D1.1 The NEMESIS social innovation learning framework
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
D1.1 The NEMESIS social innovation
learning framework
NEMESIS project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under grant agreement No 770348.
Document details
Project Acronym: NEMESIS
Project Name: New Educational Model Enabling Social Innovation Skills
development
Project URL: www.nemesis-edu.eu
Project Type: Innovation Action (IA)
EU CALL: CO-CREATION-01-2017
Grant Agreement No.: 770348
Project Start Date: October 2017
Project End Date: January 2021
Deliverable: D1.1 The NEMESIS social innovation learning framework
(v1)
Due date of Deliverable: 30/06/2018
Actual Submission Date: 29/06/2018
Name of Lead Beneficiary for STIMMULI
this deliverable:
Report Author(s): Main authors: Irene Kalemaki, Ioanna Garefi, Sofia
Kantsiou (STIMMULI), Dr Aristidis Protopsaltis (ILI – FAU)
Contributors: Ivan Diego (Valnalon), Jen Wall and Dr Rory
Ridley- Duff (SEI), Felipe Gonzales (ASOCCE)
Reviewed by: Dr. Aristidis Protopsaltis (ILI- FAU)
Dr. Rory Ridley- Duff (SEI)
Revision: 0.9
Dissemination Level: Public
Document History
Version Date Comment Modifications made by
0.1 20/10/2017 1st draft STIMMULI
0.2 15/1/2017 2nd draft All consortium partners
0.3 5/2/2018 3rd draft – updates after project meeting and STIMMULI
first validation workshop
0.4 27/5/2018 4th draft – updates after partners review STIMMULI, ILI-FAU,
VALNALON, SEI
[D1.1 NEMESIS social innovation learning framework] 2
www.nemesis-edu.eu
0.5 18/6/2018 5th draft – updates after the teacher STIMMULI, ILI-FAU
training workshop
0.6 22/6/2016 6th draft – final refinements STIMMULI
0.7 29/6/2018 Final version STIMMULI, ILI-FAU
0.8 4/3/2019 STIMMULI
In section 7, a new sub-section was added
(7.1 the three core elements of the
NEMESIS model) to provide a better
description of the co-creation labs bottom
up approach, and the different target
groups involved. (pages 62 -66)
Updated section 6.1 by adding more H2020
projects and other initiatives and networks
for creating synergies, page 59
Section 7.2 was renamed to “the NEMESIS
learning outcomes” to provide a more
detailed description of the expected
learning outcomes and the SI
competences (pages 66-71)
New section (7.3) was added to present
the inclusive education elements of the
NEMESIS model pages: 73-74
0.9 7/3/2019 Final review Aristos Protopsaltis, Ioanna
Garefi, SEi
Disclaimer
Any dissemination of results reflects only the author's view and the European Commission is not
responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.
Copyright message
© Partners of the NEMESIS Consortium, 2017
This deliverable contains original unpublished work except where clearly indicated otherwise.
Acknowledgement of previously published material and of the work of others has been made through
[D1.1 NEMESIS social innovation learning framework] 3
www.nemesis-edu.eu
appropriate citation, quotation or both. Reproduction is authorised provided the source is
acknowledged.
Acknowledgements
This document was made possible by the individuals who kindly agreed to be interviewed by us and to
provide feedback and comments on early drafts. We are very grateful to the following people for their
input:
Social Innovation Practitioners: Peter Mangan, (The Freebird Club), Edoardo Zaffuto, (Addiopizzo
Travel), Alexander Theodoridis (Boroume), Natasha Athansiadou (Generation Generous), Jordina Arcal,
(HealthApp), Kostapanos Miliaresis, (Ethelon), Melina Taprantzi, (Wise Greece), Esther García Garaluz
(ENESO), Angela Catley, (Community Catalysts), Giouli Doksanaki, (xorafaki)
Representatives from relevant educational programmes: Rachel Collier (Young Social Innovators),
Georgia Gleoudi, (Junior Achievement Greece, Social Innovation Relay Greece), Paz Fernández de la
Vera, (co-ordinator of Bottled Stories project), Maxime Verbeij, (Ashoka Netherlands), Emer Beamer,
(Designathon) Kate Druhan, (Green School Bali), Mirna Karzen (Social Innovation Laboratory)
Finally, we would like to thank our colleagues at Valnalon, Social Enterprise International, ASOCCE, and
European School Heads Association (ESHA) for their considered comments, contributions and support
on this deliverable.
Glossary and abbreviations
SI Social Innovation
SIE Social Innovation Education
SIPs Social Innovation Practitioners
The NEMESIS The NEMESIS SILF presents the philosophy behind the NEMESIS model and
social innovation provides the conceptual and theoretical underpinning for the
learning development of high quality social innovation teaching practices under the
framework (SILF) specific framework of the NEMESIS model.
The NEMESIS The NEMESIS educational model provides the teaching and learning
educational practices for introducing SIE at schools.
model
[D1.1 NEMESIS social innovation learning framework] 4
www.nemesis-edu.eu
Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 7
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 9
Purpose of the NEMESIS learning framework ........................................................ 9
Methodology .......................................................................................................... 10
Defining Social Innovation Education ...................................................................... 12
What is Social Innovation? .................................................................................... 12
How Social Innovation Education is perceived? ..................................................... 14
NEMESIS competence framework ........................................................................... 18
Relevant competence frameworks .......................................................................... 18
Entrepreneurship Competence Framework ............................................................................. 19
Changemakers Attributes ........................................................................................................ 20
OECD Learning framework 2030 ........................................................................................... 21
Competences for democratic culture ....................................................................................... 22
Insight from teachers and SIPs .............................................................................. 24
NEMESIS competences ......................................................................................... 26
Vision for a better world.......................................................................................................... 29
Responsible and critical thinking ............................................................................................ 30
Empathy .................................................................................................................................. 30
Self- efficacy ........................................................................................................................... 31
Collective and creative problem solving ................................................................................. 31
Embracing diversity ................................................................................................................ 31
Collective efficacy ................................................................................................................... 32
Social resilience ....................................................................................................................... 32
Digital Social Innovation skills ............................................................................................... 33
Take the leap for social value creation .................................................................................... 33
Organisation and mobilization of resources ............................................................................ 34
Social Communication skills ................................................................................................... 34
Reflective learning .................................................................................................................. 34
Collaborative planning and democratic decision making ........................................................ 35
Relevant learning theories and pedagogies ............................................................... 37
NEMESIS educational approach ........................................................................... 37
Relevant pedagogies............................................................................................... 38
Experiential Learning .............................................................................................................. 38
Social Constructivism.............................................................................................................. 39
Active Learning ....................................................................................................................... 40
Problem-Based Learning (PBL) .............................................................................................. 41
Project-Based Learning (PjBL) ............................................................................................... 43
Discovery-Based Learning (DBL)........................................................................................... 44
Collaborative Learning ............................................................................................................ 45
Service Learning...................................................................................................................... 46
Design thinking ....................................................................................................................... 47
Critical learning theory ............................................................................................................ 48
Entrepreneurship education ..................................................................................................... 48
[D1.1 NEMESIS social innovation learning framework] 5
www.nemesis-edu.eu
Social reconstructionism ......................................................................................................... 49
Expanded Education ................................................................................................................ 50
Concluding remarks .............................................................................................. 50
Relevant educational programmes ........................................................................... 52
Mapping and selection of relevant educational programmes .................................. 52
Focus on innovation towards sustainability ............................................................................. 53
Focus on socio/political activation and social change ............................................................. 56
Focus on collective relations building, embracing diversity and community interaction ........ 58
Key findings........................................................................................................... 61
The NEMESIS social innovation educational model ................................................. 63
NEMESIS Co-Creation labs: a bottom up approach to SIE .................................................... 64
SIPs community ...................................................................................................................... 67
NEMESIS Social Innovation online learning platform ........................................................... 68
The NEMESIS learning outcomes.......................................................................... 68
Building students’ knowledge, ability and attitudes towards identifying opportunities for
social value creation .............................................................................................................................. 69
Building students’ knowledge, abilities and attitudes towards forming collaborations and
build relations ........................................................................................................................................ 70
Take action both individually and collectively ........................................................................ 71
The inclusive education elements of the NEMESIS model ...................................... 74
Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 76
Bibliography............................................................................................................. 77
List of Tables
Table 1: Changemaker Attributes .......................................................................................................20
Table 2: Key elements of the NEMESIS competence framework ......................................................27
List of Figures
Figure 1: EntreComp Competences ....................................................................................................19
Figure 2: OECD Learning Framework 2030 ......................................................................................22
Figure 3: Democratic Culture Competence Framework .....................................................................23
Figure 4: The process of Social Innovation ........................................................................................25
Figure 5: NEMESIS Social Innovation Competences ........................................................................29
Figure 6: NEMESIS approach ............................................................................................................63
Figure 7: Key stages of the NEMESIS model ....................................................................................64
[D1.1 NEMESIS social innovation learning framework] 6
www.nemesis-edu.eu
Executive Summary NEMESIS is an H2020 funded project that brings together social innovation (SI) and education with the aim to develop a novel model for empowering students from primary and secondary education to become the changemakers of tomorrow. The project comes as a response to the emerging and ever-increasing needs for educating and empowering the younger generation to cope both with the challenges and the opportunities that will form our futures. We are living in a rapidly changing world. Technological advancements are impacting our every-day life by introducing unprecedented changes. Complexity is accelerating while societal challenges are becoming pressing and require innovative solutions for a sustainable future. In this respect, we often face the question of how to educate the young people to thrive in such an uncertain context, to be able to adapt to the new and emerging needs of the world in which we live (or that we will live in) and to be able to actively contribute to a better society. In NEMESIS we try to provide an answer on these questions by considering the key role that education on SI could play. Particularly, we consider social innovation education (SIE) as the vehicle for the empowerment of young people to drive positive social change. It is the vehicle we propose for the development of the future changemakers of Europe who will be able to put their knowledge and skills into practice in order to solve the critical problems that our societies are facing and will face in the future. In this context, this deliverable presents our first attempt to design the “NEMESIS Social Innovation Learning Framework” (SILF) that aims to frame an approach to social innovation (SI) teaching and learning. The main elements of the NEMESIS framework are: i) the conceptualisation of SIE given that as a term and as a research field is new, ii) the definition of a set of competences (a combination of skills, knowledge and attitudes) related to SIE and iii) the pedagogical basis of the NEMESIS model together with the expected learning outcomes. To define SIE, we first turn to a discussion of some broader concepts and definitions of SI that help us understand how SI is perceived by different stakeholders such as academics, educators and social innovation practitioners (SIPs). By combining different insights, we then unfold our understanding on SIE and suggest a concrete working definition according to which: “Social Innovation Education is a collaborative and collective learning process for the empowerment and socio/political activation of students to drive social change no matter what their professional pathways. It builds their competences to identify opportunities for social value creation, to form collaborations and build social relationships and take innovative action for a more democratic and sustainable society”. Based on this definition and by exploring relevant competence frameworks and stakeholders’ opinions we define a flexible set of competences that we deem essential for Social Innovators. Particularly, the competences defined by NEMESIS fall under three categories: 1) the ability to identify opportunities to create social value, 2) the ability to build collaborations and form relationships and 3) the ability to take innovative action (both individually and collectively) for the benefit of society. Under these three categories, we focus on specific individual and collective competences that we regard as essential for driving social change, transforming lives and activating people for societal betterment. We also highlight the importance of specific values that should underpin all competences since values are essential for shaping a social innovation culture and thus framing our model’s knowledge, skills and attitudes. [D1.1 NEMESIS social innovation learning framework] 7 www.nemesis-edu.eu
Then we concentrate on presenting and analysing the NEMESIS educational model. In a nutshell, learning in NEMESIS is based on collective relations and processes and the establishment of links and collaborations within the learning and social innovation community. Our model builds on a combination of innovative pedagogies and exploits open technologies to bridge theory and practice and facilitate learning on social innovation. The NEMESIS model is activated through Co-creation Labs. These are open innovation and learning environments where different stakeholders such as teachers, students, parents, SIPs or any other member of the local community can collaborate towards a common goal: to co-create new knowledge, achieve a clear understanding of social innovation and develop relevant competences by participating in the design and development of social innovation projects. Through co-creation labs, NEMESIS redefines existing hierarchical relations and empowers students to become equal co-creators of the educational process. This inter- generational and multi-stakeholder collaborative work enriches the learning experience and promotes collaborative mindsets. In this respect, social innovation competences are cultivated through real life experimentation and the establishment of links between classroom learning and local communities. Through a critical review of relevant pedagogies and learning theories that fit well with SIE and also by mapping and analysing relevant educational programmes and initiatives, we connect theory to practice and elaborate further on the pedagogical aspects and the learning outcomes of our approach, so as to present and summarise at the end of this deliverable the NEMESIS model. Finally, it should be noted that this report presents the first step towards the development of the NEMESIS social innovation learning framework (SILF) which will be tested and validated through real life pilot implementations in primary and secondary schools around Europe. The results from the pilots will be used to update the NEMESIS framework whereby all respective outcomes will be reformulated according to feedback from stakeholders who will be both directly and indirectly involved. Therefore, in the conclusions of this document, there is a timeline indicating when the activities that will update the learning framework will take place. [D1.1 NEMESIS social innovation learning framework] 8 www.nemesis-edu.eu
Introduction
The mission of the NEMESIS project is to act as catalysts for social innovation education (SIE) in
Europe. Together with teachers, social innovation practitioners, researchers and policy makers we
co-design an innovative educational model that will empower students from all backgrounds to
develop social innovation (SI) competences and encourage them to become the future
changemakers of Europe.
In this respect this document aims at providing the learning framework that underpins the NEMESIS
model, which consists of three following elements:
A working definition of SIE. Particularly in section 3 we present the conceptual model of
NEMESIS. We critically review the academic literature on SI and combine insights both from Social
Innovation Practitioners (SIPs) and educators towards the conceptualisation of the NEMESIS
working definition on SIE.
A set of competences that can be cultivated through SIE and are important for social innovators.
Section 4 presents the learning opportunities that can be generated through NEMESIS and defines
a set of competences related to them. The NEMESIS competences reflect our working definition
on SIE although being inspired by other relevant competences framework and insights coming
both from educators and SIPs.
The NEMESIS educational model with a particular focus on its pedagogical aspects and learning
outcomes. Section 5 and 6 elaborates on the pedagogical basis of the NEMESIS model. Through
a review of relevant learning theories and a mapping of existing educational programmes that
encompass aspects of SIE, we present and elaborate further on the NEMESIS model. A direct link
is created with “D1.3: A guide for organising a co-creation lab” which provides practical
instructions for the implementation of the NEMESIS model.
In order to avoid any nuances over the course of the project, it is important to distinguish between
the NEMESIS social innovation learning framework (SILF) and the NEMESIS model and explain in brief
of what each one entails. Hence, the NEMESIS SILF presents the theoretical background that has
been thoroughly investigated around SI and SIE and provides the conceptual underpinnings of the
project together with the key competences related to SIE. Towards the end of the project (after
piloting and testing it with a variety of schools around Europe) we will attempt to explain how these
competences could be achieved in any educational setting, including those with disadvantaged
backgrounds. The NEMESIS model complements the SILF by providing the practical process and steps
that can be followed, enabling the facilitation and fostering of relevant competences. Again, the
model and the way it is presented can be tailored according to the context in which it will be utilised
and the needs it will aim to cover.
Purpose of the NEMESIS learning framework
The Social Innovation Learning Framework (SILF) is designed to serve as a catalyst for innovative,
engaging and interdisciplinary SIE. Hence, we have endeavoured to make this framework accessible,
flexible and open to all so that it enables educators to deliver SIE in an innovative way and thus
integrate it into their own teaching styles and methods.
Given that frameworks tend to have different intentions, the main purpose of the SILF is to provide
educators with a starting point and therefore, inspire them into delivering SIE in their contexts and
learning environments. The value of the NEMESIS learning framework is perfectly expressed through
[D1.1 NEMESIS social innovation learning framework] 9
www.nemesis-edu.eu
Inamorato dos Santos et al quote, that “the trick is to use the framework without getting trapped in
it and approach it as a supporting tool for the development of strategies” (2016, p.22).
The wide range of educational settings in which we hope the NEMESIS model will be used is diverse
with numerous stakeholders, so we know the framework must be versatile to be effective, flexible
and easily adapted and adjustable, whilst also being open to development over the course of the
project. We need a framework that users will find useful now and in the future.
It is also important to note that the SILF does not aim to provide a fixed and structured solution or
definitive answers on how SIE could be delivered. It rather provides key pointers that need to be
taken into account to give its prospective users the flexibility to adapt it to best fit their needs,
educational foci and learning contexts. According to Inamorato dos Santos et al (2016, p.24), “the
answers come from the insights generated by the process of interacting with the framework”. Hence,
this framework shall be seen as a supporting tool that will enable educators into delivering SIE in a
more innovative and empowering way while paying particular attention to its underpinning
philosophy and values. This highlights the transformative power of SI to foster society’s capacity to
drive social change and value creation for a better, more democratic and sustainable world.
In our effort to make it more practical and less complex, we have developed a special guide (D1.3)
which provides practical instructions for the implementation of the NEMESIS model, using innovative
co-creation methodologies to pull theory together with invaluable knowledge and insights from the
frontlines of social business and education. We have thus developed it in a way to be easily adopted
by all, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds. This will help educators relate it and easily
visualise how they might put it into action in their own educational setting.
On a final note, we need to stress out that this is the first version of the framework and it will thus
be further piloted and tested so as to provide a more complete, concrete and straightforward picture
of it. Hence, this version as it is currently drafted aims towards:
- Providing a common ground for the project consortium in terms of definitions, meanings
and approaches that will be utilised throughout the different activities and steps of the
project, so that all the work currently being developed is perfectly aligned;
- Providing pilot schools with a guiding background paper that will enable them to get to grips
with the SILF and its conceptual underpinnings, thus enable them to further critique it while
they pilot test the NEMESIS model within their schools;
- Serving as a basis for informing the design of the evaluation methodology that is being
developed as part of the project; and also,
- Serving as a starting point for further research in the field of SIE. The research work
presented in this document is ground-breaking since SIE is a new concept and has been
relatively under-investigated. The final version of the SILF that will be developed after the
pilot implementation of the NEMESIS model will provide evidence-based results and
research opportunities to investigate further the potential and impact of SIE. It will also
stimulate future research into the concepts, tools and practices that foster SIE both at a
practical and policy level.
Methodology
In order to provide a SILF that provides useful guidance, we decided to undertake a rigorous
approach that involved theoretical research combined with empirical evidence. Hence, we
undertook a literature review whereby we encapsulated the various definitions given to SI
[D1.1 NEMESIS social innovation learning framework] 10
www.nemesis-edu.euhighlighting different aspects of the term (output related, process related and underlying philosophy), so as to be able to pinpoint the variety of definitions around this theme and relate them to the NEMESIS conceptualisation of SI that emerged. In this framework and in our effort to bridge SI with education, we have also investigated how SI can be connected to education. Hence, in our attempt to find some definitions that fit the goals of education, we focused on those highlighting the transformative power of SI to foster society’s capacity to drive social change. In parallel, we interviewed SIPs to glean insights from their experience in SI and we have also consulted schools regarding their delivery of SIE, their understanding of SIE as well as their opinion on the most important competences that can be cultivated at school to empower young people to become the social innovators of the future. A combination of insights enabled us to unfold our understanding on SIE and ultimately suggest a working definition that will guide and frame our work on the NEMESIS model. These combined insights also gave us grounds to examine relevant existing competence frameworks in order to further investigate those competences that may be aligned to our working definition on SIE. This enabled us to narrow down those that are related to SI. Finally, we have reviewed the different learning theories and investigated existing European and worldwide educational programmes which encompass interesting and relevant practices to SIE, so as to complement our research. This has enabled us to position the NEMESIS model within the current educational landscape. In this process, we interviewed representatives from different programmes to elicit more in-depth information and insight on the different learning methods (practices and tools) they utilised in their programme. We related their programmes to SI as well as their understanding of SIE, learning outcomes and key competences. Hence, this theoretical and empirical exploration of concepts and meanings has inspired us towards providing a first version of the NEMESIS SILF, including our philosophy, underpinning values and relevant competences. [D1.1 NEMESIS social innovation learning framework] 11 www.nemesis-edu.eu
Defining Social Innovation Education
What is Social Innovation?
During the last decades, Social Innovation (SI) has gained a lot of momentum and interest among
policymakers, foundations, researchers and academic institutions around the world. Even though,
there are a large number of different definitions in circulation, there is no common definition of the
term. Its multi-disciplinary nature and the fact that it cuts across different sectors, has undoubtedly
contributed to the diversity and variety of its meanings and uses since many of those writing about
social innovation tend to do so with a specific sector in mind (The Young Foundation, 2012).
Particularly, social innovation happens in all sectors of the economy (voluntary, social, public and
private), whereby social innovators can come from many different backgrounds, including civil
society, entrepreneurs, government, public institutions, commercial companies, trade unions,
informal citizen networks, social movements and cooperatives.
According to a systematic and comprehensive review of the various social innovation definitions that
have been formulated (Caulier-Grice et al, 2012), it is evident that social innovation has been used
to describe:
the development of new products, services and programmes, by referring to public sector
innovation and the provision of public services by social enterprises and civil society
organisations.
the process of social change and the transformation of society, by emphasising the role of civil
society and social economy in social change.
a model of organisational management, which relates to changes in human, institutional and
social capitals leading to organisational efficiency and improved competitiveness.
social entrepreneurship and social enterprise: SI is usually used to describe social
entrepreneurship and social enterprises, although it is much broader than both terms. The idea
of social entrepreneurship became popular during the 90s when Leadbeater in the UK and Dees
in the USA were the first to theorize on social entrepreneurship. Dees emphasised particularly
the need to combine an entrepreneurial mind-set with social activism (Dees, 2013), combining
the “passion of a social mission with an image of business-like discipline, innovation, and
determination” (Dees, 1998). Social enterprise is about a way of doing business; mainly for a social
purpose but also many social enterprises emphasise their democratic structure and/or the ethics
and values that drive them. They are often set up by innovative ideas, but more often their
innovation is around the way they do business and make decisions, aiming for inclusiveness and
fairness. The overlap between SI and social enterprises usually happens in the sense that a social
enterprise may deliver a socially innovative programme (or not).
a model of governance, empowerment and capacity building, focusing on the competences and
assets developed through the interaction among various actors.
From the large variety of definitions that exist, most of the time, social innovation is generally seen
as the process of finding novel and imaginative solutions to solve social problems.
According to Mulgan (2007) social innovation is about:
“innovative activities and services that are motivated by the goal of meeting a social
need and that are predominantly developed and diffused through organisations whose
primary purposes are social”.
[D1.1 NEMESIS social innovation learning framework] 12
www.nemesis-edu.euAn output-oriented definition that is commonly used sees SI as:
“A novel solution to a social problem that is more effective, efficient, sustainable, or
just than existing solutions and for which the value created accrues primarily to society
as a whole rather than private individuals. A social innovation can be a product, a
production process, or technology, but it can also be a principle, an idea, a piece of
legislation, a social movement, an intervention, or some combination of them
(Deiglmeier et al, 2008)”.
A similar but more universal definition that doesn’t only focus on the outputs of SI but also on its
transformative and empowering effect on the creation of new social relations and dynamics has been
developed by the Young Foundation (2012), according to which:
“Social innovations are new solutions (products, services, models, markets, processes
etc.) that simultaneously meet a social need (more effectively than existing solutions)
and lead to new or improved capabilities and relationships and better use of assets
and resources. In other words, social innovations are both good for society and
enhance society’s capacity to act” (Caulier-Grice et al, 2012) 1
This definition emphasizes the potential of SI to empower people, build capabilities and create new
relations and collaborations, highlighting the transformative power of SI to foster society’s
capacity to drive social change.
The creation of new relations can happen in a number of ways – a new form of governance, a better
form of collaborative action, or entirely new relationships for example, by enabling users to become
producers or students to become teachers. These new roles and relations often enhance the
capabilities of people to better satisfy their needs over the long term. The focus on capabilities
highlights a sense of agency and participation where people are seen as active, creative, and able
to act on behalf of their aspirations. In this sense, the capabilities approach is based on the notion
that people are both individually and collectively in control of their own lives and the source of
their own solutions (Caulier-Grice et al, 2012).
Considering further the aspect of social innovation to improve and increase people’s capacities to
act, it is evident that there are significant links between the social innovation and the education
world since both encompass similar goals.
“Education is a means to empower children and adults alike to become active
participants in the transformation of their societies”. (UNESCO, 2017)
To elaborate further on this aspect of SI, we want to highlight a critical definition of social innovation
according to which:
1 A typology of social innovations was developed providing practical examples of social innovations where a new
product can be an assistive technology developed for people with disabilities, a new service can be mobile banking,
a new process like crowdsourcing, a new market such as Fair Trade or time banking, a new platform like Tyze which
helps older people track informal and formal care, a new organizational form such as Community interest companies,
or a new business model such as social franchising.
[D1.1 NEMESIS social innovation learning framework] 13
www.nemesis-edu.eu"Social Innovation as a concept and a practice holds a great socio-political
transformative potential and warns against reducing the meaning of Social
Innovation to mere social problem mending as a response to state and market
insufficiencies. " (Moulaert et al. ,2017)
By embracing this definition,
“…we consider SI as a combination of at least 3 dimensions: collective satisfaction
of unsatisfied or insufficiently met human needs, building more cohesive social
relations and, through socio-political bottom-linked empowerment, work
toward more democratic societies and communities (also called the socio-
political transformation dimension of SI).” (Moulaert et al. ,2017)
“The two crucial common elements in social innovation are new social
relationships (process related) and new social value creation (outcome related).
The changes in social relationships that emerge as “process elements” are an
important part of the innovation process and may even be the most important
part in some cases." (Haxeltine et al., 2013)
Similarly, Neumeier defines social innovation as the transformation of attitudes, behaviours and
perceptions of people which leads to new ways of collaborative action. Nicholls and Murdock also
focus on the processes of social change in social relations highlighting a process of re-
contextualisation within socially (re)constructed norms and social values such as the public good,
justice and equity. They also argue that ‘social innovation is never neutral but always politically and
socially constructed’ (Caulier-Grice et al, 2012).
All the above can be considered as a set of concepts, processes and outcomes that seem reasonably
well aligned with goals and values espoused by education systems across Europe. Therefore, in our
attempt to define Social Innovation Education (SIE) we will focus on the empowering and
transformative power of social innovation to improve the individual and collective capabilities of
people to build new relations and produce collective outcomes and social value.
In this light, the next sections aim to define how we conceptualise social innovation education in the
specific framework of the NEMESIS educational model.
How Social Innovation Education is perceived?
Although social innovation has been studied from different spectrums and angles, a consolidated
literature on social innovation in education does not exist and there is no clear definition explaining
what SIE is. The main reason for this is related to the diverse meanings and conceptions that exist on
social innovation and also to the fact that SIE is a relatively new area for research. Therefore, in our
attempt to understand and conceptualise what SIE is, i) we initially searched for literature which
explicitly seeks to address SIE, ii) we then consulted educators to explore their perceptions on SIE
and iii) finally we searched for relevant literature that implicitly touches upon SIE. The intention of
this section is not to provide a systemic review of relevant literature but to summarise the most
relevant findings from three different sources of information that influenced our conceptualisation
on SIE education.
Literature explicitly addressing SIE
[D1.1 NEMESIS social innovation learning framework] 14
www.nemesis-edu.euDespite the increasing development of both graduate and undergraduate education programs on SI,
the topic of social innovation education is still under-investigated. The only published study that
explicitly focuses on social innovation education has been developed by the University of
Northampton, which was recently recognised as an AshokaU “Changemaker Campus”. The University
of Northampton developed this study in order to design a theoretical framework for embedding SIE
in academic programmes. According to this study, SIE is defined as:
“the complex process of developing graduates who aspire to change the world
for the better, regardless of career path. These individuals are knowledgeable,
socially and ethically responsible, as well as emotionally intelligent innovators,
leaders and communicators.” (Rivers et al. 2015)
Summarising the main principles that guided the development of this definition, it’s worth
mentioning that SIE is conceptualised by the authors of this study as a systemic and sustainable
approach to improve society through positive social change; it aims to develop qualities for positive
changemaking; it subsumes the development of employability skills and 21st century skills, while
working towards a more sophisticated set of competences; it promotes learning on a more critical
and socially impactful plane than traditional undergraduate education.
The definition on SIE developed by the Northampton University mainly focuses on the outcomes of
social innovation (“change the world for the better”) and the related competences needed (i.e.
changemaking, employability and 21st century skills), while not touching upon the empowering
aspects of SI to increase civic engagement and accelerate collective outcomes, which is a core
element in our understanding and perception on SIE, as presented earlier.
Educators conceptions on SIE
To develop a working definition on SIE, we deemed it essential to seek educator’s opinions about
how they understand and conceptualise SIE. This happened as part of the cross-cultural training
needs analysis that was conducted during the project and was targeted at teachers of primary and
secondary education across five European countries (D2.1 Cross cultural needs report). According to
the main findings, first, it is worth mentioning that the majority of teachers stated that they have
never heard about the term “social innovation education” or that they know just a few things.
Second, summarising their answers, it was apparent that they conceptualise SIE as a learning
experience that should empower and enable students to create new responses to pressing
problems in the different areas of society.
“SIE helps to change pedagogical practices to improve society by helping children
to become enlightened citizens and involved in the life of the city” (Primary
School Teacher, France)
“The aim is to encourage the use of enterprising skills for the benefit of society
rather than the individual, but in a way which goes beyond the setting up of social
enterprise businesses” (Secondary school teacher, UK)
The conceptualisation of SIE from teachers appeared inclined towards learning theories related to
collaborative learning and experiential learning and a social reconstructionist view of the world.
Social reconstructionism is a philosophy that emphasizes addressing social issues through education
to create a better society and worldwide democracy. Social Reconstructionism focuses on the
potential of schools and educators who, with the help of other cultural agencies, could become
agents of reconstruction and reform in society. In this light, reconstructionist educators focus on a
[D1.1 NEMESIS social innovation learning framework] 15
www.nemesis-edu.eucurriculum that highlights social reform as the aim of education. It is centred around students experience and enables them to take action on real social problems thus fostering community-based learning and bringing the real world into the classroom. Teachers said that SIE involves preparing children for the world around them to make the world a better place for themselves and others through collaborative education that helps co-create innovative and creative solutions to existing problems. (D2.1) Looking at SIE from the eyes of teachers, it is evident that the focus is on the empowering aspects of education to develop conscious, socially engaged, collaborative and self-determined individuals able to solve problems both individually and collectively for the benefit of their societies. Literature implicitly addressing SIE In our attempt to develop a comprehensive definition on SIE that reflects our understanding on the empowering and transformative effect of SI on individuals and society at large we searched for relevant work across different literatures and disciplines although not explicitly focusing on SIE. There is actually an entire stream of relevant literature that connects civic/youth activism, participation and engagement in educational contexts which deserves our attention. Considering SIE as a subset of Youth Activism, we build on an important body of research exploring young people’s involvement in attempts to achieve change within their communities (whether local, national or global) (Davies et al, 2014). In its interrogation of youth activism as a context for learning and development, Kirschner (2007) sets the scene by making a clear distinction between “community service programs where youth clean parks, tutor children, and serve food to the homeless and youth activism groups where youth seek to influence public policy and change institutional practices, often with a social justice focus” (Kahne & Westheimer, 1996). In youth activism, a critical form of civic engagement is created in which young people are encouraged to question the status quo and envision better alternatives for themselves and their peers (Watts & Guessous, 2006). In his study, Kirshner highlights four distinctive qualities of youth activism as a learning environment, which we consider as essential components of SIE and also very relevant to the NEMESIS educational model. These are: a) collective problem solving, b) youth–adult interaction, c) exploration of alternative frames for identity, and d) bridges to academic and civic institutions. To elaborate further on these qualities, youth activism shifts the focus from individual to collective action; embodies cross-generational interactions that provide an important venue for students to develop relationships with adults in the context of task-oriented activities, exposes students to socio-political viewpoints that enables them to see themselves as active producers of society thus fostering a belief in the power of ordinary people to accomplish social change and finally connects youth to civic institutions and engage them in authentic learning experiences that demonstrate the relevance of academic skills to everyday life (Kirshner 2007). Having in mind the dynamics of social innovation for the socio-political empowerment and activation of people, (with the term “political” going beyond constitutional politics by including broader activities associated with citizenship such as social responsibility and community involvement) we regard the youth activism literature as a very relevant and valid framework to further build upon towards the definition of SIE and the refinement of the NEMESIS learning framing. [D1.1 NEMESIS social innovation learning framework] 16 www.nemesis-edu.eu
On this basis, in the next sections we present the main components of the NEMESIS social innovation
learning framework which is consisted of:
Our working definition of SIE.
The NEMESIS learning framework in terms of the competences it entails and learning
opportunities generated.
The pedagogical basis of NEMESIS as well as the learning outcomes that are expected to be
generated contributing to the socio/political activation and empowerment of students.
The key features of the NEMESIS model paying specific attention to its inter-generational
elements.
Combining aspects from relevant academic work with educator’s conceptions on SIE, we concluded
on our working definition on SIE which is presented below:
“Social Innovation Education is a collaborative and collective learning process for the
empowerment and socio/political activation of students to drive social change no matter their
professional pathways. It builds their competences to identify opportunities for social value
creation, to form collaborations and build social relationships and take innovative action for a
more democratic and sustainable society”.
At this point, it should be clarified that for the development of this definition we were guided by the
following principle:
First, it should be mentioned that it is a working definition which aims to bring together
social innovation and education, or in other words both research and practice-led
perspectives. In this light, our aim was to produce a definition which makes sense for
educators, researchers as well as social innovation practitioners. Therefore, we have tried
to include and combine perspectives from all target groups.
Second, we do not aim at developing a universal definition on social innovation education.
Although for developing this definition we have drawn from international experiences, we
also recognise that SIE is context dependent and can be influenced by various cultural,
economic, legislative factors.
Third, this definition is based on our research, interpretation and understanding and aims to
serve the specific objectives of the NEMESIS educational model.
[D1.1 NEMESIS social innovation learning framework] 17
www.nemesis-edu.euNEMESIS competence framework
The development of the NEMESIS working definition on SIE provides the basis from which we
investigated the learning opportunities that are created by the NEMESIS model and the related
competences that could be cultivated to make students the future social innovators of Europe. With
the term competences we refer to a combination of skills, knowledge and attitudes which may
empower and enable people both individually and collectively to create value for the society through
social innovation.
Given that social innovators can come from various sectors of economy and social innovation can
take various forms, it is very challenging to define a specific set of competences that can be
associated with them. For example, a social innovator may or may not require entrepreneurial skills
or in the case of digital literacy although it may be helpful, extensive digital skills may or may not be
essential.
In this line of reasoning, and having in mind the transformative, collaborative and empowering
aspects of Social Innovation, we regard as essential for the NEMESIS social innovation learning
framework to not only focus on competences related to innovation and entrepreneurship (such as
creativity and vision) but to also pay attention on both individual and collective competences that
can empower people to take action and achieve collective outcomes towards social value creation,
such as collective efficacy, democratic decision making etc.).
In this light, for defining the competences necessary for social innovators, i) we examined relevant
existing competence frameworks in order to investigate competences that may be well aligned to
our working definition on SIE and find further inspiration, ii) we interviewed a number of Social
Innovation Practitioners in Europe in order to get first-hand information that reflect real life
experiences, and iii) we explored educators opinions on the most important competences that can
be cultivated during school in order to empower children to become the social innovators of
tomorrow.
Relevant competence frameworks
The majority of the existing educational programs that may considered as encompassing aspects of
social innovation education due to their focus on activating student’s creativity and problem-solving
skills, focus on entrepreneurship education and most recently on social entrepreneurship (rather
than explicitly taking a more specific orientation towards social innovation). In this respect European
and international competence framework have been developed to support the design of such
programmes by explicitly and excessively focusing on the development of skills for employable
citizens. The 21st century skills framework (P21), the European reference framework of key
competences for lifelong learning (EC, 2018), the European Entrepreneurship Competence
framework (Bacigalupo et al, 2016), are among those frameworks that provide valuable insights for
the promotion of employability competences which are important for the future employees,
entrepreneurs or intrapreneurs. In our attempt to define a set of competences related to social
innovation, we build on some of the existing competence frameworks that seem to be well aligned
to the objectives of the NEMESIS model, but also go beyond them by conceptualising a set of
competences that best reflect our definition on SIE.
[D1.1 NEMESIS social innovation learning framework] 18
www.nemesis-edu.euEntrepreneurship Competence Framework
The Entrepreneurship Competence Framework (EntreComp) was developed to be utilised as a
reference point for any initiative aiming to introduce entrepreneurial learning. EntreComp defines
entrepreneurship as a multidimensional competence that applies to various spheres of life: from
personal development, to participation in the job market and society at large and also to starting up
ventures of different types such as commercial, environmental, digital and also including social
enterprises.
Figure 1: EntreComp Competences
“Entrepreneurship as a competence is defined as the capacity to act upon
opportunities and ideas to create value for others. The value created can be
social, cultural, or financial. EntreComp recognises the opportunity to be
entrepreneurial in any situation: from school curriculum to innovating in the
workplace, from community initiatives to applied learning at university. In the
EntreComp framework, entrepreneurship competence is both an individual and
collective capacity”. (EntreComp, 2018)
Despite the similarities that someone may observe among the mission of both entrepreneurship and
social innovation education, there are also some key differences that reflect deeper distinctions in
the values that entrepreneurs on the one hand and social innovators on the other bring while starting
their endeavours.
“In terms of skills and temperament, social and business entrepreneurs are
strikingly similar. But their primary objectives are different.” (Bornstein 2010)
According to Dees (1998), the main difference between a traditional entrepreneur and a social
innovator is the focus on social mission and not only on the prospect of a financial profit. Therefore,
[D1.1 NEMESIS social innovation learning framework] 19
www.nemesis-edu.euthe social innovators main measure of success is not only wealth creation but “mission-related social
impact”. Also, Mulgan (2007) differentiates social innovation itself from business innovations per se
as the latter are “generally motivated by profit maximisation and diffused through organisations that
are primarily motivated by profit maximization”. Hence, the main difference between social
innovation and other innovations lies in the motivation behind them.
Another difference between an entrepreneur and social entrepreneur highlights that social
entrepreneurs want to fundamentally solve the problem that their solution is designed to address,
thus being more analytical in a sense that they are more interested in getting to grips with the social,
economic, political, and cultural underpinnings of the problems they are trying to solve (Simons,
2013) whereas commercial entrepreneurs focus on profit by setting a business model which despite
solving a social problem, have as their main goal to “satisfy customer needs, provide growth for
shareholders, expand the influence of their business, and to expose their business to the greatest
number of individuals as they are able to” (Reyes, 2016).
According to the Social Innovation Practitioners that we interviewed during the project, it was
apparent that the main differences lie in their mission (profit vs social impact) and also on their mind-
sets with SIPs to be more open to share knowledge and collaborate for a common goal.
“Entrepreneurs take an idea and start a new venture. Social Innovators seek to
address a social need or social problem and their idea is actually the solution to it.
They have an idea that can improve society. It doesn’t matter if it is for profit, or not
for profit. They have a core mission and there is always a very clear point”.
Peter Mangan, Founder of the Freebird Club
“Social innovators’ mindset is much more fluid than traditional businesses - it’s not
that they dislike more traditional forms of authority but it involves more collaborative
working rather than just one manager and you can renegotiate repeatedly to get the
best outcome.”
Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Co-Founder of FairShares Association, Professor of Cooperative
Social Entrepreneurship, Director of Social Enterprise International
Summing up, although most of the competences provided by EntreComp are essential both for
traditional entrepreneurs and social innovators, the differences in their mission, mind-sets and
culture lead us to search for additional inspiration in alternative competence frameworks paying
more attention to collective outcomes and values, and not only to entrepreneurial competences.
Changemakers Attributes
In their theoretical framework for embedding social innovation education in curricula, the
Northampton University builds on AshokaU’s “unifying principles for changemaking” and suggests a
set of 14 changemakers attributes as presented in the following Table 1.
Table 1: Changemaker Attributes
1. Self-confidence 6.Innovation and 11.Emotional and social
in having and sharing one’s point of view; creativity intelligence
in challenging others’ assumptions; in be original and inventive; apply be socially aware; understand the role of
being able to instigate change lateral thinking; be a future- emotions when working with others; use
thinker emotion in positive ways
2. Perseverance 7. Critical thinking 12. Problem solving
[D1.1 NEMESIS social innovation learning framework] 20
www.nemesis-edu.euYou can also read
