Name
Wlodzimierz Okrasa
Email
wlodek.okrasa@wanadoo.fr
Project
title
SPATIAL DYNAMICS OF SOCIAL INNOVATION-DRIVEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND WELLBEING (SDYNSICD)
Project
A middle-range theory-building through experimentation and modeling within a spatially
idea
integrated research framework
description
The principal goal of this project is to elaborate a theoretical framework – along with
demonstration of its empirical validity and analytical usefulness – needed to underpin
research of the pro-community well-being development focused on social innovation as its,
expectedly, chief driver. The project’s prime scientific intention is to untangle several
interrelated issues that remain unsolved concerning causes of spatial variations in ‘progress of
communities’ (meant as a mezzo-level analogy to ‘progress of societies’), and to fill the gap in
theoretical foundations of such research by grounding the above framework on dual pillar
(methodologically and substantively) through combining: (a) transdisciplinary approach to
social innovation, drawing explicitly on recently advanced economic, econometric and sociogeographical studies of other types of innovations (i.e., technological and organizational) and
‘innovative local and regional development’ (including OECD , UNDP, and World Bank
studies), and (b) a newly emerging spatially integrated social science paradigmatic approach
(Goodchild et al., 2000) allowing for a novel and better use of growing volume available
geographically referenced / geo-coded data, alongside the appropriate methods of analyzing
them. Such a theoretical and methodological advancement of knowledge production process
concerning social innovation-led (social) change and development generating well-being at the
local community level should contribute to greater explanatory power and problem-solving
potentials of social sciences in general, and sociology in particular.
Operationally, the main objective of the Project is twofold. On the one hand the project will
explore spatial aspects of social innovation’s impact – its (re)sources and conditions for procommunity social change – on local community well-being, directly and indirectly, through
community-based (endogenous) development (CBD). While taking into account selfgovernance and local authority’s policies, another major issue that merits special attention
concerns the role of civic engagement and social entrepreneurship. Grouped under the
umbrella of the third sector, members of various types of nonprofit organizations (formal like
NGOs and informal like grassroots) can play under defined conditions vital role in collective
action or leadership activities for igniting innovation or arranging for multi-party motion
toward innovation-driven pro-community development, including participation in
collaborative community-university research-based innovations, with also desirable
involvement of private/business sector (ideally according to the triple helisa cooperation
formula - see Viale & Etzkowitz, 2010 .) For the purpose of collecting the appropriate
research evidence on various strategies of social innovation, different kinds of experiments –
from natural to randomized social experiments, to population-based survey experiments – will
be conducted to generate data for evaluation of alternative social innovation-based strategies
of community development, and for explaining spatial variations in these processes during the
period under study, covering years 2004-2012 (all NUTS5-level territorial units or 1 478 gminas
will be included as a formal type of community before a spatial cluster analysis-based
concepts of ‘innovative local community’ or ‘innovative neighborhood’ will be introduced in
the subsequent stage of the analysis). Regardless of the functions in which social innovation
can eventually contribute to CBD – either as an autonomous source of change or as a co-factor
or conditionality of technological or organizational innovations – it will remain the center of
the focus in each of the two dimensions or vectors of pro-community well-being activities.
One focuses on the local risk-reduction issues – with special attention paid to the local welfare
state and its reform in this respect - another on generating local capital, with special interest
in social capital and social cohesion ‘from-within’ factors, including the role of nonprofit
organizations (Okrasa 2011) . In this empirical context, data will first be used to evaluation of
various ‘innovative strategies’ in selected communities. Several methodological problems will
require innovative approach as well, including ‘survey experiments’ (Mutz 2011) and its
external validity (Barabas and Jerit, 2010 ), and in connection with counterfactual-causal
inference (using Neyman-Rubin model, Sekhon 2008 ), especially in the sociological context
(Morgan and Winship 2009 , Okrasa 2012/13 ), and with applying instrumental variable (IV)
methods for assessing heterogeneous causal effects (Bollen, 2012 ).
On the other hand, the project will propose (needed, as above mentioned) a theoretical
framework underpinning systematic confrontation of empirical results - experimental and
statistical data (especially data from Local Data Bank of the Central Statistical Office, as well as
data from EU-SILC and Census 2011, and other) - with model-based conceptualization and its
validation. A middle-range theorizing will aim to provide causal type explanation by
identifying the relevant mechanism - such as collective action, leadership, etc., offered in the
literature – combined with specific innovation-focused conceptualizations of processes of
social innovation and social change. [E.g. disruptive innovation, Christiansen, 2003 , ALMOLIN
/alternative models for local innovation developed within the SINGOCOM /social innovation in
governance in local communities project ; diffusion mechanisms, e.g., centripetal and
centrifugal vs. circular causality and the geography of innovation, Christ 2009 , etc.]. Social
innovation’s direct consequences, i.e. social change, can be envisaged in terms of local
(community-wide) risks-reduction and local capital creation, which will however require a
critical overview of the relevant measurement approaches with aim to develop an appropriate
community well-being measurement methodology covering objective attributes (indicators) of
community with subjective measures of satisfaction (happiness) of individual residence in the
dynamic context (this is not taking into account in the literature devoted to ‘community wellbeing indicators’ so far, treating dynamic aspects at just one level only – e.g., individual, Dolan
and White , thought multi-level / cross- micro- and macro- level units are obviously
recognized in the appropriate multi-level models, which will also be developed in this study)..
Given that several gaps exist in the literature concerning importance of ‘location’ in the
context of social innovation-driven community development – for example, why and under
what conditions such a type of innovation contributes, either at its own rights or through
supporting technological or organizational innovation, to local and regional growth (?) – this
complex issue should be analyzed within spatially integrated research framework. Due to the
fact that the framework uses different types of spatial / geo-coded data, its application yields
two major merits. First, it leads to meeting informational requirements raised by the necessity
to include the fact that ‘Social facts are located’ (cf. Logan 2012 ). And, due to crossdisciplinary similarity of such data and the relevant methodologies (Goodchild et al., op. cit.,) it
opens new research avenue toward integrating social research through transdisciplinary
analyzes of issues involving categories such as ’space’, ‘place’, ‘location’ (‘locality’),
‘neighborhood’, ‘local community’ etc., while taking advantage of the recent advancement in
spatial analysis (where they are of main focus) in several disciplines – from geography
(especially social geography) to economics (spatial economics, spatial econometrics), to
statistics (spatial statistics) – see Cressie & Wikle - to sociology; however, with only recently
emerging geographical sociology .
Despite that sociologists have been treating ‘space’ as very important analytical category since
the commencement of their discipline – e.g. G. Simmel defined the difference between an
‘empty space’ and something meaningful by emphasizing that all social phenomena take place
in space (cf. Urry, 2004 ) – unfortunately, they took it for granted for until recently.
|Consequently, sociology is methodologically lagging behind other social disciplines in this
respect. Nevertheless, the project’s main problem (focusing spatial aspects of social
innovation and pro-community well-being development) will be examined from principally
sociological angle. However, from the outset it will put it explicitly into interdisciplinary
perspective and spatially integrated dynamic social research framework. In this sense, the
Project is aimed at providing empirically valid theoretical construction - a middle-range social
theory - appended with methodological tool allowing jointly to both enhance further theoryoriented knowledge creation while increasing its public significance and potentials to meet alltime people’s expectations that ‘social theory can produce ideas that help create a better
world’ (Seidman, 2013, p. 3 ). In particular, a world placed at local community.
Partners
needed
Resercher(s) interested in spatial (spatio-temporal) data analysis - especially, in studying
social innovation, with emphasis placed on local welfare system, its 'innovative' reform and
impact on community development and well-being - are strongly encouraged to join this
project. In its 'description' above the project is not presented as 'internationally comparative',
but variations in the social innovation and its impact on pro-community well-being-oriented
development makes it obvious candidate for being put into such an international comparative
perspective. Analytical and [pprogramminig skills would be of plus, but more important would
be to appreciate working with geo-coded data and to think 'spatially'.
Link with
official
statistics
Official statistics - Central Statistical Office and some of its regional agencies (in selected
voievodships) will the main source of data to be analyzed in this project, such as micro-data
from: Local Data Bank (generated at the level of NUTS5/gmina (on current basis) - EU_SILC Census 2011 (and perhaps 2002, for some comparisons) - Household Budget Survey. Some
other public sources of data are also planned to be used - such as data from biannual survey of
nonprofit organizations conducted by the Ministry of Labor and Social Policy - geo-coded data
from some regional offices (voievodships). Some additional data would have to be collected as
a part of the project - e.g., survey experiments to assess relevance and impact of various social
innovation-based activities for community development and well-being. Work with spatial
data will be very intensive - starting with their 'spatialization' - due to the planned
employment of advanced spatial analysis statistical software.
Link with
Horizon
2020
The proposed project is directly llinked to the (f)pae 11 of the Memorandum: fostering
inclusive, innovative and secure European societies in a context of
unprecedented transformations and growing global interdependencies.