively autonomous decisions and implement innovative
applied to the field of co-creation. We argue that the ecosystemic policies based on their specific challenges, in this case within
conditions which support or hinder the successful the health sector, can help to motivate different actor groups to
implementation of co-creation must be carefully identified and become involved in finding solutions. In the other case, the
examined in order to fully exploit co-creation as a fruitful way to common perception of residential structures as dissatisfying
tackle a challenge. To systematize the research design, these helped to define a normative framework to increase the
supporting and hindering factors can be assigned to different number of residents by 2050 on the one hand triggered the
layers of such ecosystems. This article presents the application of definition of a set of methods and tools for collaboration, and
a heuristic model of four layers and describes two examples from brought together local stakeholders in different roles.
a comprehensive empirical analysis conducted in the European Both cases exemplify how structural factors can play a role in
research project SISCODE. Sharing City Umeå and Ilona Robot co-creative practices and in the promotion of innovation.
are two cases selected from a set of 55 initiatives and co-creation Especially the Sharing City Umeå case shows how complex
processes which have contributed to the reflections and results relationships in co-creation ecosystems are. Even if the
presented. relationships are complex, relationships support co-creation—as
The heuristic provides tools to identify and observe four policies in Sharing City Umeå or partnerships between the
different, yet interlinked layers: norms, structures, functions, municipality in Ilona Robot. Moreover, co-creation does ground
and roles. Thereby it has to be noted that these layers rather not only on relationships but also on the integration of multiple
provide an overview of the qualitative data from the case studies actors. This is the reason why co-creative work between all actors
and biographies. Moreover, one of the main contributions of this involved, for example, municipality, researchers, citizens, and
article is the adaptation of the social innovation ecosystem model external stakeholders, turned out as fruitful.
to identify the actors, their roles, and their conditions and Co-creation is a diversified and context-dependent
interactions in a specific environment. For this understanding, phenomenon. Still, the question remains whether factors can
the study of co-creation processes was of great value in identifying be empirically identified which are universal characteristics of co-
more precisely how co-creation is set up within a process of social creation and independent from particular contexts. The heuristic
innovation and how the elements of collaboration and cooperation model could benefit from such anchor points without losing its
work. In this sense, already De Vasconcelos Gomes et al., (2018) suitability for various purposes. In contrast to such static anchor
recognized the value of co-creation within ecosystems of points, the model also provides a basis for better understanding
innovation, while other authors (Kumari et al., 2019; Jütting, dynamics unfolding throughout the co-creation’s biography. It
2020; Pel et al., 2020) recognized the relevance of agreements helps to answer questions such as the following: How are co-
and the involvement of a variety of actors in co-creation practices. creation practices sustained over time? In particular, what is the
The main theoretical implication of the work presented here is impact of the case on the normative layer, on the legal
that there needs to be a stronger mutual reflection and framework? How do societal expectations and attitudes change

Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 9 February 2021 | Volume 6 | Article 642289

Eckhardt et al. Ecosystems of Co-Creation

toward the engagement of citizens and stakeholders throughout AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

the process of innovation or policy-making? And what
opportunities and constraints in policy design can be All authors contributed to the article and have read and approved
identified which help or obstruct the development of the submitted manuscript. KM and AS conducted the literature
innovation systems based on co-creation? review on co-creation. KM carried out the literature review on
In sum, the application of the model to the field of co-creation ecosystems. DK and JE contributed to the application of the social
is valuable both from a scientific perspective and for practitioners. innovation ecosystem model. AS, KM, and DK contributed to the
Socio-scientific innovation research is interested in better section on empirical cases based on the SISCODE project. CK
understanding why initiatives succeed, why they fail, and how they originally developed the model applied in this work, and
contribute to distinct changes or wider transformations in society. contributed to the conceptual development of this article and
Here, the model presented helps to identify drivers and barriers, and to the analysis of results.
thereby elements of success and failure. At least in parts, it also allows
to better understand transformation processes related to the initiatives,
for example, when initiatives successfully work on changing the FUNDING
societal expectation from or attitude toward participatory policy-
making in a city or region. From a very practical point of view, This research has been conducted within the SISCODE project,
and this is the main practical implication here, the heuristic can serve which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon
as a “guiding light” and help to understand what works in co-creation 2020 Research and Innovation program under agreement no.
and what not. This would require a translation of the model for 788217. The content of this publication does not necessarily
practitioners’ contexts, an introduction of guiding questions to be reflect the views of the European Commission. Responsibility for
answered, and a reproducible way to interpret the results. the information and views expressed therein lies entirely with the
In a normative sense, establishing a setting in which co-creation authors.
is made easy and becomes a routine can be considered a key factor
for thriving social innovation as well as co-creation initiatives. This
seems also true for major transformational projects, as “concepts ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
like ‘smart’ or ‘green’ city can only unfold their ‘true’ value for
social innovation, when they involve participative modes of We are very grateful to all the partners of the SISCODE project,
governance, social, economic and technical innovation” especially to APRE in Italy. We also thank Tanja Klimek for her
(Terstriep et al., 2020, 896). So, the model is instructive for the valuable support in editing and formatting the final manuscript.
design of an innovation system, especially if this is based on a We would like to thank the editors and reviewers for their
comprehensive understanding of innovation which includes not suggestions and comments to improve the quality of the
only for technological but also for social innovation. document.

new practices. Editors J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka, A. Schröder, and M. Zirngiebl

REFERENCES (oekom), 90–94.
Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology
Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. (European Commission) and TNS Opinion & Social (2015). Special
Harv. Bus. Rev. 84, 98–148. eurobarometer 427 “autonomous systems”. Available at: https://ec.europa.
Adner, R. (2012). The wide lens: a new strategy for innovation. New York: Portfolio/ eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_427_en.pdf (Accessed
Penguin. June, 2015).
Anggraeni, E., den Hartigh, E., and Zegveld, M. (2007). Business ecosystem as a Donoghue, E. M., and Sturtevant, V. E. (2007). Social science constructs in
perspective for studying the relations between firms and their business networks. ecosystem Assessments: revisiting community capacity and community
Bason, C. (2010). Leading public sector innovation: Co-creating for a better society. resiliency. Soc. Nat. Resour. 20, 899–912. doi:10.1080/08941920701561114
Bristol: The Policy Press. Eckhardt, J., Graetz, C., Kaletka, C., Klimek, T., Krüger, D., Maylandt, J., Schulz,
Bureau of European Policy Advisers; European Commission (BEPA) (2010). A. C., and Wascher, E. (2020b). Deliverable 2.2: case studies and biographies
Empowering people, driving change: social innovation in the European report. Available at: https://siscodeproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/
union. Available at: https://www.ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/ D2.2-Case-Studies-and-Biographies-Report_small.pdf (Accessed July 31,
13402/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native (Accessed March 2020).
25, 2010). Eckhardt, J., Graetz, C., Kaletka, C., Klimek, T., Krüger, D., Maylandt, J., et al.
Brandsen, T., and Honingh, M. (2018). “Definitions of Co-production and Co- (2020a). “Deliverable 2.3: comparative analysis report,” in The European citizen
creation,” in Co-production and co-creation. Engaging citizens in public services. science landscape—a snapshot (UCL Press).
Editors T. Brandsen, B. Verschuere, and T. Steen (New York: Routledge), 9–17. Eckhardt, J., Kaletka, C., and Klimek, T. (2019). Deliverable 2.1. SISCODE
Carayannis, E. G., and Campbell, D. F. J. (2009). “Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: Knowledge Base. Available at: https://siscodeproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/
toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 46, 2019/03/Attachment_0-3.pdf (Accessed February 28, 2019).
201–234. doi:10.1504/ijtm.2009.023374 Eckhardt, J., Kaletka, C., and Pelka, B. (2017). “Inclusion through digital social
De Vasconcelos Gomes, L. A., Figueiredo Facin, A. L., Sergio Salerno, M., and innovations: modelling an ecosystem of drivers and barriers,” in Uahci 2017.
Kazuo Ikenami, R. (2018). Unpacking the innovation ecosystem construct: Lncs. Editors M. Antona and C. Stephanidis (Cham: Springer), 10277, 67–84.
evolution, gaps and trends,” in Technological forecasting and social change. 136, Edquist, C. (2011). Systems of innovation. Technologies, institutions and
30–48. organizations. London: Routledge: Pinter.
Deserti, A., Eckhardt, J., Kaletka, C., Rizzo, F., and Wascher, E. (2019). “Co-design Hecker, S., Garbe, L., and Bonn, A. (2018). The European citizen science
for society in innovation,” in Atlas of social innovation: 2nd volume. A world of landscape—a snapshot,” in (Hrsg) Citizen science. Innovation in open

Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 10 February 2021 | Volume 6 | Article 642289

Eckhardt et al. Ecosystems of Co-Creation

science, society and policy. Editors S. Hecker, M. Haklay, A. Bowser, Z. Makuch, Pel, B., Wittmayer, J., Dorland, J., and Søgaard Jørgensen, M. (2020). Unpacking
J. Vogel, and A. Bonn (London: UCL Press), 190–200. the social innovation ecosystem: an empirically grounded typology of
Hecker, S., and Wicke, N. (2019). “Roles of actors in citizen science in international empowering network constellations. Innovat. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 33 (3),
policy documents,” in Forum citizen science 2019. 311–336. doi:10.1080/13511610.2019.1705147
Hochgerner, J. (2018). “Empowerment, Co-Creation and Social Innovation Rizzo, F., Deserti, A., Crabu, S., Smallman, M., Hjort, J., Joy Hansen, S., et al. (2018).
Ecosystems,” in Atlas of Social Innovation. New Practices for a Better Deliverable 1.2: Co-creation in RRI practices and STI policies.
Future. Sozialforschungsstelle. Editors J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka, A. Schröder, Sørensen, E., and Torfing, J. (2015). “Enhancing public innovation through
and M. Zirngiebl (Dortmund: TU Dortmund University). collaboration, leadership and New Public Governance,” in New Frontiers in
J. Howaldt and M. Schwarz (Editors) (2010). “Soziale Innovation—konzepte, social innovation research. Editors A. Nicholls, J. Simon, M. Gabriel, and
Forschungsfelder und -perspektiven,” in Soziale Innovation. VS Verlag für C. Whelan (United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan), 145–169.
Sozialwissenschaften. Sanders, E. B.-N., and Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of
Iasillo, C. (2020). “Ilona—robot brings joy in elderly care, Finland,” in Deliverable design. CoDesign 4 (1), 5–18. doi:10.1080/15710880701875068
2.2: case studies and biographies report. Editors J. Eckhardt, C. Graetz, Smallman, M., and Patel, T. (2018). D1.1 Co-Creation in Responsible Research and
C. Kaletka, T. Klimek, D. Krüger, J. Maylandt, et al. Innovation (RRI)—a review of policy and practice. SISCODE Deliverable. 1, 1.
Jones, P. (2018). “Contexts of Co-creation: designing with system stakeholders,” in Spigel, B. (2017). “The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems,” in
Systemic design. Theory, methods, and practice. Editors P. Jones and K. Kijima Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 41, 49–72.
(Japan: Springer), 3–52. Statistics Finland’s PxWeb databases (2017). Free-of-charge statistical databases.
Jørgensen, M. S. (2018). “Social innovation as spaces for co-creation,” in Available at: http://pxnet2.stat.fi/PXWeb/pxweb/en/StatFin/StatFin__vrm__
Innovation og bæredygtig omstilling (Center for Design). vaerak/statfin_vaerak_pxt_11ra.px/ (Accessed October 15, 2020).
Jütting, M. (2020). Exploring mission-oriented innovation ecosystems for Statistics Finland’s PxWeb databases (2020). Free-of-charge statistical databases.
sustainability: towards a literature-based typology. Sustainability 12 (16), Available at: http://pxnet2.stat.fi/PXWeb/pxweb/en/StatFin/StatFin__vrm__
6677. doi:10.3390/su12166677 vaerak/statfin_vaerak_pxt_11ra.px/ (Accessed October 15, 2020).
Kaletka, C., Markmann, M., and Pelka, B. (2017). Peeling the Onion. An Exploration Terstriep, J., Rehfeld, D., and Kleverbeck, M. (2020). Favourable social innovation
of the Layers of Social Innovation Ecosystems. Modelling a context sensitive ecosystem(s)?—an explorative approach. Eur. Plann. Stud. 28 (5), 881–905.
perspective on driving and hindering factors for social innovation. Eur. Public doi:10.1080/09654313.2019.1708868
Social Innov. Rev. 1 (2), 83–93. doi:10.31637/epsir.16-2.3 Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M., and Tummers, L. G. (2014). A Systematic
Komatsu Cipriani, T., Kaletka, C., and Pelka, B. (2020). Transition through design: Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: embarking on the social
enabling innovation via empowered ecosystems. Eur. Plann. Stud. 28 (5), innovation journey. Publ. Manag. Rev. 17, 1333. doi:10.1080/14719037.
1010–1025. doi:10.1080/09654313.2019.1680612 2014.930505
Kullenberg, C., and Kasperowski, D. (2016). What is citizen science?—A scientometric Wascher, E. (2020). Sharing city Umeå—framtidens mobilitet (mobility of the
meta-analysis. PloS One. 11, e0147152. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147152 future),” in Deliverable 2.2: case studies and biographies report. Editors
Kumari, R., Kwon, K.-S., Lee, B.-H., and Choi, K. (2019). Co-creation for social J. Eckhardt, C. Graetz, C. Kaletka, T. Klimek, D. Krüger, J. Maylandt, et al.
innovation in the ecosystem context: the role of higher educational institutions. Weischenberg, S. (1990). “Das ‘Paradigma Journalistik’. Zur
Sustainability 12, 307. doi:10.3390/su12010307 kommunikationswissenschaftlichen Identifizierung eider
Leclercq, T., Hammedi, W., and Poncin, I. (2016). “Ten years of value cocreation: hochschulgebundenen Journalistenausbildung”. Publizistik 35 (1), 45–61.
an integrative review,” in Recherche et Applications en Marketing. 31, 26–60. Williamson, P. J., and De Meyer, A. (2012). Ecosystem Advantage: how to
Maase, S., and Dorst, K. (2006). “Co-Creation: a way to reach sustainable social successfully harness the power of partners. Calif. Manag. Rev. 55, 24–46.
innovation?” in Proceedings: changes to sustainable consumption, Workshop doi:10.1525/cmr.2012.55.1.24
of the Sustainable Consumption Research Exchange (SCORE!) Network, Willis, A. J. (1997). “The ecosystem: an evolving concept viewed historically,” in
supported by the EU’s 6th Framework Programme, Copenhagen, Denmark, Functional ecology (British Ecological Society), 11, 268–271.
April 20–21, 2006, 295–310.
Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented research & innovation in the European Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
union. A problem-solving approach to fuel innovation-led growth. Luxembourg: absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
Publications Office of the European Union. potential conflict of interest.
Ostermann-Miyashita, E.-F., Pernat, N., Watanabe, I., Werner, D., Kampen, H.,
Ozaki, H., and Bellingrath-Kimura, S. (2019). “Analysis of the current state of Copyright © 2021 Eckhardt, Kaletka, Krüger, Maldonado-Mariscal and Schulz. This
citizen science in Germany, based on 96 projects registered on the official is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
website of the Federal Ministry for Education and Research,” in Forum citizen Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is
science 2019. Editors D. Nüst, T. Bartoschek, and M. Pesch, 16–26. permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited
O’Neill, R. V., DeAngelis, D. L., Waide, J. B., and Allen, T. F. H. (1986). A and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted
hierarchical concept of ecosystems. (Monographs in Population Biology 23). academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. comply with these terms.

Frontiers in Sociology | www.frontiersin.org 11 February 2021 | Volume 6 | Article 642289