Revealing the social face of innovation
SOURCE: South African Journal of Science
OUTPUT TYPE: Journal Article
PUBLICATION YEAR: 2015
TITLE AUTHOR(S): T.G.B.Hart, K.H.Ramoroka, P.T.Jacobs, B.A.Letty
KEYWORDS: INCLUSIVE DEVELOPMENT, INNOVATION, RURAL COMMUNITIES
Print: HSRC Library: shelf number 8818
HANDLE: 20.500.11910/1784
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11910/1784
OUTPUT TYPE: Journal Article
PUBLICATION YEAR: 2015
TITLE AUTHOR(S): T.G.B.Hart, K.H.Ramoroka, P.T.Jacobs, B.A.Letty
KEYWORDS: INCLUSIVE DEVELOPMENT, INNOVATION, RURAL COMMUNITIES
Print: HSRC Library: shelf number 8818
HANDLE: 20.500.11910/1784
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11910/1784
If you would like to obtain a copy of this Research Output, please contact Hanlie Baudin at researchoutputs@hsrc.ac.za.
Abstract
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 consternation 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 practice 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.-
Related Research Outputs:
- Investment into eco-tourism projects: KwaZulu-Natal coastal belt: South Africa
- NASFAM funding proposal for the National AIDS Commission
- Trends and policy challenges in the rural economy: four provincial case studies
- Rural development in South Africa: tensions between democracy and traditional authority
- Living with rats
- The importance of indigenous knowledge in reducing poverty of rural Agrarian households
- Gender, development and transport in rural South Africa: methodological, policy and implementation challenges
- Rural municipality case studies: land reform, farm employment and livelihoods
- Innovation and training in community appraisal
- Rural development: strategies and challenges
- Don't underestimate cities' role in rural growth
- Outcome 7: vibrant, equitable and sustainable rural communities and food security for all
- Sustainable rural development: employment and household farming
- Urban and rural areas: allies not rivals
- Whither agrarian reform in South Africa?
- Technological initiatives for rural development: evidence from eight comprehensive rural development programme pilot sites
- Spatial mapping and analysis of integrated agricultural land use and infrastructure in Mhlontlo local municipality, Eastern Cape, South Africa
- Incomprehension follows the comprehensive rural development programme
- Reforming the land: agrarian reform projects missing pro-poor target
- The social dynamics of innovation for rural development