Investigating the role of ICT intervention in grassroots innovation using structural equation modelling approach

Singh, Sonal H.; Sindhav, Birud; Eesley, Dale T.; Bhowmick, Bhaskar

doi:10.1007/s12046-018-0909-8

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A possible hypothesis suggests that there are considerable differences in the use of both concepts in the Global North and the Global South. Our results show that the combination of concepts (social innovation and grassroots innovations) is very common in the global south, for example, in countries such as India and Brazil, ( Banerjee and Shahan, 2019 ; Roysen and Mertens, 2019 ; Yun et al, 2019 ; Colovic and Schruoffeneger, 2021 ) while the use of grassroots innovations as stand-alone concepts is much broader and strongly used in India ( Sharma and Kumar, 2018 , 2019 ; Singh et al, 2018 , 2020a , b , 2021 ; Patnaik and Bhowmick, 2020 ; Sheikh and Bhaduri, 2020 ). However, in order to test this hypothesis a lager review should be conducted, including papers in other languages such as Portuguese and French to get a variation of more research from the Global South.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Forty-one scientific papers were found with the concept of grassroots innovations (see methodology section B). The term most commonly used in the papers was grassroots innovations, abbreviated as (GI) or (GRI) ( Boni et al, 2018 ; Boyer, 2018 ; Hossain, 2018 ; Lin et al, 2018 ; Nicolosi et al, 2018 ; Singh et al, 2018 ; Marletto and Sillig, 2019 ; Ng et al, 2019 ; Belda-Miquel et al, 2020 ; Gupta, 2020 ; Jiménez-Martínez and García-Barrios, 2020 ; Pellicer-Sifres, 2020 ; Singh et al, 2020b ; Sillig, 2022 ). Other terms used in this search were grassroots movements ( Hossain, 2018 ), grassroots initiatives ( Grandadam et al, 2021 ; Kump and Fikar, 2021 ; Dana et al, 2021 ; Mehr et al, 2019 ), grassroots NGOs ( Farid, 2019 ); or emergent grassroots innovations ( Rasillo, 2021 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Less papers focused on how grassroots innovations emerged in the informal sector ( Sharma and Kumar, 2018 , 2019 ; Sheikh and Bhaduri, 2020 , 2021 ), and learning practices and networking capacities ( Singh et al, 2020b , 2021 ). Other themes identified were ICT supporting the development of grassroots innovation ( Singh et al, 2018 ; Shin et al, 2019 ), grassroots innovation in language ( Tan and Zuckermann, 2021 ), and rural grassroots innovations ( Ng et al, 2019 ), these themes were found seldom.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a clustering analysis of the documents on grassroots innovation, two countries were found to be in the spotlight: India ( Sharma and Kumar, 2018 , 2019 ; Singh et al, 2018 ; Patnaik and Bhowmick, 2020 ; Sheikh and Bhaduri, 2020 ; Singh et al, 2020a , b , 2021 ; Hossain et al, 2021 ; Parwez and Chandra Shekar, 2019 ; Sharma, 2021 ; Wierenga, 2020 ) and Spain ( Boni et al, 2018 ; Belda-Miquel et al, 2020 ; Pellicer-Sifres, 2020 ; Rasillo, 2021 ; Pellicer-Sifres et al, 2018 ). Other regions mentioned in the grassroots innovation papers were Australia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, United States, China, Mexico, England, Italy, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Laos, and Taiwan.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…);Marletto and Sillig (2019);Boyer (2018);Lin et al (2018); Pellicer-Sifres (2020);Belda-Miquel et al (2020);Sillig (2022) Grassroots innovation (GRI)Gupta (2020);Singh et al (2018Singh et al ( , 2020b; Ng et al (2019); Nicolosi et al . (2018); Pellicer-Sifres (2020); Rasillo (2021); Belda-Miquel et al (2020); Pellicer-Sifres et al, (2018) India Sharma and Kumar (2018, 2019); Singh et al (2018, 2020a,b, 2021); Sheikh and Bhaduri (2020); Patnaik and Bhowmick (2020); Hossain et al, (2021); Parwez and Chandra Shekar (2019); Sharma (2021); Wierenga (multidimensional construct Boni et al (2018); Pellicer-Sifres (2020); Belda-Miquel et al (2020) Tensions in grassroots movements Hossain (2018) Socio-technical elements of GRIs, socio-technical transitions Ng et al (2019) Grassroots innovation for sustainability Nicolosi et al (2018); Jiménez-Martínez and García-Barrios (2020feedback loops in scaling, paradox of diffusion Kump and Fikar (2021) Diffusion: replication, up-scaling, translation, niche, dynamics of niche replication Boyer (2018) New forms of activism, self-organised grassroots innovation Rasillo (2021) Grassroots innovations processes, multi-level perspective, sociotechnical transitions, capability approach, multi-dimensional perspective Belda-Miquel et al (2020) Typology of innovation, civil society, sociological and ideological concerns, resistance, development framework, grassroots arena Sillig (2022)…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Grassroots innovation and social innovation in perspective

Maldonado-Mariscal

2023

Front. Sociol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article provides a comprehensive review of social innovation and grassroots innovation over the last 5 years, offering a detailed analysis of both concepts. This study explores the integration of grassroots innovation and social innovation based on an extensive literature review. It examines five dimensions within the literature: key fields, disciplines, actors, geographical areas and theoretical frameworks. Despite significant research in recent decades, there is a notable gap of literature devoted to grassroots innovation and its position within discourse of social innovation. This paper explores the differences and similarities between the concepts of social innovation and grassroots innovation in order to better understand the use of both concepts, the cases in which they are used and possible complementarities. The main findings of the literature on combining the concepts of social innovation and grassroots innovation focus on social enterprises, while research on grassroots innovation as a stand-alone concept focuses on community-led initiatives, civil society organisations, cooperatives and local leaders. Geographically, India plays a very important role in grassroots and social innovation research, followed by Brazil and Spain. In terms of theoretical approach, the combination of social innovation and grassroots innovation has a strong sociological focus, emphasising theories of social practice, collective action, solidarity and community. In contrast, the theoretical frameworks of grassroots innovation are more anchored in power relations and socio-technical transitions, including, for example, resistance to innovation. Grassroots innovation offers practical insights into understanding innovation through the lenses of grassroots and community-based social change. Similarly, social innovation can contribute to the debate on grassroots innovations by understanding not only the agency of actors, but also the innovation ecosystem, actors and types of innovation. Further empirical research on the understanding and application of both concepts in the global North and South in academic discourse offers great potential, therefore potential research questions have been raised here for further investigation.

show abstract