Languages for communication in international enterprises and organizations Diffusion of Social Innovation: A Comparative Study on Refugee Law Clinics in Germany and Italy

(1)

Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia Dipartimento di studi linguistici e culturali

Corso di Laurea Magistrale in

Languages for communication in international enterprises and organizations

Diffusion of Social Innovation: A Comparative Study on Refugee Law Clinics in Germany and Italy

Relatore:

Eugenio Caperchione

Correlatore:

Giovanni Bonifati

Prova finale di:

Cristina Bortolossi

Anno Accademico 2017/2018

(2)

I

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Prof. em. Dr. Christoph Reichard for his support and guidance, insightful comments and encouragement during the initial stages of this research.

I would also like to express my gratitude to all the participants for giving their time to take part in this study. Without their contribution, this thesis would not have been possible.

(3)

II

Abstract

The issue that this study addresses is the diffusion of social innovation (SI) in higher education. Over the past years there has been a growing interest among researchers and policy makers in the concept of social innovation. The purpose of this study is to examine how social innovation has diffused in two European countries: Germany and Italy. In particular, this research seeks to understand what the major factors are that have led to the rise of Refugee Law Clinics (RLCs) in said countries and whether and to which extent these factors differ in the two countries. To gather data, interviews with representatives of eight different RLCs were conducted. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis. The cross-case analysis revealed similarities as well as differences. As for similarities, the following themes were identified: 1) compatibility of the SI; 2) the importance of knowledge transfer via interpersonal communication. The data showed differences with regard to the relationship between external context and diffusion that led to the identification of another theme: 3) strong influence of external factors. These results will be useful for understanding what the major drivers are that might positively affect the diffusion of legal clinics and, on a broader scale, the diffusion of social innovation initiatives in the public and non-profit sector.

(4)

III

Riassunto Analitico

La tesi affronta la questione della diffusione dell’innovazione sociale (SI) nell’istruzione superiore. Negli ultimi anni c'è stato un interesse crescente per il concetto di innovazione sociale all’interno della comunità scientifica e tra i policy maker. Lo scopo di questo studio è quello di esaminare come l'innovazione sociale si sia diffusa in due paesi europei:

Germania e Italia. In particolare, la ricerca si propone di capire quali sono i principali fattori che hanno portato all’aumento delle Refugee Law Clinics (RLCs) - o cliniche legali specializzate in diritto d’asilo, diritto dell’immigrazione e human rights – nei due paesi, e se, e in che misura, questi fattori differiscono nei due paesi. I dati sono stati raccolti intervistando i rappresentanti di otto diverse cliniche legali. Le interviste sono state trascritte e analizzate utilizzando l'analisi tematica. L’analisi cross-case ha rivelato somiglianze e differenze. Per quanto riguarda le somiglianze, sono stati identificati i seguenti temi: 1) compatibilità della SI; 2) importanza dello scambio di conoscenze attraverso la comunicazione interpersonale. Differenze sono emerse riguardo alla relazione tra contesto esterno e diffusione che hanno portato all'identificazione di un altro tema: 3) forte influenza di fattori esterni. Questi risultati saranno utili per capire quali sono i fattori che potrebbero influenzare positivamente la diffusione di nuove cliniche legali e, su scala più ampia, la diffusione di iniziative di innovazione sociale nel settore pubblico e non-profit.

(5)

IV

List of Tables

Table 1: Drivers for each Level of Analysis... 24

Table 2: Participants’ Information ... 35

Table 3: Features of the Innovation affecting its Diffusion... 45

Table 4: Organizational Antecedents affecting Diffusion ... 51

Table 5: External Factors affecting Diffusion ... 62

List of Figures

Figure 1: Overlap View for the Code “it’s a cool idea” ... 50

Figure 2: Diffusion of RLCs in Germany and Italy... 66

(7)

1

1. Introduction

In 1991, Cooperrider and Pasmore predicted that “the 1990’s will be known as the decade of global social innovation” (as cited in Moulaert, MacCallum, & Hillier, 2013 p. 13).

More recently, while launching the Social Innovation Europe Initiative in March 2011, J.

M. Barroso, President of the European Commission, stated that “social innovation is more needed then ever” in finding new and innovative ways to address pressing societal needs such as poverty, social exclusion and demographic change (Europe leading social innovation, Social Innovation Europe Initiative, 2011).

In the last ten years or so there has been growing interest in the concept of social innovation among policy makers, researchers and institutions around the world. An office for Social Innovation and Civic Participation has been founded in the Unites States, while in Europe, the European Commission is offering direct funding to support social innovation through the Employment and Social Innovation Programme, Horizon 2020.

Despite this interest, social innovation (SI) is a relatively new area of research compared to its counterparts in business, management and technology.

Innovation as a research field began in economics in the works of Schumpeter, who first liked economic development and innovation, emphasizing the role of the entrepreneur as the primary determinant of economic change. Since Schumpeter, innovation research has evolved in different scientific traditions such as technological studies, management, social studies and urban development (Cajaiba-Santana, 2014).

While social innovation as a phenomenon has been present since the beginning of the 19^th century, social innovation as field of study has only recently appeared in the literature on innovation (Godin, 2012).

Currently there is much debate over the meaning of social innovation. To date, two prevalent theoretical perspectives have guided the research on the subject. On the one side, there is a ‘social entrepreneurial’ approach in which social innovations are understood as new solutions such as products, services, markets, processes that simultaneously meet social needs, more effectively than existing solutions, and create new social relationships and collaborations (Murray, Caulier-Grice, & Mulgan, 2010;

Phills, Deiglmeier, & Miller, 2008; Mulgan, Tucker, Rushanara, & Sanders, 2007). On the other side, there are the representatives of a ‘territorial development’ approach, who consider an economistic view of social innovation reductive and argue that social

(8)

2 innovation would instead promote human development and social change by transforming social relations, fostering values of justice and solidarity (Jessop, Moulaert, Hulgård, & Hamdouch, 2013; Moulaert, MacCallum, & Hillier, 2013; Martinelli, 2012;

Moulaert, Swyngedouw, Martinelli, & Gonzalez, 2010; MacCallum, 2009). An in-depth discussion on the meaning of the term will take place in the next chapter. Despite the plurality of definitions, the literature on social innovation does appear to share a number of common themes. These include the idea that social innovation: is a distinct type of innovation; can occur in all sectors and often cut across different sectors; has various stages from idea generation to social change; is context specific; has a product dimension as well as a process dimension; changes social relations; enhances societal resilience and improves the inclusion and participation of marginalized groups (The Young Foundation, 2012).

As a relatively new research field, the concept of social innovation needs to be explored further. So far, little attention has been given to understanding its emergence and diffusion (Borzaga & Bodini, 2014; Cajaiba-Santana, 2014; Mulgan, 2006; Mumford

& Moertl, 2003). To date, research has shown that many social innovation initiatives do not overcome the pioneering phase and often remain episodic both in time and space (Martinelli, 2012). As for any other innovation however, diffusion has to occur in order to turn an idea into a [social] innovation (Walker, 2006). Diffusion is therefore one essential dimension in the innovation process together with invention and implementation (Rogers, 2003; Osborne, 1998b). One of the most prominent works on the study of diffusion is that of Rogers (2003), whose diffusion of innovation theory (DOI) seeks to explain how, and at what rate, a new idea or a new product is communicated over time among individuals in a social system. According to Rogers, the key to adoption are the characteristics that each individual perceives as attributes of the innovation such as, for example, newness and complexity. While Rogers’ theory has been criticized for focusing mostly on individuals as adopters, other theories have looked at the innovative capacities of organizations (Damanpour, 1991; 1996; Damanpour & Schneider, 2006). These studies have explored the relationship between organizational size and innovation;

organizational leadership and innovation; communication channels, interorganizational networks and innovation. Yet, a major issue with the organizational studies literature is that it considers organizations as stand-alone entities, whereas, to date, several studies have recognized the central role of the outer context on the innovative capacity of

(9)

3 organizations (Walker, 2006; Hartley, 2005; Greenhalgh, Robert, Macfarlane, Bate, &

Kyriakidou, 2004; Borins, 2000; Osborne, 1998). More recently, theories have been developed with regard to social innovation. According to the theory of generative diffusion (Murray, Caulier-Grice, & Mulgan 2010), the successful diffusion of innovations depends upon the interplay between effective demand and effective supply.

The first refers to the willingness to pay for a given service or product, while the second is achieved when the innovation is made “workable and useful” (Mulgan, Rushanara, Halkett, & Sanders, 2007). The main problem with this approach is that it considers social innovations as the result of “a very small number of heroic, energetic, and impatient individuals”, the ‘hero’ entrepreneurs (Mulgan, 2006 p. 148). Public and non-profit organizations as well as grass-roots movements are excluded from the social innovation process. Furthermore, this approach is biased toward a positive conception of social innovation, while SI, as any other innovation, is neither positive nor negative, per se. It is additionally important to note that whether or not social innovation has a broader impact, depends on the interplay of political, social, economic and cultural factors (Westley &

Antadze, 2010). Therefore, because of the complexity of the social innovation process, the market-based approach outlined above needs to be combined with other perspectives.

By looking at social innovation as a driver of macro-level social change, different theories have been proposed to describe how SI initiatives spread across different countries and contexts (Howaldt, Kaletka, Schröder, & Zirngiebl, 2018; Howaldt, Kopp, & Schwarz, 2015; Westley, Antadze, Riddell, Robinson, & Geobey, 2014; Westley & Antadze, 2010).

Still, research on the diffusion of social innovation is underdeveloped.

Although social innovations pop up in many areas and policies and in many disguises, and social innovation is researched from a number of theoretical and methodological angles, the conditions under which social innovations develop, flourish and sustain […]

are not yet fully understood both in political and academic circles (Janson & Harrisson, 2013 p. 7)

Similar to the model of clinical medical education, clinical legal education (CLE) is a teaching method based on learning by doing that offers students the opportunity to put into practice what they learn and at the same time promotes access to justice. It is the combination of “practical legal education and legal aid pro bono” (Winkler, 2012 p. 4).

Since its appearance in the United States during the 20^th century, particularly since the

(10)

4 1960’s and 1970’s, law clinics have spread all over the world. The global reach of clinical legal programs has prompted scholars to talk about a global movement of CLE (Bloch, 2011). Although legal clinics existed already in continental Europe in the 1990’s, in Western Europe CLE is a recent phenomenon. Since the late 2000s, clinical programs can be found in countries like France, Germany, Italy and Spain that were considered to be the “last holdout in worldwide acceptance of clinical legal education” (Wilson, 2009).

While it is clear that CLE represents an innovation in higher education, this thesis argues that it is also a social innovation. Although there is no consensus on a definition of the concept of SI across different intellectual communities, the literature does appear to share two core elements: 1) SI involves a change in social relationships, systems or structures;

2) this change serves a shared human need or solves a social problem (Parés, Ospina, &

Subirats, 2017; van der Have & Rubalcaba, 2016). Similarly, CLE: is an innovative alternative to the traditional legal education model; provides access to justice to vulnerable or excluded communities that would otherwise not have legal assistance; and brings together actors from different sectors such as universities, NGOs and law firms. In 2013, CLE has even been recognized by the UN resolution as a way to improve access to justice (United Nations, 2013). Europe is facing tremendous social and economic challenges; the control and management of migration flows is one of the most pressing issues our society is experiencing. Hence, the decision to focus on Refugee Law Clinics (RLCs). RLCs are legal clinics specialized in asylum law, international migration law and human rights. This is a very complex field of law which is usually not part of the regular academic curriculum neither in Italy nor in Germany. RLCs in this sense are also an opportunity to reconsider the way law should be taught and to integrate public interest concerns into university studies (Markard, 2018).

Since 2015 the term ‘migrant crisis’ has entered political and public debates. As such, in 2016 nearly 1.3 million asylum applications were registered within the EU-28, while in 2017 nearly 705 thousand asylum seekers applied for international protection. In 2016 more than 745 thousand asylum applications were registered in Germany, with an increase of 56,4% compared to 2015 which reached 476 thousand applications (http://www.bamf.de/). Germany was followed by Italy with 122 thousand applications.

In 2017 the number of applicants rose in Italy (+4%) while decreased considerably in Germany (-73%), but still more than 222 thousand asylum seekers applied for international protection. (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

(11)

5 explained/index.php/Asylum_statistics). The number of asylum seekers increased so rapidly in Germany and in Italy that public agencies were not able to handle all of them.

Against this background RLCs started springing up across Germany, mainly as student- run projects, in the form of registered associations (eingetragener Verein, e.V.). To date, there are almost 40 RLCs in Germany, among which few are fully institutionalized and supervised by academic staff, while the majority of the RLCs are loosely attached to universities and use, for example, the university’s facilities and equipment (Markard, 2018). There are also law clinics that do not have links to universities at all. It should be mentioned that RLCs existed already before 2015. The first German RLC started in Gießen at the end of 2007 and it was a top-down project created by a judge and a lawyer in cooperation with the university. Yet, before 2015, there were very few clinical projects across the country, and therefore it seems reasonable to suppose that the peak of arrivals registered in that year was one of the reasons that led to the rise of RLCs in Germany. In Italy the first legal clinic was launched at the university of Brescia in 2009 and, since then, a number of other projects have been set up in other universities across the country.

A major difference between the two countries, is that RLCs in Italy are all under the control of universities. There reason for this could be that, contrarily to Germany, in Italy there is no law regulating the provision of pro-bono legal services for non-lawyers, therefore students are not legally allowed to provide free legal aid. Hence, legal clinics can only exist within the academic context where students are handling cases under the supervision of qualified personnel (e.g. professors, researchers, student assistants).

Multidimensional examinations of the diffusion of social innovations and the influence of factors within each dimension, are scarce. Research on diffusion has looked either at the relationship between organizational characteristics and innovation (Damanpour, 1996; Damanpour, 1991) or at the effects of organizational and environmental determinants on innovations (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006; Walker, 2006). Furthermore, scholars have called for more cross-case analysis since research on SI has focused mostly on single cases (Borzaga & Bodini, 2014).

By examining the development of RLCs in Germany and Italy, the purpose of this study is to explore the initial phase of the diffusion of SI in the two countries. In particular, this research is designed to investigate the drivers of diffusion on three different dimensions: innovation, organizational and environmental. More precisely, this study investigates the research question of what the major factors are that have led to the rise

(12)

6 of RLCs in Germany and Italy, and whether and to which extent these factors differ in the two countries.

In order to answer the research question, the thesis is structured in the following way. Chapter 2 first provides an overview of the historical evolution of the meaning of SI, then it presents the diversity of conceptualizations of modern SI among different research fields. Subsequently, it introduces the concept of diffusion of innovations and it outlines the factors that may foster or hinder diffusion. The chapter ends with a focus on CLE i.e. it provides a definition of legal clinics and traces the evolution of CLE through the 20^th century. Chapter 3 first presents the case of RLCs and, after giving some background information about the status of RLCs in the two countries, it draws boundaries around the specific cases to be studied. Then, the chapter describes in greater detail the methodology used for analysis. Chapter 4 illustrates the results of the cross- case analysis and discusses emerging themes and relationships with the help of tables and figures. Chapter 5 summarizes key findings and situates them in the current literature.

Finally, the chapter outlines some suggestions for future research in this area.

(13)

7

2. Theoretical Framework

The chapter explores the relevant literature on social innovation, diffusion of innovations and clinical legal education. First, it outlines the historical evolution of the meaning of social innovation, from the 20^th century up to the present day and it provides an overview on the different and multifaceted definitions of social innovation across various research fields. Second, it discusses the most influential theories of diffusion and identifies which are the key factors affecting the diffusion of innovations also known as antecedents. Then it outlines the antecedents related to the innovation level, those related to the organization in which the innovation is adopted, and those related to the environment in which the organization sits. Third, it defines the concept of Clinical Legal Education (CLE), it provides a typology of legal clinics and it traces the evolution of CLE from its emergence in the United States, during the 20^th century, until its appearance in Western Europe in the mid-2000s.

2.1 Social Innovation

Evolution of the Concept

In the last ten years or so, social innovation (SI) has gained momentum. Dozens of books, articles and reports on social innovation are published every year. Research projects have been founded in Europe and North America in the name of SI.

Governments all over the word are “embarking on the social innovation journey”

(Voorberg, Bekkers, & Tummers, 2015). Social Innovation is “a la mode” (Jessop, Moulaert, Hulgård, & Hamdouch, 2013 p. 110). Beginning with the second half of the 20^th century, technological innovation has been a widely studied phenomenon. Starting with the 21^st century however, another concept has appeared in the literature on innovation: social innovation. Often presented as counter posed concepts, much of the debates on SI suggest the term would have appeared after that of technological innovation, as opposed to its hegemonic status in economic, social, and political discourse. But as Godin suggested “the concept of social innovation existed long before that of technological innovation” (2012 p. 6). Thus, SI has deep roots in the past. This section provides a brief historical analysis of the meaning of social innovation. The two main representations of social innovation that emerged after the French Revolution, namely socialism and social reform, will not be considered here (Godin, 2012).

(14)

8 Following Jessop et al. (2013) a distinction is made between ‘old’ theorists of social change, from the end of the 19th century up to the 1960s or 1970s (Weber, Schumpeter, Tarde among others) and ‘new lighters’, from the 1980s onwards (Drucker, Chambon, David and Devevevy). By the end of the 19th century, social innovation was just a word. But other somewhat overlapping concepts have been used, for example:

social invention, social transformation and change, imitation of social practices (Moulaert, Mehmood, MacCallum, & Leubolt, 2017a). This section outlines what the most influential contributions of the old theories of social change are and their role concerning to the development of the recent literature on SI.

During the 1920s, Max Weber examined the relationship between social order and innovation. He affirmed that social change is not only determined by changes in the living conditions but that individuals who introduce variants in behavior may also acts as drivers for social change. If the ‘deviant’ behavior spreads, it can develop and become established social usage i.e. a social invention (Moulaert, MacCallum, & Hillier, 2013). The origin of innovation research as a discipline can be ascribed to the pioneering work of Schumpeter and his book Theory of Economic Development (Moulaert, Mehmood, MacCallum, & Leubolt, 2017; Howaldt & Schwarz, 2010). Considered one of the most influential economists of the 20th century, Schumpeter first proposed a definition of [economic] innovation. In his work, he described the relationship between innovation and development introducing the concept of “creative destruction” i.e. a process of mutation that revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one and creating a new one. According to Schumpeter this process is caused by the entrepreneur who introduces innovations and, thus, is the prime cause of economic development (Howaldt & Schwarz, 2010). During the 20^th century social innovation was mainly associated with two different concepts to which discussion will now turn: the firs is adjustment to technological innovation, the second is social change (Godin, 2012).

After the economic and technological innovations theorized by Schumpeter, Ogburn brought about wider interest in the concept of social invention focusing on the social consequences of technology. The American sociologist published in 1922 Social change, a study on the effects of technology on the society. In his book, he distinguished material innovations from social innovations and claimed that because of the exponential grow of technology a “cultural lag” emerges that causes social problems, which need to be addressed with social inventions (Godin, 2012). Ogburn was among the first authors who

(15)

9 made explicit distinction between technical and social innovation (Howaldt & Schwarz, 2010). Social innovation was also considered from a broader perspective entering into theories of social change. The French sociologists Gabriel Tarde, for example, used the term to refer to innovation in general, including language, religion, economy and the arts (Godin, 2012). According to Tarde, [social] inventions that spread through society as result of imitation lead to social change (Howaldt, Kopp, & Schwarz, 2015). These two approaches to SI, the economistic approach and the sociological approach, are still present in modern theories of SI.

As mentioned above, social innovation has not entered into theoretical writings until the 21^st century. The lack of interest in SI was mainly due to the rise and belief in technological innovation which has monopolized the discourses in innovation research.

Beginning with the second half of the 20^th century there has been a reaction against the hegemonic status of technological innovation. The rise of concern about the social character of innovation drew attention to the discussion on the role of social innovation in economics, management and society. Beginning with the 1960s and 1970s, the concept came to mean alternatives to ‘established’ solutions to social problems, specifically in relation to technological innovation and social reform (Godin, 2012). In the late 1980s, Peter Drucker took up the stream of thought on the innovative and dynamic role of entrepreneurs for economic and societal development proposed by Schumpeter. With his writings, Drucker largely contributed to the development of the modern corporate strategic management. In his work Social Innovation -Management’s New Dimension (1987), he criticized the hegemonic status of technological innovation as key factor of societal development and drew attention to the fact that the impact of social innovation on society and economy has been as great as any technological innovation. According to him, social innovation in the 19^th century was a “governmental and a political act” (e.g.

the Supreme Court in the US and the welfare system in Germany); on the contrary, “social innovation in the 20^th century has largely become the task of the manager” (Drucker, 1987 p. 33). In contrast to the emergence of social innovation as a reaction against technological innovation in the Anglo-American context, in continental Europe social innovation was understood as collective contestation against the State and its institutions.

The student revolts and the emancipation movements of the 1960s and 1970s in France and Germany are the case in point.

(16)

10 Social innovation was used as a kind of common denominator for the

different types of collective actions and social transformations that would lead us from a top down economy and society into a more bottom up and participative society that would also recognize, the different individual rights of people in all segments of the population (Moulaert, MacCallum, &

Hillier, 2013 p. 15).

In their book, Les innovations sociales (1982), Chambon, David and Devevey stressed the socio-political meaning of social innovation defined as a process of collective initiative aimed at satisfying specific human needs. According to them, the State has no active role in this process, but, as an external agent, it might act both as a barrier and as a driver of social change (Jessop, Moulaert, Hulgård, & Hamdouch, 2013).

It is only in the 21^st century that social innovation has become a widely studied phenomenon, entering theoretical discourses on innovation and being presented as a possible solution to pressing social demands and complex societal challenges (BEPA, 2011). Ayob et al. (2016) traced the modern evolution of the concept, from 1989 onwards.

They highlighted how, in the 1990s, there was the tendency to use the term in a general way, without providing a definition of what social innovation was, nor referring to previous utilizations of it. According to them, this eventually led to the ‘fuzziness’ of the term in modern SI literature. In accordance with Godin (2012), they identified two streams of thought on SI between the end of the 1990s and the beginning of the 2000s:

one focusing on the relationship between technology and social innovation, and the other focusing on new forms of social relations to generate social innovation and social change (Ayob, Teasdale, & Fagan, 2016). In line with van der Have and Rubalcaba (2016), they founded the emergence of a more settled concept of social innovation since 2004. This was the starting point of a “progressive competition” for the appropriation of the term among two different main schools of thought: on the one side the proponents of a radical tradition, or Euro-Canadian tradition, focusing on the power of collective mobilization and grassroots initiatives to restructure extant power relations and, on the other, those from a utilitarian tradition, or Anglo-American, tradition focusing on the social value of innovation (Moulaert, Mehmood, MacCallum, & Leubolt, 2017; Ayob, Teasdale, &

Fagan, 2016 p. 644).

The next section will present these two different schools of thought and others which have emerged in relation to these.

(17)

11 Different Approaches to SI

The growing interest in social innovation in the last years has caused an exponential increase in the use of the concept across different domains. The term is associated with an extremely heterogeneous set of initiatives and organizations, which range from the interventions of non-profit sector, to public policy initiatives, to the actions of business organizations that have even a marginal social impact (Borzaga & Bodini, 2014). But, what does social innovation mean today? This section answers this question by providing an overview on the different meanings of SI across different intellectual communities. It does so in three steps. First, it highlights the main difficulties in defining the concept of social innovation. Second, it describes the different approaches to SI, and links them, when possible, to the old theories of SI. Third, it shows how, despite many differences across various disciplines, some shared core elements do exist.

As many scholars have noticed, there is very little clarity as to what social innovation actually means. Some claim it is just another buzzword, something that everybody likes, but nobody it is sure of what it is (Pol & Ville, 2009). Some others warn that it could become just a political expedient to cut public expenditure; to quote Borzaga and Bodini “in most cases, it appears to be used simply as a heuristic device to capture a very heterogeneous set of phenomena that seem to hold some promise of change relative to the status quo. Or worse, it becomes a political expedient to ‘sell’ as new the same set of policies that have already failed in the past” (2014 p. 412). Others have demeaned it as a “quasi concept”, a term with common ground, but without a common definition (Janson

& Harrisson, 2013). Research on social innovation, has been criticized for being fragmented and incoherent, while social innovation itself has been accused to be ambiguous (Rüede & Lurtz, 2012; Pol & Ville, 2009; van der Have & Rubalcaba, 2016).

This criticism is not unmotivated. As highly complex and multi-faceted research field, social innovation is still a work in progress. Moreover, “the field of social innovation has grown up primarily as a field of practice, made up of people doing things and then reflecting on what they do” (Mulgan, 2012 p. 19).

There are two main problems in finding a shared definition of social innovation:

first, the adjective ‘social’ is variously definable. As many authors have pointed out, there is no consensus on what innovation is, nor and especially on what 'social' mean (Pol &

Ville, 2009) or “the adjective ‘social’ is variously describable as the (social) processes leading to the innovation or the (societal) consequences of the innovation” (Ayob,

(18)

12 Teasdale, & Fagan, 2016 p. 637). And “the ‘social’ in social innovation might itself imply diverse understandings’, for example, social understood as “societal”, or as social practice that leads to social change, or again, as non-technological (Rueede & Lurtz 2012 p. 23).

Second, SI can be seen both as a practice, i.e. new ideas, services or products that address social needs; or as a process, i.e. the changes in social relations which lead to social change. In the first case, the focus is on SI as a mean through which address pressing social demands, while in the second case the key issue becomes the nature of the relationships between actors and between the innovation and its context (Parés, Ospina,

& Subirats, 2017).

This said, there has been more than one attempt to classify the uses of social innovation across different research fields. Following Parés et al. (2017), Moulaert et al.

(2017) , Rüede and Lurtz (2012) an overview is provided of the various meanings of SI across different intellectual communities. Moulaert et al. (2017) distinguish between two main literatures on SI: “one grounded in Anglo-American entrepreneurship studies and the other in Euro-Canadian social economies”. According to him, the first is referred to the Anglophone SI literature based in the business innovation (Schumpeter) and organizational management sciences (Drucker), while the second is rooted in the emancipatory ideals of Continental Europe and developed through the social and solidarity movements of the late 1970s, early 1980. Parés et al. (2017) make a more precise distinction between:

• An economistic-based approach, drawing on Schumpeter, links social innovation to an entrepreneur, who identifies and promotes solutions, mainly in the area of welfare, that address social needs. According to this approach, the word ‘social’

implies that such innovation aims to solve a social demand that is not being satisfied either by the market or by the state. Social innovations, from this perspective, are defined as “innovative activities and services that are motivated by the goal of meeting a social need and that are predominantly developed and diffused through organizations whose primary purposes are social” (Mulgan, 2006 p. 146; Mulgan, Tucker, Rushanara, & Sanders, 2007).

• A management-based approach, drawing on Drucker, focuses on the relationship between management, social innovation and society. From this point of view, social innovation refers to “a novel solution to a social problem that is more

(19)

13 effective, efficient, sustainable, or just than existing solutions and for which the value created accrues primarily to society as a whole rather than private individuals” (Phills, Deiglmeier, & Miller, 2008 p. 36). In contrast to the economistic-based approach, this definition underlines that the benefits gained through social innovation apply to society as a whole.

Within the Euro-Canadian literature, also identified as territorial or urban development approach, a distinction is made between:

• An approach grounded in the field of political science and public administration in which social innovation is concerned with changes in the political and institutional system. Most of the contributors share the same criticism toward hierarchical and bureaucratic forms of government. Social innovation from this perspective may foster institutional change through bottom-up initiatives and democratic participation. According to Moulaert et al. (2010 p. 42) “social innovation occurs when collective action achieves three main forms of change, alone or in combination: a) the satisfaction of human needs (material and immaterial) not otherwise met or considered; b) the empowerment of marginalized social groups […]; c) changes in social, power and/or governance relations within the community and between the community and society at large”.

• A geographical approach focusing on social innovation as a territorial process and as a transformer of spatial relations. MacCallum (2009 p. 12) defined social innovation as “the satisfaction of alienated human needs through the transformation of social relations: transformations which improve the governance systems that guide and regulate the allocation of goods and services meant to satisfy those needs, and which establish new governance structures and organizations”.

Aside from this ideological dualism, which is grounded in the old theories of social innovation, other approaches have emerged which steam from other disciplines. Among these, both Parés et al. (2017) and Moulaert et al. (2017) identified:

• The creative approach. Here social innovation refers to “the generation and implementation of new ideas about how people should organize interpersonal

(20)

14 activities, or social interactions, to meet one or more common goals” (Mumford, 2002 p. 253). From this perspective, SI is about new ideas concerning the organization of social relations developed and implemented by creative individuals to produce social change.

• A ‘systemic’ approach or ‘social change’ approach grounded in sociology. From this point of view social innovation is understood as a driver of macro-level social change. Within this approach, social innovation is defined either as “a complex process of introducing new products, processes or programs that profoundly change the basic routines, resource and authority flows, or beliefs of the social system in which the innovation occurs” (Westley and Antadze, 2010 p. 2) or as

“a new combination of social practices in certain areas of action or social contexts” (Howaldt, Kaletka, Schröder, & Zirngiebl, 2018 p. 19).

Finally, a significant line of research, identified by both Rüede and Lurtz (2012) and Moulaert et al. (2017), links social innovation and technology. The relationship between technology, [business] innovation and social relation has been studied for a long time (Weber, Schumpeter and Ogburn among others). From this perspective both the social processes underlying technological invention and the social effects of technological change are considered (Zapf, 1989; Howaldt & Schwarz 2010). It goes without saying that not all SI research can be unambiguously identified with either of the approaches described above and that there are many other ways of classifying SI research that have not been considered here. Therefore, instead of trying to settle on a single, shared comprehensive definition of the term, a reasonable solution might be to identify some core principles which characterize social innovation research across different domains.

The systematic and integrative review carried out by van der Have and Rubalcaba showed that “despite the plurality of definitions out there […] SI has an important commonality in sharing two ‘core conceptual elements’: SI encompasses 1) a change in social relationships, -systems, or -structures, and 2) such changes serve a shared human need/goal or solve a socially relevant problem” (2016 p. 1932). In line with them, Parés et al. noted that: ‘these two features of social innovation – the satisfaction of human needs and the transformation of social relations – are widely accepted by all approaches to social

(21)

15 innovation today’ (2017 p. 5). Therefore, our understanding of the meaning of SI is grounded on these two core elements.

A related point to consider is that most of the definitions above entail the idea of newness: SI is “a novel solution” (Phills, Deiglmeier, & Miller, 2008), SI is “about new ideas” (Mumford, 2002), SI refers to “new products, processes or programs” (Westley &

Antadze, 2010). As with every other innovation, ‘new’ does not necessarily mean original, but it could be new within a particular situation or organization (Osborne 1998, 2011). Furthermore, and most important, ‘new’ does not mean ‘good’ nor ‘better’ than the existing situation. The conceptualization of social innovation as ‘normative good’ can be found extensively in the literature on SI. One can agree that as an attempt to satisfy human needs and/or solve social problems, SI is intended to have a positive impact, but that is not the same as asserting that such innovation must therefore be positive, it is just

“socially desirable” (Howaldt & Schwarz, 2010).

Definitions of SI abound, but many describe it as a new idea, a new product, process or service that: 1) involves a change in social relations between individuals or organizations, 2) aims at satisfying human needs and/or solving social problems.

Furthermore, the involvement of actors belonging to different sectors (public, third and private sector) is often emphasized.

2.2 Diffusion of Innovations

Together with invention and implementation, diffusion is one of the three phases of the innovation process (Hartley, 2013). It can be defined as “the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system” (Rogers, 2003 p. 77). Some authors distinguish between diffusion, spreading and scaling, considering the latter more suitable in the realm of social entrepreneurship and not, for example, in the context of the public sector (Davies &

Simon, 2013). In the context of this thesis, the terms spreading, and scaling will be used interchangeably.

As for any innovation, social innovation has to be more than an idea:

implementation has to occur in order to turn an idea into a social innovation. This is what distinguish an invention i.e. the discovery of new ideas or approaches, from an innovation, which refers to their application (Osborne, 1998a). Moreover, the idea needs

(22)

16 to be sustainable i.e. last over time and grow from the local level to a broader societal level. This aspect has been a flaw of numerous social innovation initiatives which have often remained episodic both in time and space (Martinelli, 2012). However, that is not the same as asserting that all SI can and have to be scaled. First, because it would be the same as saying that all social innovations are good, second because different initiatives may be quite successful at local or national level precisely because of the specific context in which they have arisen (Westley & Antadze, 2010). Together with the growing enthusiasm for social innovation, questions about its diffusion and transferability have emerged. The next section will explore different theories of diffusion, starting from Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory (1962; 2003) it will continue with more recent theories that have developed with regard to social innovation. However, it will not go into details of all theories because it is outside the scope of this thesis. The purpose of this chapter is to identify which are, according to the various theories, the factors that can influence diffusion also defined as antecedents.

Theories of Diffusion

As mentioned above, Rogers has decisively influenced research on the diffusion of innovations and his Diffusion of Innovations is still a dominant text on the subject. A main concern of earlier diffusion studies was to understand why some ideas spread more quickly than others. Rogers’ approach identifies four main elements in the diffusion process, namely: the innovation itself, communication channels, time and social system.

According to him, differences in the rate of adoption can be attribute to the characteristics of innovations and their perception by individuals. Rogers identified six characteristics of innovations: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, triability and observability.

In brief “innovations that are perceived by individuals as having greater relative advantage, compatibility, trialability, and observability and less complexity will be adopted more rapidly than other innovations” (Rogers, 2003 p. 104). Furthermore, he adds the concept of re-invention as “the degree to which an innovation is changed or modified by a user in the process of adoption and implementation” (Rogers, 2003 p. 91) arguing that the more an innovation can be modified and adapted to the new context in which has to be adopted, the more rapidly will diffuse. Rogers’ theory has been challenged by later research; the idea that diffusion depends largely on these attributes

(23)

17 implies neglecting the importance of human perception i.e. that different actors may perceive attributes very differently (Davies & Simon 2013; Greenhalgh, Robert, Macfarlane, Bate, & Kyriakidou, 2004). Moreover, this model does not consider the importance of evaluation, which makes diffusion a cyclical process, rather than a linear one (Osborne, 1998b).

While Rogers’ diffusion research is mainly focused on individuals as adopters, others have looked at diffusion of innovations in organizations. One of the most influential works in this field is Organizational Innovation: A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Determinants and Moderators (Damanpour, 1991). In his paper, Damanpour highlighted how aspects that include the structural and cultural features of an organization are connected to the adoption of innovations. He showed, for example, how slack resources e.g. size and money, internal and external communication and the managerial attitude toward change all influence diffusion. Later on, he combined organizational antecedents, environmental antecedents and individual antecedents in a multidimensional examinations of the adoption of innovations in organizations (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006).

More recently theories of diffusion have been developed in relation to social innovations. According to Mulgan et al., (2007) social innovations are achieved through the interplay of “effective demand” i.e. “a social recognition of needs that are not being adequately met” and “effective supply” i.e. when the innovation has proven to be effective and can be implemented and replicated (2007 pp. 11-13). The combination of the two results in innovations that achieve social impact and, at the same time, prove to be financially sustainable. However, this approach has been criticized in the way that oversimplifies the process of diffusion which would be largely dependent on market- based, external factors. According to Westley and Antadze, to whom SI is as a driver of macro-level social change, the uncertainty involved in the complex contexts where social innovation is needed means that a strategy of supply and demand has to be supplemented with other perspectives (Westley, Antadze, Riddell, Robinson, & Geobey, 2014; Westley

& Antadze, 2010). Without going into details on the several theories of diffusion, a comprehensive approach that considers at the same time the environmental level, the organizational level and the innovation level is needed. Such an approach has been developed by Greenhalgh et al. (2004) who proposed a conceptual model that considers the determinants of diffusion, dissemination and implementation of innovations in health

(24)

18 service delivery and organizations in the UK. This model is useful for two reasons: first, it considers innovations as services and not as products as many SI are; second, it is multidimensional.

For many years innovation research has been based on a model derived from the manufacturing sector. This has caused organizations to focus on the development and design of ‘innovation products’ rather than services (Osborne & Brown, 2011). Recently, however, some scholars have identified services as a distinctive sector from that of manufacturing arguing that “there are difficulties in applying concepts derived from product innovation to service and organizational innovation” (Hartley, 2013 p. 45). In fact, services differ from products in three respects: first, services are intangible; second, services consist of [social] acts; and third, in services the client is a ‘prosumer’ i.e.

production and consumption coincide (Normann, 2002). Moreover, a distinction has to be made between the public or non-profit sector and the private sector. Whereas private service providers aim at maximizing profit, public sector and non-profit organizations are placed outside the market economy. Furthermore, when it comes to innovations, differences exist among drivers and catalyst of innovation, criteria of success, accountability, motivation to spread and to adopt the innovation (for a comprehensive analysis see Hartley, 2013).

Some innovations spread more easily than others also because of their typology and the kind of knowledge required to use them (Walker, 2006). For this reason, it is useful to provide a classification of innovations. Many scholars have attempted typologies of innovations. Some distinguish between product and process innovations, others between incremental and radical innovations, others again between modular and architectural. Recently, also the concept of disruptive innovation has entered theoretical writings (Hartley, 2013). One of the most cited classification is that of Osborne (1998), who categorized innovations according to two criteria: whether they represent a change in the service provision of an organization or not (service discontinuity), and whether they are targeted to existing end users or to new ones (end-user discontinuity). This resulted in three types of innovations: total (service and end-user discontinuity), expansionary (end-user discontinuity), evolutionary (service discontinuity). Without going further into details, here a simple distinction is made between process, product and service innovations. Process innovations refer to new ways in which processes are designed to improve the quality and/or efficiency of an organization. Product and service innovations

(25)

19 refer respectively to the creation of new products, and new ways in which services are provided (Hartley, 2005). This distinction has the benefit of simplicity and, additionally it draws attention to the fundamental differences that exist between services and products identified above. To quote Hartley extensively:

Service innovations typically have high levels of ambiguity and uncertainty since they are affected by the variability of the human characteristics of both service giver and service receiver […]. The innovation is often not a physical artefact at all, but a change in service (which implies a change in the relationships between service providers and their users), and many features are intangible, with high levels of tacit knowledge (Hartley, 2013 p. 45).

Hence, service innovations are often harder to diffuse than products innovations.

After this brief overview, the next section will look at antecedents that are considered influential in the diffusion of innovations related to three main dimensions:

innovation, organizational and environmental (Greenhalgh, Robert, Macfarlane, Bate, &

Kyriakidou, 2004; Damanpour & Schneider 2006; De Vries, Bekkers, & Tummers, 2016). Table 1 summarizes the antecedents for each level of analysis.

Antecedents of Diffusion

Depending on their level and the specific context, antecedents can be either a driver or a barrier to diffusion. Some studies have focused on antecedents specifically related to the adoption phase (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006). The difference between diffusion and adoption lies in the level of analysis. The first is a micro process that describes the stages through which an individual undergoes from first hearing about a new idea to finally adopting it. The second is a macro process concerned with the spread of a new idea in a given social system. Overall, the diffusion process encompasses the adoption process of several individuals over time. Because adoption can be considered part of diffusion, in the following sections no distinctions are made between antecedents relating to one or another process.

(26)

20 Innovation

According to Rogers’ diffusion of innovation theory (2003), the perceived characteristics of an innovation influence its diffusion. These include:

• Relative advantage “is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as better than the idea is supersedes”. New ideas that are perceived by individuals having greater relative advantage not only in economic terms, but also in terms of social satisfaction are more easily adopted.

• Compatibility “is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters”. New ideas that are compatible with the values, norms and needs of a given social system are more easily adopted.

• Complexity “is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to understand and use”. New ideas that are perceived by individuals as simple to use are more easily adopted.

• Triability “is the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis”. New ideas that are triable have a lower degree of uncertainty and are more easily adopted.

• Observability “is the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others”. New ideas whose results are observable represent a lower risk and are more easily adopted.

• Re-invention “is the degree to which an innovation is changed or modified by a user in the process of adoption”. New ideas that can be modified to suit the needs of a given social system are more easily adopted and more sustainable (Rogers, 2003 pp. 101-107).

Greenhalgh et al. (2004) added three more characteristics to complement these ‘standard attributes’ of innovations, namely: fuzzy boundaries, risk and knowledge required to use it. The first refers to innovations having an ‘hard core’ (i.e. the key elements that constitute the innovation itself) and a ‘soft core’ (i.e. the elements required to implement it). While the first remains unchanged, the latter can be modified to suit the needs of the adopters. This attribute can be subsumed under Rogers’ concept of re-invention. Starting with the assumption that risk and benefits are not equally distributed in an organization,

(27)

21 the second attribute refers to the degree of uncertainty perceived aspersonally risky by the managers. This attribute can be linked to the concept of triability. The last one refers to the kind of knowledge required to implement an innovation: tacit or explicit (Borins, 2008). If it can be easily codified and transferred from one context to another (i.e. if the innovation is mainly based on explicit knowledge) such innovation will be more easily adopted. For the sake of simplicity this last attribute will be included in the concept of complexity. Although Rogers's theory has been criticized by later research, it has nonetheless the merit of highlighting the importance of both the role of the communication channels as a means of informing potential adopters, and the social system within which innovations diffuses.

Organizational Antecedents

The contexts of the public and the third sector are better described as a group of organizations adopting innovations rather than single individuals. Research on the diffusion of social innovations in the public and non-profit sector is in its infancy and mainly based on organizational innovation research. One of the most prominent works on organizational innovation is that of Damanpour (1991) who analyzed the relationships between the adoption of innovations in organizations and the features of organizations that enhance or hinder adoption. He focused on 13 organizational determinants (specialization, functional differentiation, professionalism, centralization, managerial attitude toward change, technical knowledge resources, administrative intensity, slack resources, and external and internal communication) and combined them with four moderator categories (type of organization, type of innovation, stage of adoption and scope of innovation). Overall the results showed a correlation between adoption and organizational properties; positive associations were found between innovation and slack resources (size, money and time) managerial attitude toward change and external and internal communication, while there was a negative association between innovation and centralization. Later on, these results were confirmed by Damanpour and Schneider (2006) in their examination of the effects of environmental, organizational and top managers’ characteristics on the adoption of administrative programs associated with the new public management (NPM) in the US. Concerning the organizational factors, evidence showed that size, economic health, top managers’ attitude toward change and

(28)

22 external communication all influenced adoption positively. Despite that, organization diffusion is still a very much contested field (De Vries, Bekkers, & Tummers, 2016). In their model of diffusion of innovations in service organizations, Greenhalgh et al. (2004) distinguished between structural determinants, absorptive capacity for new knowledge and receptive context for change as organizational antecedents. As for structural determinants, they pointed out that; first, although they are positively associated with organizational innovativeness, they are not statistically relevant with respect to the variation among organizations; and second, that the relationship between structural antecedents and innovation is contingent on other factors such as the type of innovation (administrative or technical). Nonetheless, they recognized that slack resources are positively associated with adoption in almost all the cases.

In line with Damanpour (1991;1996) who highlighted the relevance of managerial attitude toward change, Greenhalgh et al. (2004) stressed the importance of a receptive context for change which includes, among others, strong leadership, good managerial relations and a climate conducive to experimentation and risk taking. Such an organization, they claimed, will be better able to implement innovations.

In accordance with Damanpour and drawing on Rogers’ theory of diffusion, Greenhalgh et al. (2004) also introduced communication channels in their model. A distinction is made between mass-media channels (communication is mediated by a mass medium) and interpersonal channels (face-to-face communication). Whereas the first are more important in creating awareness on innovations, the latter are more effective in persuading potential adopters; they are “the dominant mechanism for diffusion”

(Greenhalgh, Robert, Macfarlane, Bate, & Kyriakidou, 2004 p. 601). Another distinction is drawn between localite and cosmopolite channels. Localite communication channels, as the name suggests, link an individual with sources at local level, while cosmopolite communication channels link an individual with sources outside the social system (Rogers, 2003). In this respect, boundary spanners play a key role. They are individuals who have significant social connections both inside and outside the organization and are able to link the organization to the outside world in relation to a given innovation (Greenhalgh, Robert, Macfarlane, Bate, & Kyriakidou, 2004).

One crucial feature of interpersonal communication and therefore of diffusion is homophily. Innovations spread easily among individuals who are homophilous i.e. that share beliefs, education and socioeconomic status. Evidence has shown that, in deciding

(29)

23 whether or not to adopt an innovation, people mostly rely upon subject evaluations of near peers who have already adopted the innovation (Rogers, 2003). “[T]he heart of the diffusion process consists of the modelling and imitation by potential adopters of their network partners who have previously adopted” (Rogers, 2003 p. 110).

Outer Context

Some SI scholars have stressed the connection between the emergence of social innovation initiatives and the external context within which they arise. They describe SI as “path dependent” and “territorially embedded” (Jessop, Moulaert, Hulgård, &

Hamdouch, 2013). Indeed, the growth of social innovations depends on a simultaneous combination of ‘effective demand’ and ‘effective supply’. The demand begins with the recognition of needs that are not being adequately met, i.e. the ‘pull’ factors while the supply comes from the generation of innovative ideas that have proven to be useful and can be propagated (Murray, Caulier-Grice, & Mulgan, 2010; Mulgan, Rushanara, Halkett, & Sanders, 2007). Furthermore, timeliness plays a key role because “[d]emand may only grow once a problem is seen to be becoming more acute” (Mulgan, Rushanara, Halkett, & Sanders, 2007 p. 12).

Both theory and empirical evidence suggest that diffusion is mediated by the external context within which organizations and individuals operate (Osborne, 1998b;

Rogers, 2003). DiMaggio and Powell (1983), for example, described how organizations that operate in the same field tend to become more similar. Institutional isomorphism, they argued, is the result of three different mechanisms: coercive, mimetic and normative.

The first is caused by pressures to organizations by other organizations with which they have connections, and by cultural expectations in the society within which organizations are located. The second is driven by uncertainty; when an organization faces a problem, imitation of other peer organizations may be a valuable solution with less uncertainty.

Moreover, “organizations tend to model themselves after similar organizations in their field that they perceive to be more legitimate or successful” (DiMaggio & Powell 1983 p. 152). The last one comes from professionalization. Professions, they argue, are subject to the same mechanisms as are organizations, i.e. various kinds of professionals tend to become similar to their counterparts in other organizations. In line with DiMaggio and Powell, Greenhalgh et al. (2004) also drew attention on the mimetic aspect of diffusion.

(30)

24 An organization, they claimed, is more prone to adopt an innovation if a relevant number of comparable (homophilous) organizations have already done so. In this respect, intentional spread strategies (e.g. awards, conferences, workshops) aimed at sharing ideas and knowledge among individuals and organizations play a key role. Finally, it is worth mentioning that also media attention and political directives may affect diffusion (Borins, 2001; Borins, 2000).

Table 1: Drivers for each Level of Analysis

Innovation System antecedents Outer context

Compatibility Attitude toward change Homophily

Complexity Leadership Media attention

Observability Slack resources ‘Pull’ factors

Re-invention

Communication channels Relative advantage

Triability

2.3 Refugee Law Clinics

What are Legal Clinics?

First of all, it should be noted that there is not, at least in Europe, one ‘model’ of clinical legal education (CLE). Legal clinics may or may not be integrated into the academic curricula, may or may not have connections with universities (e.g. courses taught by professors for external legal clinics) and even within the university, they may take the form of a one or two semester course or just a few weeks workshop. The differences in the legal systems and in the educational systems combined with the different socio-cultural contexts contributed to the development of a variety of configurations. Legal clinics are defined as “the combination of practical legal education and legal aid pro bono” (Winkler, 2012 p.4). This definition is broad enough to include the different forms clinical legal educational programs have adopted in Europe but at the same time highlights its dual purpose: to give law students the chance to put into practice what they learn and to serve the society by providing free legal aid to those in need (Markard, 2018). Moore specifically, CLE programmes should:

Languages for communication in international enterprises and organizations Diffusion of Social Innovation: A Comparative Study on Refugee Law Clinics in Germany and Italy

Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia Dipartimento di studi linguistici e culturali

Corso di Laurea Magistrale in