Restructuring vocational schools as social innovation?

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to conceptualize the implementation of educational reform processes by applying the concept of social innovation. The paper proposes a model of social innovation and test its applicability in the context of Estonian vocational education reform using two case studies of the school re-organization as an example. Design/methodology/approach – A case study approach has been applied in the empirical study. Different data collection methods have been used including semi-structured interviews with the various change actors, observations and analysis of written documents. Findings – The integrated model of social innovation proved to be a fruitful analytical tool. By focusing on five central aspects – the trigger of change, central change agents, social mechanisms facilitating the adoption of change, implications and social gains – it was possible to explain two school re-organization processes and the reasons behind their success or complications. Practical implications – The analysis of the cases outlined some lessons that can be learned for the future planning and implementation of school reforms. School changes are more easily adopted if actors experience it as useful and rational, school staff are involved in the process as early as possible and the adoption is facilitated by building certain social mechanisms and network structures into the policy implementation process. Originality/value – The paper makes a contribution to the literature on educational reform by applying the concept of social innovation. Up until now, the concept of social innovation has remained rather underused to explain the process of implementing and adopting reforms, and in particular, it is rarely used in the context of analyzing educational reforms.

Socially Innovative Reconstruction of Preschool Premises

“…social innovation studies have rarely investigated how these are converted into practical transformations in the educational sector (cf. Alden-Rivers et al, 2015;Brundenius et al, 2016;Martinelli, 2013;Ümarik et al, 2014). This study therefore aims to provide further insight into the impact of contextualized and materialized norms and values in educational social innovation, using a remodeling process of preschool facilities in a Swedish municipality as an illustrating case study.…”

Koostöö kutseõpetaja professionaalsust määrava tegurina

“…Õpetajad võivad olla muutuste suhtes skeptilised või tõrjuvad, kuna paljud haridusreformid pole lähtunud kooli ja õpetajate vajadustest (Goodson, 2010;Goodson, Moore, & Hargreaves, 2006;Müller, Norrie, Hernández, & Goodson, 2010;Rekkor et al, 2013;Vähäsantanen & Eteläpelto, 2009). Leitud on, et reformipoliitika, mis ei kaasa õpetajaid ega toeta õpetajate professionaalsust, ei ole edukas ega jätkusuutlik (Singh, 2011;Ümarik, Loogma, & Tafel-Viia, 2014).…”

The Role of Education in Promoting Social Innovation Processes in the Society

“…Bonifacio, 2014);  social action (Cajaiba-Santana, 2013; Bhatt & Altinay, 2013);  social capital (Bhatt & Altinay, 2013);  social practices (Oeij et al, 2011;Cajaiba-Santana, 2013;Howaldt et.al., 2014;Klievink & Janssen, 2014);  cross-sector partnership (Le Ber & Branzei, 2010; Jiménez Escobar & Morales Gutiérrez, 2011);  relationships (OECD, 2010;Li et al, 2012;Klein et al, 2012;Nichols et al, 2013;Klievink & Janssen, 2014), etc. This literature review presents core elements and common features of social innovation (Minks, 2011;Edwards-Schachter et al, 2012;The Young Foundation, 2012;Bulut et al, 2013;Ümarik et al, 2014), typology of social innovation (Nambisan, 2009, cited in Lundstrom & Zhou, 2011; The Young Foundation, 2012; Davies, 2014) as well as fields, sectors, and levels of social innovation (The Young Foundation, 2012; Bund et al, 2013;Bonifacio, 2014). The most crucial analytical dimensions and models of social innovation which could be used in the further empirical research are determined to be:  the systemic model for social impact innovation (Ortega et al, 2014);  the conceptual model or heuristic of social innovation (McCarthy et al, 2014);  the conceptual model of the social innovation process (Cajaiba-Santana, 2013);  the relevant building blocks of innovation studies and key dimensions of social innovation (Howaldt et al, 2014);  the integrated model for measuring social innovation (Bund et al, 2013;Krlev et al, 2014);  the six stage process of social innovation (Murray et al, 2010;The Young Foundation, 2012);  the policy analytical dimensions concerning social innovation (Lundstrom & Zhou, 2011).…”

“… the citizen engagement in social innovation (Davies & Simon, 2012) including a typology for mapping citizen engagement in the social innovation process as well as functions and examples of engagement;  the structural and agency barriers to social innovation (Mendes et al, 2012). Recent studies (Pol & Ville, 2009;Edwards-Schachter et al, 2012;Cajaiba-Santana, 2013;Ümarik et al, 2014) have shown that the concept of social innovation is used in various and overlapping ways in different disciplines; the research on social innovation is highly diversified, fragmented and includes interdisciplinary approaches to social innovation from different fields such as territorial and urban development, sociology, public administration, social entrepreneurship, history, economics, social psychology, management, social movements, creativity, political science, communication technologies, environmental sciences, human services, etc.…”

“… SI for E (see Figure 1): Social innovation for education concerns new solutions (forms, tools, approaches, paradigms, methods, contents, relationships, practices, systems, strategies, policies) for supporting, improving quality and transforming of education / training / learning / teaching / study (Pol & Ville, 2009;OECD, 2008OECD, , 2013EC, 2011;Bulut et al, 2013;Krlev et al, 2013;Ümarik et al, 2014);  E for SI (see Figure 1): Education for social innovation relates to the development of the set of skills, competences, attitudes, personality traits and abilities needed for making social innovations come true. Education institutions play an important role as social innovation actors, drivers and facilitators to support social innovation and realise training courses, study programs and learning networks for potential social innovators (TEPSIE, 2014).…”