ClaraRodrigues_projetodeinvestigação_discussão_final

Research Project
DOUTORAL PROGRAMME IN DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
2012/2013
CLARA NATÉRCIA DOS SANTOS RODRIGUES
[THE DEVELOPMENT OF
SUSTAINABLE PROCESSES OF
INNOVATION IN SOCIAL ECONOMY]
TUTOR: PROFESSOR DOUTOR JOSÉ MONTEIRO BARATA

RESEARCH PROJECT| CLARA RODRIGUES | 2
ÍNDICE
Introduction...........................................................................................................................................................2
1. Objectives.....................................................................................................................................................4
2. Research Environment.................................................................................................................................4
3. Entry questions ..........................................................................................................................................10
4. Theoretical foundations.............................................................................................................................10
5. Programme and Methodology...................................................................................................................11
6. Expected Impact.........................................................................................................................................14
7. References..................................................................................................................................................14
INTRODUCTION
Social economy sector wills to change the world towards a common good. In their mission, the
organizations in this sector implement strategies that will answer the needs of their target groups, who,
usually, are disadvantaged people. Sometimes these methods are settled practices in the sector, but other
times, new demands and challenges require changes in the paradigms. Typically, this sector conceives
and participates in projects of different kinds, as opportunities to access innovation sources: new
knowledge, technology and networks. All these projects express the desire to change towards
improvement and problem solving. In practice, organizations and social groups are requested to start up
ideas and plans that, once performed, bring solutions. When those solutions are transferred to the future,
to other organizations and get settled there is innovation and change. But often this doesn’t happen and
results rest by the end of the project. Furthermore, organisations might get prisoner in project cycles
work, as these are also the source of funding.
In this work we intend to explore the connection of such participation with innovative achievements of
the organization. It is proposed to describe if and how social economy is using their participation in
projects to become sustainable and to keep innovating. This description might allow the design of a model
to facilitate the social innovation system.

To limit the research scope we will focus three types of projects: research, development and cooperation
(RDC), which are defined in accordance to the functioning of social economy:
Research includes the components of scientific research and experimental development, according to
systematic models and ethics. We stuck to the definition given by The Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD), where such processes are defined as the “creative work undertaken
on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of man, culture
and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications” (2002: 30). Typically, these
projects are mentioned as research and development (R&D).
Therefore, the development concept that we use to classify the second type of projects is a different one
from the one in R&D. In the context of our study, development projects are connected to “the process of
improving the quality of human lives around the world, including:
- raising people’s living levels - incomes and consumption levels of food, medical services,
education;
- the growth of people’s self-esteem through systems and institutions which promote human
dignity and respect;
- increasing people’s freedom to choose by enlarging the range of their choices, for example a
greater variety of consumer goods and services” (BBC’s Guide to Development Speak, 2002).
Finally, cooperation projects involve collaborative work between two or more organizations, which
assume the role of partners focused in a single purpose. Cooperation can happen in different dimensions,
such as:
- Geographical: between organizations representing different regions (districts, countries,
continents…), or,
- Economic market: between organizations that represent different sectors of economic activity
(cooperation between universities and industries, technology producers and health services …).
Cooperation intends to create opportunities to share knowledge, technology and resources. It is also the
support from a more developed country, region or organization to another peer less developed (Afonso
& Fernandes, 2005).

None of the three concepts is limited to its definition, meaning that a project might fit under more than
one type and that strong relations between the three are noted. Therefore, we find combinations
between them that express interactional concepts, such as “cooperation for development”.
1. OBJECTIVES
The goal of this proposal is to define a model for the use of research, development and cooperation (RDC)
results for the development of sustainable processes of innovation in the social economy sector.
Achieving this goal is depending of accomplished specific aims, oriented to uprising levels of knowledge
and in deepness in the research process:
1. To acknowledge that social innovation is characterized by specific processes, systems, techniques,
technologies and strategies, that can be generated by participation in processes of research,
development and cooperation.
2. To verify the status of the Portuguese social economy sector in terms of their participation in RDC
projects and in terms of generation of social innovation.
3. To describe the way organizations are using RDC as a generator of social innovation, based on
collected data in case-studies.
4. To identify the factors allowing the transformation of RDC results into systemic changes by Social
economy institutions.
5. To define a model to transform RDC results into social innovation, designed for the Social
economy sector.
2. RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT
The present research project limits its scope to the phenomena happening in the sector of social
economy1
, having its organisations as units of analysis. The targeted objects within this environment will
1
The term social economy describes a system built of organizations from the civil society, that offer association mechanisms for
people to join towards: the response of the community (health, education, social care, culture, environmental issues,…); the
participation in politics and to seek group values and interests. Other possible concepts to this definition in Europe and in Portugal

be actions and initiatives that derived in measurable social innovation or that prove to have the potential
to do so.
Bearing this in mind, it gets relevant to describe political, historical and academic scenarios where the
research programme will be implemented, allowing the prediction of risks and the use of opportunities.
In the following we intend to describe briefly: the importance and structure of social economy, a
knowledge consideration about social innovation and the conditions verify the last.
The current conditions in the target “space” of this project can be described as appropriated for research
intervention, both in terms of policy making and sector evolution. One can recognise the interest
governments and policy makers have put in social innovation in the past years, which was followed by the
consolidation and growth of the social economy sector.
In 2009, the European Parliament demonstrated the importance of social economy (a) by stating that the
European social model is built upon a high level of “services, goods and jobs generated by the social
economy with the support of forecasting and innovation capacities developed by its promoters”
(European Parliament, 2009:2). By then, the social economy sector represented 10% of all European
enterprises and 6% of the total employment.
Recently, under the Innovation Union Europe 2020 flagship, social innovation was mentioned as an
important new field which should be nurtured. According to its commitment, the European Commission
has launched the Social Innovation Europe on 16 March 2011. Since then, a number of events and actions
are third sector (when in opposition to Public and Market sectors), economy for solidarity or non-profit sector. In spite of different
terminology, it generally includes:
- Associations (including local development associations, culture and leisure associations, environmental protection …)
- Mutual associations.
- Cooperatives.
- Private institutions for social solidarity (from the Portuguese Instituições Privadas de Solidariedade Social – IPSS).
- Foundations.
(Campos, 2010; Franco, 2005; Namorado, 2009, Nicholls, 2010).

took place to promote the growth of social entrepreneurship, networking and expertise, such as the Social
Innovation Competition (2012) and the Social Innovation Academy (2013)2
.
Accompanying this interest, a number of civil organisations and academic centres worldwide turned their
attention to Social Innovation. Some that deserve to be referred here are the Social Innovation Exchange
(SIX) network3
, the Institute of Social Innovation (Ramon Llull University)4
, the Center of Social Innovation
(Stanford University)5
and the Centre de Recherche sur les Innovations Sociales (Quebec University)6
. The
Portuguese landscape of social innovation is growing with the push up by: new associations and non-profit
groups dedicated to social entrepreneurship (such as the Institute of Social Entrepreneurship); initiatives
of well-established organizations in different sectors (such as Social Innovation programme by the
Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation7
, the Social Innovation actions by EDP Foundation 8
or the Social
Innovation Bank9
, by Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa.
In fact, the words social change, social entrepreneurship and social innovation seem to be trendy in the
mission statement in several organizations and in the titles of the media. Often these are used
interchangeably, without clear bordering or limitation of definition. Taking what is happening in the social
networks as a mirror of the reality, we find 53 Facebook pages and 103 Facebook groups with “social
innovation” in its name10
.
Otherwise, the academic papers and statistical reporting are offering contributions that reveal the facts
behind the trend.
In 2005, Franco (2005) has made a study on the situation of the sector of social economy in Portugal,
finding that it:
- generated 4,2% of the GDP;
- employed 4,2% of active population;
2
A full list of the activities held by the European bodies is available at
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/policy/social-innovation/.
3 http://www.socialinnovationexchange.org/about.
4 http://www.esade.edu/research-webs/eng/socialinnovation.
5 http://csi.gsb.stanford.edu/.
6 http://www.crises.uqam.ca/.
7 http://www.ies.org.pt/.
8 http://www.fundacaoedp.pt/inovacao-social/.
9 http://bancodeinovacaosocial.pt/.
10 www.facebook.com. Data accessed on the 15th July 2013.

- served social, culture, education and health aims (idem).
From then on, several factors contributed to give social economy a crucial role in the current social and
economic context. Those included:
- the failure of the financial market demanding an alternative economy (Azevedo, Franco and
Menezes, 2010; Namorado, 2009), and,
- the rising need of social cohesion, local development and cooperation (Campos, 2010; Room,
2005).
In 2013, the results of the Social Economy Satellite Account (Conta Satélite da Economia Social), produced
through collaboration between the Institute of National Statistics and the Cooperative António Sérgio for
Social Economy, show an increasing relevance of this sector in the overall Portuguese economy, in the last
years. According to these results, in 2010, the sector:
- represented 6% of the GDP;
- represented 4.7% of total employment and 5.5% of paid employment;
- integrated 59 264 organisations;
- had a financing need of 570, 7 million of Euro (INE and CASES, 2013).
In the last years, the Portuguese social economy got strength from public policies, which culminated in
the publication of the Basis Law for Social Economy (Law nr 30/2013 of 8th
May). This Law opened a new
path for social services in Portugal and defining the general basis of the legal framework for the sector as
well as incentives.
Finally, Portugal is the only country in the world carrying out a comprehensive map of its social innovation
and social entrepreneurship initiatives, in a project called MIES – Mapping Social Innovation and
Entrepreneurship11
, involving observers in the whole territory.
But an evolution in the sector is happening, both in national and international context. As a major part of
the funding of social economy organisations (SEOs) has origin in public contribution, the reduction of
public budgets constraints their intervention. In addition, the tendency to minimize welfares states
requests more competences from the civil society. On the other side, we assist to the arrival of “new
11
http://www.mies.pt.

avenues for citizen organizing (often based around the Internet and stimulated by other forms of
information technology)” (Edwards, 2013:6), derived from two developments: the “inability of
conventional, representative forms of democracy” and the “continued popularity of citizen protest and
other forms of direct organising and engagement” (idem).
Consequently, the events of social innovation spill over the formal sector of social economy, to apply to a
diversity of actions performed by the whole civil society, organised or not. This change is followed by a
movement towards the (re)conceptualization of social innovation, being defined as creation of new
solutions (services, goods, technology or methods) to address a social issue such as poverty, nutrition,
health, water and sanitation, economic empowerment, access to financial services, gender equity…
(Mulgan, 2007, 2010; Murray et al, 2010; Phills et al., 2008). These are human-centred solutions that have
conditions to become transferred and permanently installed (Mau, 2010). Social innovation involves
changes to concepts and mind-sets as well as to economic flows: systems only change when people think
and see in new ways. It involves changes to power and it happens transversally to the sector private,
public and non-profit (Donofrio, 2011).
In spite of being social, social innovation is primarily innovation. Keeping the focus of innovation is
important because it turns clear the way it supports the wealth, the growth and the sustainability of
economy.
Technology, knowledge and research driven processes are engines for growth, allowing enterprises,
universities and public administration to become innovative, and, as result, more competitive,
differentiated and attractive for investment (Nicholls, 2006; Hage and Meeus, 2006). Growth by
innovation is a normative thought in the market, which got spread into the state strategy and arrived to
the social economy.
Using the literature of technological and commercial innovation to analyse social innovation delivers the
following conclusion: both types of innovation correspond to the criteria of novelty and improvement,
this is, both produce something new that betters current conditions; nevertheless, there is are some
distinctive aspects of social innovation, being the most important, the aim of social change via non-profit
means (Phills et al., 2008; Fagerberg, 2004).
In seek for innovation, SEOs are participating in research, development and cooperation projects.
However, their participation is often more focused on performing and less focused on the further

utilization of the acquired knowledge, technology or goods. There is a tension between the demands of
continuing operations and the ability to maintain innovation (Murray et al., 2010). Therefore possibilities
for sustainability based in innovation decrease. In counterweight, some SEOs are arriving to innovative
states, transforming the lives of their audiences and their internal methods.
Organizations need to learn how to transform resources into strategic tools for sustainability, if they want
to be independent and to form a self-regulated sector. They need to understand and practice the system
of social innovation (Murray, 2010), a system which uses the opportunities/problems of the context to
apply solutions, once validated can be scaled up. Here, a key element is to measure the potential of a
result to become a wheel of future change - its social value.
Social value refers to the non-financing impacts of programmes, organisations and interventions,
including the well-being of people and communities, the social capital and the environment (Wood e
Leighton, 2010: 20), typically described as intangible results, difficult to quantify. “As a concept it is similar
to ‘externalities’ in economics. In essence it is a collective term for acknowledging the value of social
outcomes in decision making”. (Cox et al., 2012:17).
Authors state difficulties in this measurement because some results are made up from cooperation,
“intangible knowledge flows, and skilled labour flows” (Gault, 2005:42) and because the processes,
metrics, models and “methods used in the commercial or technological fields are not always directly
transferable to the social economy” (Murray et al., 2010:6). However, the examples of measurement tools
for social innovation are emerging and multiplying: Return on Social Investment (SROI), Key Social and Co-
operative Performance Indicators (KSCPIs), Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Social Accounting and Audit
(SAA), Impact Reporting and investment Standards (IRIS).
The work in this PhD proposal becomes relevant as it will deliver a contribution towards a framework,
which identifies the transference path from RDC to social innovation, as it happens in organizations, and
then, it will support the definition of a general model to facilitate the chain of sustainability in social
economy.

3. ENTRY QUESTIONS
Towards the challenges and dilemmas put by the different interacting areas in the problem, it is intended
to find answers to the following questions:
- Are those organisations using the results from RDC to generate sustainability and innovation?
- In which ways is the participation in RDC projects an igniter of change towards Social Innovation
in the context of the Portuguese social economy? Which factors are involved in that?
- Can we design a model, based on those factors, that presents methods and practices for the social
economy sector to use their results into sustainable growing and development mechanisms of
social innovation?
These questions might lead to the definition of the main research question of the project (whereas not
yet definitely established):
- Which are the conditions that social economy organisations must implement to generate
innovation?
4. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS
“If someone thus wishes to explain social innovation, then (…) a theory of social innovation is not
necessary, but rather a social theory which does not assume that state of equilibrium as the norm is
needed as a starting point or even a goal” (Moldaschl, 2010:13). Although we might agree with this author
that there are no “innovation theories”, the processes which we intent to follow in the research can find
explanation under different theoretical perspectives:
1. Institutional theories and social construction – there is a link between the micro patterns of
individual interaction with the development of relatively stable macro-social patterns and
structures. The macro tendencies are created at a subjective, individual level, they achieve an
objective status and a certain degree of trans-generational stability (Nilsson, 2003);
2. Post-structuralism - by using the concepts of ‘culture’ and ‘networks’ specific to this approach, is
possible to explore the nature of social innovation. In one hand, existing discourses on social
innovation revolve around social change and diffusion of innovation. But neither of these two
processes is possible outside the concept of ‘culture’. The main characteristics that the concept

takes on are those of permeability and metamorphoses. Thus, culture is about the multiplicity of
individual discourses, but at the same time, it is open to the outside world and in a continuous
process of knowledge exchange and transformation. On the other hand, change happens as a
result of human interaction and the dynamics created by the exchange of knowledge and ideas
and the creation of new networks. In this case, “networks” are the mechanisms that form the
base of systemic change, the relations established between individuals and/or existing structures.
They are flows of resources (material, capital, human, expertise, knowledge) and know-how that
metamorphose society continuously (Llie and During, 2011);
3. Complexity theory - organisations can be seen as complex adaptive systems, where dynamic
interactions happens and which are capable of self-organisation, adaptation and differentiate.
The system and the agents co-evolve; the system lightly constrains agent behaviour, but the
agents modify the system by their interaction with it (Nilsson, 2003). In this context, innovation
can be linked to “emergence”, a result from the interaction between elements, in their continuous
adaptation process (Kania and Kramer, 2013). Complexity approach and its derivation approach
“theory of change” have been used in the practice of organizational development within the non-
profit sector.
4. Innovation studies - yet, social innovation is, at first innovation and, therefore, innovation studies
shall be considered a landmark in the comprehension of the phenomena involved in this project,
not only because the all innovation has some kind of social impact but also because social
innovation dues its emergence and development, partly, to the technological progress. Innovation
studies have delivered some stable knowledge about key factors, contributing to the clarification
and delimitation of social innovation field: production process, diffusion paths, collaborative
conditions, association with economic development (Mulgan, 2007; Franz, et al., 2013).
5. PROGRAMME, METHODOLOGY AND MAIN RESULTS
The research project will overcome different stages of progress, as described below:
From month 1 to month 3, a clarification of the problem will be done: results of RDC (Research
Development and Cooperation) projects as generators of social innovation. This involves the redaction of
a clear, real and measurable entry question to the study and the identification of focus variables. The

question will be directed towards the final goal of the project: to define a model for organizations of social
economy that allows them to become innovative and sustainable upon RDC projects.
At this moment, the networking process will continue to establish a secure research arena, where
different types of organizations are in compliance with the project (associations, cooperatives, civic
groups, social entrepreneurs…). This work includes the evaluation of expectations towards the project
and finding ways to turn the study valuable for them.
From month 4 to month 8, the exploratory stage of the project will be performed under three main
activities:
- Literature review, including the selection of theoretical references; reading and resuming
information on the Portuguese status of the third sector, towards the identification of research
directions;
- Exploratory survey, based on an online questionnaire, targeting an international sample of SEOs.
Exploration will focus, in particular, the economic situation of the Portuguese third sector
institutions and their motivations to participate in RDC projects, in connection to their relations
with the financial supporters. The aim is to answer if those organizations are able to be self-
sufficient in their activity (in spite of their non-profit nature) or if they are dependent on grants.
Answering this question is crucial for the project, because if the second premise is correct, the
third sector could be considered more a public instrument and less an autonomous response for
the common good, where social innovation and development would rise.
Furthermore, the survey aims to address the following issues: how important is innovation for a
SEO?; what are internal organizational strategies to promote innovation?; how much innovative
products/services are present?; how many people are dedicated to produce and disseminate
innovation?. The results of this survey shall allow the representation of the innovative profile of
the sample and deliver relevant information for the conception of a qualitative research plan, in
the following stages of research.
- Validation of information resorting to exploratory interviews with consultants, granters, project
practitioners and stakeholders in Portugal. These shall be face-to-face meetings with 5 to 7
representatives of the target groups who will be asked to add qualitative information to the
results of the survey.

Between months 9 and 13, the fundaments of the problem and ground theories will be described and
analysed towards the entry question. During this period, conceptualization will support the organization
of thoughts in a significant foundation for the study. The result of this stage will be an analysis framework
with operational concepts and observable indicators as guide for the later data collection. This framework
will consider the intention to implement a qualitative, observation-based data collection. By this time, the
progress of the study shall allow outlining answers to the question: “does the participation in RDC projects
have some impact on social innovation?”.
From month 14 to month 18, the observation will take place, meaning that the hypotheses will be tested
towards the information collected within those organizations. In that order, a sampling process will select
“best cases” (picked up from the network of enrolled institutions in the exploratory phase). For each case,
a qualitative plan based on direct observation and compilation of documents will be established upon
common criteria. The data will allow the constitution of a portfolio of evidences per institution. Each
portfolio will be confronted to a testing instrument (such as a check-list or scale) based on the indicators
described in framework of analysis.
Due to the aims in study, the “case-study” methodology will be adequate to observe the factors between
RDC and sustainable social innovation. The methodology resorting to evidence portfolios will be
complemented with personal inquiries (interviews). A qualitative approach during observation might
support the evaluation of contextual variables and working environments, as support for the results to be
obtained. For those concrete instruments will be resorted.
Once all the procedures reveal validity, information will be inserted in a database. From month 19 to
month 21, data will be described, interpreted and compared. This process will allow the finding of possible
answers to the entry question and to test the hypothesis. The aim is to identify processes, systems,
techniques and technologies and other strategies that derived from results of RDS and caused a systemic
change on the way organizations worked after, and how it had effects in their sucess12
. Alongside, some
factors related with the participation in RDC and the ways of innovation drawn up by the organizations
are expected to be found. Those relations may permit the design of methods and proposals of practice
towards a method to transform RDC results into social innovation.
12
Success is a general term to describe a variability of positive effects such as: recognition in the sector, financial growth,
satisfaction of target groups, rise of volunteers,…

During the months 22th
, 23th
and 24th
, time is dedicated to take conclusions from the results, define
dissemination actions and discover new paths of research. This will be also the time for self-reflection and
evaluation.
6. EXPECTED IMPACT
As an academic production, the results of this research will expand the specialized literature on social
innovation, reinforcing the capacity of the social sector to argue on policy decisions and budget allocation.
This empowerment is necessary, in spite of the actual visibility of social economy issues, because known
practices are vulnerable of discredit when these are not validated under theoretical foundations.
The publication and the dissemination of the results will support the organizations in social economy,
social enterprises and their professionals to prepare and introduce new procedures and frameworks on
their strategic plans, making them objectively directed to innovation.
Overall, the long-term impact is the increase of the value of social solutions and the reinforcement of SEOs
to satisfy the people’s needs.
7. REFERENCES
1. Afonso, M. and Fernandes, A. (2005). abCD Introdução à Cooperação para o Desenvolvimento.
Lisboa: Instituto Marquês de Valle Flôr e Oikos - Cooperação e Desenvolvimento.
2. Azevedo, C., Franco, R. C. and Meneses, J. W. (Coords.)(2010).Gestão de Organizações Sem
Fins Lucrativos. O Desafio da Inovação Social. Porto: Vida Económica.
3. Basadur, M. and Gelade, A. G. (2006). The role of Knowledge Management in the Innovation
Process. In Creativity and Innovation Management, Volume 15, Number 1,pp. 45-62.
4. Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design: how design thinking transforms organizations and
inspires innovation. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

5. Caeiro, J. M. C. (2009). Economia e Política Social - Contributos para a Intervenção Social do
Século XXI. Lisboa: Universidade Lusíada Editora.
6. Campos, J.L.M. (2010). La Economia Social en la Unión Europea. Bruxelles: Comité Económico
y Social Europeo.
7. Carvalho, J. (2005), Organizações não lucrativas – Aprendizagem organizacional, Orientação
de Mercado, Planeamento estratégico e Desempenho. Lisboa: Edições Sílabo.
8. Clifford, J. et al., (2013). Measuring Social Impact in Social Enterprise: The state of thought
and practice in the UK. Available online at
http://www.canonline.org.uk/data/files/Social_Investment/Measuring_Social_Impact_in_S
ocial_Enteprise_report.pdf.
9. Corneloup, J. (2009). Comment est abordée la question de l’innovation dans les sciences
sociales? In Revue de géographie alpine/Journal of Alpine Research [Online], 97-1. Disponível
online em http://rga.revues.org/828.
10. Cox, J.; Bowen, M. and Kempton, O. (2012). Social Value: understanding the wider value of
public policy interventions. New Economy Working Papers. Available online at
http://www.socialauditnetwork.org.uk/files/5213/4996/6941/Social_Value_-_080612.pdf.
11. De Paulo, A. (2004). Tecnologia Social – uma estratégia para o desenvolvimento. Rio de
Janeiro: Fundação Banco do Brasil.
12. Donofrio. N. M. (2011). Innovation that Matters. In Kauffman Thought book. Kansas: Ewing
Marion Kauffman Foundation.
13. Drucker, P. (1994). The Age of Social Transformation. In The Atlantic Monthly, Volume 274,
N.º5, pp.53-80. Available online at
http://www.providersedge.com/docs/leadership_articles/Age_of_Social_Transformation.pd
f.
14. Edwards, M. (ed.) (2013). Oxford Handbook of Civil Society. New York: Oxford University Press.
15. European Parliament (2009). European Parliament resolution of 19 February 2009 on Social
Economy, (2008/2250(INI). Available at
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P6-TA-2009-
0062&language=EN
16. European Science Foundation (2012). The science of Innovation. Conference Policy Brief.
Available online at http://www.esf.org/?id=9311.

17. Fagerberg, J. (2004). Innovation. A guide to the literature. In Fagerberg, J., D. Mowery e R.
Nelson (eds.) (2004), Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford: University Press.
18. Franco, R. C. et al. (2005). O sector não lucrativo Português numa perspectiva comparada.
Porto: Universidade Católica.
19. Franz, H., Hochgerner, J. and Howalt, J. (eds.) (2012). Challenge Social Innovation. Potentials
for Business, Social Entrepreneurship, Welfare and Civil Society. London: Springer.
20. Gault, F. (2009). R&D and Innovation. In Knowledge Economy – Challenges for Measurement.
Luxemburg: Eurostat.
21. Godinho, M. M. (2003). Inovação e Difusão da Inovação: conceitos e perspectivas
fundamentais. In Rodrigues, M. J., Neves, A. e Godinho, M. M. (organizadores) (2003). Para
uma Política de Inovação em Portugal. Lisboa: Dom Quixote.
22. Governo de Portugal (2013). Lei de Bases da Economia Social. In Diário da República, 1st
Series, nr.88, 8th May 2013. Available online at
http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2013/05/08800/0272702728.pdf. .
23. Greffe, X. (2003). Innovation, Value Added and Evaluation in the Third system: a European
Perspective. In The Non-profit sector in a Changing Economy. Paris: OCDE.
24. Guellec, D. and Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2004), From R&D to Productivity Growth:
Do the Institutional Settings and the Source of Funds of R&D Matter? Oxford Bulletin of
Economics and Statistics, 66: 353–378. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0084.2004.00083.
25. Godin, B. (2012). Social Innovation: utopias of innovation from c.1830 to the present. Working
Paper No. 11, Project on the Intellectual History of Innovation. Montréal: INRS.
26. Hage, J. and Meeus, M. (Eds.)(2006). Innovation, Science, and Institutional Change: A Research
Handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27. Instituto Nacional de Estatística, INE & Cooperativa António Sérgio para a Economia Social,
CASES (Eds.)(2013). Conta Satélite da Economia Social. Lisboa: INE.
28. Llie, E. G. and During, R. (2011). An analysis of social innovation discourses in Europe. Concepts
and strategies of social innovation. Available online at www.zodoenwijdathier.nl.
29. Magnus, A. and Peterson, J. (2010). Enhanced knowledge utilization for increased project
efficiency. Linköpings: Linköpings universitet.

30. Manzini, E. (2007). A laboratory of ideas. Diffused creativity and new ways of going. In A.
Meroni (Ed.), Creative communities – People inventing sustainable ways of living. Milan:
Edizioni Poli.Design.
31. Mau, B. (Org.) (2010). Massive Change: A Manifesto for the Future Global Design Culture.
London: Phaidon Press limited.
32. Moldaschl, M. (2010). Why Innovation theories make no sense. Working Paper. Department
of Innovation Research and Sustainable Resource Management (BWL IX), Chemnitz University
of Technology.
33. Mulgan, G. (2007). Social innovation. What it is, why it matters and it can be accelerated.
London: The Young Foundation.
34. Mulgan, G. (2010). Measuring Social Value. In Standford Social Innovation Review, Summer
2010, pp.38-43.
35. Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J. e Mulgan, G.(2010). The Open Book of Social Innovation. London:
NESTA.
36. Namorado,R. (2009). Para uma economia solidária – a partir do caso português. In Revista
Crítica de Ciências Sociais, 84, Março de 2009, pp.65-80.
37. Nicholls, A. (2006). “Social Entrepreneurship – New models of Sustainable Social Change”.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38. Nilsson, W.O. (2003). Social Innovation. An Exploration of the Literature. Québec: McGill
University.
39. OCDE (2011). Fostering innovation to address social challenges. Available online at
www.oecd.org/dataoecd/37/11/47861327.pdf.
40. Oosterlynck, S. (2013). Social innovation theory: its role in knowledge building. In Moulaert,
F. & Mccallum, P. (eds.) (2013). The International Handbook on Social Innovation.
Northampton: Edward Elgar.
41. Phills, J., Deiglmeir, K. and Miller, D.T. (2008). Rediscovering Social Innovation. In Social
Innovation Review, autumn, pp.33-43.
42. Pole, E. and Ville, S. (2009). Social innovation: buzz word or enduring term? In The Journal of
Socio-Economics, 38, pp.878-885.

43. Rodrigues, C. (2011). Design para a Mudança num Social em Rede. Monografia de Pós-
Graduação em Economia Social- – Cooperativismo, Mutualismo e Solidariedade. Available
online http://www.issuu.com/easpombas/docs/projecto_de_monografia_final_book.
44. Room, G. (2005). The European Challenge: Innovation, Policy Learning and Social Cohesion in
the New Knowledge Economy, Bristol: The Policy Press.
45. Sharra, R. and Nyssens, M. (2010). Social Innovation: an interdisciplinar and critical review of
the concept. Available online at http://www.ces.ulg.ac.be/uploads/Workshop%203-
4%20March/Sharra%20and%20Nyssens%202010.pdf.
46. Wood, C. and Leighton, D. (2010). Measuring social value. The gap between policy and
practice. London: DEMOS.
47. Young, R. (2006). For what it is worth: social value and the future of social entrepreneurship.
In Nicholls, A. (2006). Social Entrepreneurship. New Models for Sustainable Change. Oxford:
University Press.

ClaraRodrigues_projetodeinvestigação_discussão_final

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to ClaraRodrigues_projetodeinvestigação_discussão_final

Similar to ClaraRodrigues_projetodeinvestigação_discussão_final (20)

More from Clara Rodrigues

More from Clara Rodrigues (14)

ClaraRodrigues_projetodeinvestigação_discussão_final