Mind the Gap: The Potential Transformative Capacity of Social Innovation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear colleague(s),

thank you for your valuable manuscript.

»Great bridges exist because engineers know how to harness tension« (Schminke, 2002). The topic you set out to understand better is full of mixed understandings, you are right. I feel honoured to have been among the first to read it and hopefully also be of use to your further research. I identified the following weaknesses in the manuscript where I also provide guidence in furthering your research, if you find them valuable. I think you could improve your submission as you develop your research in the following direction: a more crafted theoretical overview, better structure and a clearer conceptualization of SI. My primary concern is if your position is well argued and grounded in rigorous approach.  In the abstract I don't see clear implications, I suggest you make theoretical implications more specific.

The main strengths of the manuscript according to my insight are the following: 1) It stimulates thinking and discussion; and 2) brings something new to the table in 2 ways of using SI in the literature. Paper deals with an important topic that needs to be addressed. The title is bad. Interesting introduction, from broad perspective to the specific interest of the paper. I was very eager to find out what was found out and what the recommendations are for future researchers, also. I would recommend a special section on adding stronger implications.

The title needs to be changed, now it is unfinished and much too vague. Theoretical framework could be elaborated upon, more in-depth definition, better conceptualization of key theoretical concepts. I am not a huge fan of terminology such as »wicked problems« in scientific conceptualization and would suggest a more in-depth analysis of these problems. Please distinguish also if and if yes, how SI is a social transformation? I like the fact that you deal with SI's transformative capacity but would suggest a more detailed conceptualization of transformative capacity concept in the conceptual paper. The methodology is very simplistic, Google Scholar, Scopus search and limited publications by Waterloo University, I was expecting bibliometrics… I would suggest to widen the scope of sources analyzed. I suggest elaborating on the benefit of SI for society and/or environment, I notice there is still a lack of where exactly is the emphasis of SI in the existing conceptualization in the literature. I like the incorporation of the »voice« but did expect that you will also mention the »voice of the generations to come« who would also benefit SI. I wonder if by arguing for dynamic concept of social innovation you are not just trying to hide the unclear definitions of SI? A more transformative concept of SI, isn't that already established? If we say the definition of SI is still unclear and we don't know what exactly it is how can we measure it? I would welcome a further elaboration of the role of people in SI, you mention empowerment – how and what exactly is the role of people in SI in the literature? I see the benefit of your paper in offering to colleagues discussion on two ways of using SI in the literature.

The paper is definately worth discussing, however I did expect a bigger theoretical contribution. The paper is very important topic in our community, and interesting for all of us as it researches modern phenomena.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

0. Abstract:

- Revise in line with comments below

1. Introduction:

- Harmonize the varying aims presented on line 41 and 50 (and 301-302). Motivate the focus on social transformation, in relation to knowledge gaps distinguished in previous studies (alternatively present it as a conclusion drawn from the review results instead of as a starting point). 

- Describe the study's added value in relation to other synthesizing literature reviews in the social innovation field, including Pol & Ville (2009), Dawson & Daniel (2020), Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2013), van der Have & Rubalcaba (2016) and others.

2. Method:

- Explain the value/appropriateness of studying the stated aim through a literature review

- Explain the appropriateness of using the Waterloo University Social Innovation Group's publications and listed references as a starting point for identifying relevant literature, especially in relation to the identified separation of academic communities in social innovation in previous literature reviews

- Explain the appropriateness of using Portuguese search terms

- Add a chart displaying the identified number of articles, publication formats, publication years and journals

3. Wider literature review

- Consider omitting the general account of SI literature - at least the distinction between social innovation and social entrepreneurship, in line with the clarification of the study's main aim.

- Add this reference when accounting for the historic conceptualization of social innovation:

Godin, B. (2012). Social Innovation: Utopias of Innovation from c.1830 to the Present. Project on the Intellectual History of Innovation Working Paper No. 11.

- Clarify the explanations and underpinnings of the dualism introduced on line 129-131.

4. Narrower literature review

- Consider omitting the misleading separation of the conventional and systemic approach, as also impact measurement and classifications often engage with the transformational dimension of social innovation. The transformative dimension could instead be elucidated from all relevant publications.

5. Discussion:

- Consider omitting the account for the general literature review, as previous synthesizing reviews cover that topic.

- Consider omitting the misleading separation of the conventional and systemic approach, in line with the comment on section 4.

6. Conclusion

- Clarify the added value of this literature review to previous insights and overviews of social innovation studies.

- Consider omitting the scientifically dubious estimation that the systemic approach offers greater transformative capacity, or improve the scientific qualification of this line of argumentation.

0. General:

- Revise scientifically dubious choice of words, e.g. appealing, sound, objective, significant, successful.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Hello,

thank you for your further effort. I hope your paper will aid in further advancement of social innovation.

All the best to you!

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

We would like to thank you one more time for your valuable comments and for spending your time reviewing our paper. 

Reviewer 2 Report

General:

- The authors' have made some improvements to clarify the text's aim and line of argumentation, and if further revised the study could make a valuable contribution to the field.

- Professional language editing is needed in order to improve the scientific communication.

1. Introduction

- Consider moving line 48-54 to the method or results section.

- Consider moving line 55-60 to the results section, since the dualism between the cartesian and the disruptive approach is part of the study's results and not a point of departure.

- Improve the motivation of the study's academic relevance - and the ambition to bring “something new to the table” - by explaining its added value in relation to previous synthesizing literature reviews on social innovation (i.e. Pol & Ville 2009, Dawson & Daniel 2020, Cajaiba-Santana, G. 2013, van der Have & Rubalcaba 2016 among others). This may be accomplished by inserting and extending the argumentation on line 184-190.

2. Method

- The methodology needs further validation and expansion - see the method sections in suggested literature reviews above for inspiration.

- Present and explain the appropriateness of not using a bibliometric method to review existing literature, in relation to the study's ambition to provide "a systematic analysis of the state of the art" as a basis for distinguishing the transformative potential of SI.

- Explain why the applied snowballing method is appropriate for understanding the state of the art, existing concepts and definitions as this would intuitively require a more systematized (i.e. bibliometric) method.

- Further justify the WU SIG as a starting point for the applied snowballing method, since the authors' own familiarity with it implies personal bias rather than a scientifically sound selection criterium. The WU SIG embraced/promoted perspectives may qualify as motivation for the part of the study that concerns the transformative potential of SI, if further explained, but not necessarily for the part on the state of the art.

- Please explain the discrepancy between the study's 75 identified publications and the 200 000 publications identified by Westley et al (2017).

- Further justify (or omit) the search for Portuguese publications, since the authors' own native language implies personal bias rather than a scientifically sound selection criterium.

3. Rationale for...

- The argumentation on line 129-133 would benefit from a discussion on its relation to findings in previous literature reviews on social innovation (i.e. Pol & Ville 2009, Dawson & Daniel 2020, Cajaiba-Santana, G. 2013, van der Have & Rubalcaba 2016 among others).

- The summary on line 184-190 of previous literature reviews on social innovation needs significant expansion in regard to their stated aims, methodologies and findings.

4. Towards a more...

- The suggested dualism between the cartesian and the disruptive approach needs to be critically discussed in regard to the classical distinction between social innovation as a process and as a result in several publications in the field.

5. Discussion

- The rationale behind Figure 1 would benefit from a critical discussion on its relation to the classical distinction between social innovation as a process and as a result in previous publications in the field.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx