Abstract
Participative processes and the empowerment of citizens are seen as central aspects of social innovation, which involves collaborative activities between the private, public and third sectors. It is important to identify the factors influencing citizen involvement, and we therefore investigate how people can be encouraged to contribute to improving societal well-being and to enhance partnerships between citizens, regions and, also, the profit and non-profit sectors. In particular, we investigate the motivation of citizens involved in the co-production of social innovation. We also provide descriptions of specific citizen- and public authority-related outcomes of the co-production process, which are missing from most previous studies (Voorberg et al., Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357, 2015). We also identify actions that might facilitate the co-production of social innovation. In this study, we report a successful case of co-produced social innovation and derive findings from it.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Baars, T. (2011). Experiential science; towards an integration of implicit and reflected practitioner-expert knowledge in the scientific development of organic farming. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 24(6), 601–628.
Benari, E. (1990). A bureaucrat in every Japanese kitchen?: On cultural assumptions and coproduction. Administration & Society, 21(4), 472–492.
Buijs, A. E., Mattijssen, T. J. M., Van der Jagt, A. P. N., Ambrose-Oji, B., Andersson, E., Elands, B. H. M., & Steen Møller, M. (2016). Active citizenship for urban green infrastructure: Fostering the diversity and dynamics of citizen contributions through mosaic governance. Current opinion in environmental sustainability, 22, 1–6.
Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., & Stukas, A. (1996). Volunteers’ motivations: Findings from a national survey. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25, 485–505.
Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R., Copeland, J., Stukas, A., Haugen, J., & Miene, P. (1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1516–1530.
Cunningham, P., Herselman, M. E., & Cunningham, M. (2012). Socio-economic impact of growing Living Labs and Living Lab networks into Africa. IST-Africa 2012 Conference Proceedings, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Dawson, P., & Daniel, L. (2010). Understanding social innovation: A provisional framework. International Journal of Technology Management, 51(1), 9–21.
Dutilleul, B., Birrer, F. A., & Mensink, W. (2010). Unpacking European living labs: Analysing innovation’s social dimensions. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 4(1), 60–84.
Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 48–58.
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc..
Gummesson, E. (2005). Qualitative research in marketing: Road-map for a wilderness of complexity and unpredictability. European Journal of Marketing, 39(3/4), 309–327.
Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston: HBS Press.
John-Steiner, V. (2006). Creative collaboration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ketokivi, M., & Choi, T. (2014). Renaissance of case research as a scientific method. Journal of Operations Management, 32(5), 232–240.
King, N. (2004). Using templates in the thematic analysis of the text. In S. Cassel & G. Symon (Eds.), Guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 256–234). London: Essential Sage Publications.
Leone, R., Walker, C., Curry, L., & Agee, E. (2012). Application of a marketing concept to patient-centered care: Co-producing health with heart failure patients. OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 17, 2.
Meijer, A. (2011). Networked co-production of public services in virtual communities: From a government-centric to a community approach to public service support. Public Administration Review, 71(4), 598–607.
Moulaert, F., & Mehmood, A. (2010). Spaces of social innovation. In A. Pike, A. Rodriguez-Pose, & J. Tomaney (Eds.), A handbook of local and regional development (pp. 212–225). London: Routledge.
Osborne, S. P. (2018). From public service-dominant logic to public service logic: Are public service organizations capable of co-production and value co-creation? Public Management Review, 20(2), 225–231.
Ostrom, E. (1999). Crossing the great divide. Co-production, synergy & development polycentric governance and development. In M. D. McGinnes (Ed.), Reading from the workshop in political theory and policy analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Prins, S. (2006). The psychodynamic perspective in organizational research: Making sense of the dynamics of direction setting in emergent collaborative processes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(3), 335–355.
Sawyer, R. K., & DeZutter, S. (2009). Distributed creativity: How collective creations emerge from collaboration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(2), 81–92.
Sharp, E. (1979). Citizen organizations and participation in law enforcement advocacy and Coproduction: The Role of Incentives. Ph.D. Dissertation. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Political Science.
Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
URBACT. (2015). Social innovation in cities. URBACT II capitalization, URBACT. Retrieved June 17, 2019, from https://urbact.eu/sites/default/files/03_socialinn-web.pdf
Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V., & Tummers, L. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357.
Voorberg, W., Bekkers, V., Timeus, K., Tonurist, P., & Tummers, L. (2017). Changing public service delivery: Learning in co-creation. Policy and Society., 36(2), 178–194.
Voorberg, W., Jilke, S., Tummers, L., & Bekkers, V. (2018). Financial rewards do not stimulate coproduction: Evidence from two experiments. Public Administration Review, 78(6), 864–873.
Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 145–180.
Wageman, R., & Gordon, F. M. (2005). As the twig is bent: How group values shape emergent task interdependence in groups. Organization Science, 16(6), 687–700.
Wascher, E., Hebel, F., Schrot, K., & Schultze, J. (2018). Social Innovation Labs – A starting point for social innovation. Dortmund: sfs/TU Dortmund University.
Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. (2011). Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5), 740–762.
Wilson, J. (1973). Political organizations. New York: Basic Books.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Henttonen, K., Nisula, AM., Blomqvist, K., Horila, A., Takala, M. (2020). Individual Conditions for Co-production of a Social Innovation in a Living Lab: Case Sunshine PopUp Park. In: Lehtimäki, H., Uusikylä, P., Smedlund, A. (eds) Society as an Interaction Space. Translational Systems Sciences, vol 22. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0069-5_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0069-5_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-0068-8
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-0069-5
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)