Search

Employing the sensemaking perspective, this paper aims to study the relationship between social innovation and resilience. The study highlights how sensemaking of social innovation is a process that takes place within existing social and economic representations. This study has a qualitative nature and is based on multiple case studies, which is the methodology best suited to highlight the drivers of social phenomena in specific socioeconomic contexts and which characteristics they manifest. The paper contributes to the literature along three different lines. First, it describes social innovation as the resilient outcome of sensemaking or the result of a capacity for collective reorganization following environmental, political, economic, and social disruptions. Second, it provides policymakers with a model to use to establish the intensity of social pressure and the openness of baseline social representations to change. Third, it allows policymakers to jointly observe and analyze the relationship between social representation and economic representation, highlighting the central role of firms in achieving social innovation. Although this paper presents the findings of a wide theoretical analysis, the developed model needs to be empirically tested by firms and policymakers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To understand social issues and practices such as those related to climate change and technological change that are clearly future‐oriented – collectively experienced events that are "not yet" – and co‐constructed by different actors, we need nuanced conceptualizations of how people think about, negotiate and co‐create futures that allow us to understand not only what people (can) think and do about future‐related issues but also how that happens, what for and with which implications. However, so far, one of the key theoretical approaches that has conceptualised how people make meaning in situations of change and uncertainty – the socio‐psychological social representations theory (SRT) – has not often engaged with the future or with different forms of temporality. By contrast, the French pragmatic sociology of engagements and critique (PS) has engaged with these notions, conceptualising them in relation to materiality and a plurality of moral orientations – two dimensions often seen as key to how collective futures are made and imagined. To offer a more nuanced and systematic conceptualization of how people represent the future and with what consequences, this paper will present, compare and synthesise SRT and PS, as a first step towards an interdisciplinary research agenda on social change and representations of the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This preliminary study examined the process of constructing alternative discourses on social work. It focused on the exploration of Buddhist social work by researchers and practitioners in Asian countries, including monks and nuns. The present investigation was grounded in the analytical perspective of the social representation theory posited in the domain of social psychology. Books, reports, and any relevant papers written in English were collected as primary data sources (n = 22), and a qualitatively descriptive analysis was conducted on these data. The scrutiny specifically attended to the mechanism of familiarization, which comprises the process of anchoring and objectifying. The study's findings revealed the process of intentionally (re)naming activities and related events that were previously not necessarily described as Buddhist social work. These practices and occurrences were then classified and positioned within a particular cross‐border paradigm. Additionally, some monks, nuns, and other stakeholders became conversant with discussion and research activities related to Buddhist social work. Objectifying actions, such as (re)discovering and reproducing, thus became taken for granted by such functionaries. These findings suggest that cross‐border Buddhist social work discourses were actively constructed through the usage of relevant terms and concepts. In other words, the results of this study indicate that alternative discourse is internationally becoming the familiar form of discussion within the discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]