A social idea thrives into a social innovation at the point of application in a social system, or when it is transformed into the social fact through planned and coordinated actions. According to Carnabuci &Diószegi (2015), social innovations are disseminated by the market, social networking, movements, governmental guidelines, support by foundations, and social entrepreneurs (p 354). With regard to the objective of social science in researching and shaping social innovations, these sciences will contribute in analytical functions, conceptual investigation of conditions for social innovation and the social character of innovation stages in different contextual instances.
According to Johnson & Clark (2006), fundamental innovations would be fully diffused once the increase in economic value associated with the innovation has resulted in an increase in other factors of production, such as more people using the innovation due to the population growth. Social innovation results in generation of new ideas that help in meeting the unmet needs (Maurer 2014, p. 243). They include the struggle against poverty and restoring peace, promoting micro-financing activities, helping small businesses and assisting the development of education in the learning institutions.
Social organization is becoming critical for organizations to determine how to transfer knowledge to improve their performance and employee collaboration in corporate tasks. The accessibility of knowledge on the corporate responsibilities is transformed based on the nature and the source of such knowledge. To be successful, social innovation must transcend sectors, levels of analysis, and methods so as to discover the processes such as strategies tactics, and theories of change for a long term effect (Švarc, J., Perkovi &Lažnjak 2011, p. 122-123).
Social entrepreneurs must possess dedication and ambitions as a traditional business entrepreneur, but minimize the financial constraints or the predicated gains from adopting a given innovation. Some aspects assumed to accomplish this need are dealt with uncertainties that hamper the possibilities of dealing with given social problems in the society and the world.
Given the centrality of the social entrepreneurs, the comprehensive understanding of the problems and its root causes is asignificantfactor in the realization of the solution (Oliveira & Teixeira 2010, p. 241). For this reason, this stage involves diagnosing the problem and framing the question in such a way that the root cause of the problem, not just its symptoms, will be tackled.
Since the processes and impacts of social innovations are never neutral, assessing the distribution of benefits can never be done form an objective position. Such dynamic contributes to sweeping statement concerning the distribution of benefits to public versus private interests. to restrict the concept of social innovation to those initiatives that explicitly declare their benefits are for the public good is to adopt a naïve, uncritical stance on the role of rhetoric and politics in managing social innovations (Chang 2015, p. 352).
Both social and community economies are interested in projects concerned with building new communities in which governance is the central feature. In particular, scholars of social Innovation view the inclusion of marginalized groups into political administrative system as a fundamental ‘rationale in the diverse initiatives they study. Daniel & Klein(2014, p. 30) depicts understanding of the self as an important determinant of the social innovations since it helps in identifying the problems and needs affecting a person and the society (Carnabuci& Diószegi, B 2015, p. 211).
Finally, the sociological view of social innovations emphasizes the effect of social innovations on social practices, therefore, on producing social change. The popularity of social innovations from the sociological perspective does not essentially mean moral or ethical desirability but can also mean economic desirability.
References
Carnabuci, G., &Diószegi, B., 2015. Social networks, cognitive style, and innovative performance: A contingency perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), pp. 881-905.
Chang, C., 2015. Proactive and reactive corporate social responsibility: Antecedent and consequence. Management Decision, 53(2), pp. 451-468.
Daniel, L. J., & Klein, J. A., 2014. Innovation agendas: The ambiguity of value creation. Prometheus, 32(1), pp. 23-47.
Johnson, P., & Clark, M., 2006. Business and Management Research Methodologies. SAGE Publications Inc.
Manzini, E., 2014. Making things happen: Social innovation and design. Design Issues, 30(1), pp. 57-66.
Maskeen, M., 2014. Economic development from an innovation perspective. [S.l.]: Trafford Publishing.
Maurer, Â., 2014. Analytical dimensions for identifying social innovations: Evidence from collective enterprises. Brazilian Business Review, 11(6), pp. 123-145.
Michelini, L., 2012. Social innovation and new business models. Berlin: Springer.
Maurer, Â. M., &Nunes da Silva, T., 2014. Analytical dimensions for identifying social Innovations: Evidence from collective enterprises. Brazilian Business Review, 11(6), pp. 123-145.
Oliveira, M. M., & Teixeira, A. C., 2010. The determinants of technology transfer efficiency and the role of innovation policies: a survey. Working Papers (FEP), 276, pp. 1-36.
Švarc, J., Perkovi, J., &Lažnjak, J., 2011. Unintended consequences of innovation policy programs: Social evaluation of technological projects program in Croatia. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 13(1), pp. 77-94.