European Policy Brief
Yüklə 83,41 Kb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
|
Innovation: Strategy Research Options Policy implications of KATARSIS, an EU-funded research project involving 20 institutions coordinated by the Global Urban Research Unit, Newcastle University, UK.
INTRODUCTION
how social innovation research can help Building a more inclusive Europe is vital to achieving the EU's goals of sustained growth, more and better jobs and greater
on the increase, they must be tackled through evidence-based action. So research is needed into current responses and their effectiveness.
The Social Inclusion Process established by EU leaders in 2000 has encouraged Member States to exchange best practice and create a stronger basis for policy-making. Emphasis has been placed on involving a wide range of social inclusion
who are working with them. The KATARSIS project analyses the socially creative strategies (SCS) through which people, both individually and collectively, react to conditions of economic, social and political exclusion – or “social exclusion” for short. SCS often use knowledge and resources in ways that trigger social innovation and effectively promote inclusion, empowerment and socio-economic development. So they open up new avenues for policy design and implementation. KATARSIS is also helping to identify the best methods for researching into SCS. And it provides a platform for research teams to exchange knowledge and work towards better integration of research programmes and strategies.
2 KEY OBSERVATIONS Lessons drawn from KATARSIS surveys of the literature on social exclusion and on socially creative strategies (SCS) to counter exclusion. The labour market, employment strategies and the social economy
Employment in a whole range of socially creative sectors is key to combating exclusion.
SCS for job creation may concern the public, for-profit and non-profit sectors, as well as the family and community economies, or else more typically the social economy (cooperatives, mutualities and associations). In either case, they should be fostered as they have the potential to meet unmet needs and promote emancipation.
The success of these SCS is highly dependent on spatial and historical context, so best practices are not necessarily transferable.
Reliance on the non-profit sector or the social economy may also sometimes take on a regressive character, when it is associated with the rolling back of the welfare state or when institutional leverage fails.
To promote SCS in the employment sphere, public policy should enable individual and collective actors to build networks, access resources in a sustainable manner and promote diversity of opportunity.
Three key types of exclusion are identified: exclusion from access to education, from the process of education and from the outcome of education.
SCS can challenge the dominant neo-liberal rationale within the education system, thus facilitating accessibility, social integration, the reflection of diversity, the meeting of present- day social needs, linkage with the labour market, interaction and new forms of learning.
The SCS concerned are of three types: -
Those aiming to adapt excluded groups to the dominant rationale -
the dominant rationale and activities which conflict with it -
socially creative values and experiences of different non-dominant social groups, and acknowledge their participation.
3
The outcomes of Type 1 SCS show that a macro-level approach does not prevent educational exclusion. Type 2 SCS entail committed partnership with local authorities and social services, associations with the private sector and mainly local-level funding. Type 3 SCS work in two directions at the same time: enhancing cultural diversity and promoting social inclusion in forms of governance, e.g. by creating more customised education and training institutions.
Researchers adopt different methods for analysing the three types of SCS: evidence-based research for Type 1; a wide range of methods for Type 2, but principally the neo- positivist approach; and mainly participatory action research for Type 3.
Successful educational SCS tend to: -
be well integrated into the local community, as regards both financing and content -
dominant rationale and the labour market. KATARSIS expresses a preference for educational SCS that aim at integrating the alternative values of the excluded groups within a more open education system. Housing and neighbourhood
Exclusion from housing includes homelessness, overcrowding and living in accommodation which is in disrepair or has inadequate facilities. This form of exclusion may involve discrimination as regards entitlement or on grounds such as ethnicity, as well as such processes as gentrification or housing privatisation.
Exclusion through housing arises from social polarisation between neighbourhoods, the concentration of disadvantages and poor access to transport, opportunities and services.
These issues provide great scope for mobilising SCS – e.g. through housing cooperatives and the development of grassroots neighbourhood organisations. NGOs, even if large and formal rather than “bottom-up”, also often play a major innovative role here.
Cut-backs in the State's direct role have left space for more creativity by NGOs and communities, but most of the case studies suggest that bottom-up creativity needs institutional support from a strong welfare state network.
By focussing on the local level, innovative SCS were revealed that address health and environmental inequalities and promote well-being.
4
In particular, good practices in social innovation were noted in: -
networks promoting the growing, trading and consumption of local food
-
networks challenging transport policy and producing innovative design solutions to traffic problems and the use of public space.
A typology of socially creative strategies was developed, placing research results in four main categories:
-
social movements that organise protests across Europe to challenge the dominance of cars and increase pedestrians' and cyclists' access to public space -
contentious ways than the protest movements and focus on the neighbourhood -
been taken up by social movements and local authorities -
inspired by Local Agenda 21 (local implementation of the UN's sustainable development agenda).
Policy-making should aim to foster democracy as regards both the inclusion of disadvantaged groups in decision- making and their access to social services, via universal social, economic and civic rights.
Many new governance arrangements are ambiguous. Along with the potential benefits of increased participation, current transformations have led to privatisation, liberalisation, the promotion of private-public partnerships and an emphasis on managerial governance practice. So short-term cost efficiency is often achieved at the expense of long-term efficacy and democracy.
Bottom-up initiatives risk being caught in the “localist trap”. The most successful ones aim at “scale-jumping” (moving up into a broader context).
The welfare state continues to exist in various new forms, with uneven participation by the “clients” and the concentration of power in the hands of the primary elite actors. Bottom-up participation can be a step towards socio- economic democratisation of the welfare state, but does also involve the risk that social movements may be co-opted by the state.
5 Main KATARSIS outputs What KATARSIS has provided
An overview of the different entry points that have led to social innovation initiatives and processes.
An examination of the possibility and desirability of putting forward an overarching methodological approach to social innovation inquiries and designs.
An assessment of research methods on social innovation. A shared language for social innovation research.
An understanding of the policy relevance and dynamics of artistic and creative bottom-up initiatives.
A complementary and multi-agent approach to combating social exclusion, centred on the arts.
Better models of communication and coordination among various types of actor (researchers, policy-makers, practioners), especially through relevant interactive methods that give citizens a voice.
Links among actors involved in this field from different backgrounds, places and contexts in the EU. RECOMMENDATIONS Key KATARSIS conclusions about creativity
Arts and culture should be seen as a key element in urban and local policies, making innovative initiatives effective and sustainable.
The “effectiveness” of local, socially embedded cultural and artistic projects should be judged on a broad range of inclusion criteria.
Socially creative bottom-up strategies are usually not sustainable without strong institutional support and leverage. So a balance has to be struck between regulation and support on the one hand and room for creativity on the other. Thus, it is better to promote “bottom-linked” rather than “bottom-up” activities.
Make existing local SCS (socially creative strategies to combat social exclusion) visible to the European research and policy community.
regional and national levels.
Create a common theoretical and methodological framework for analysing SCS.
6
Draw lessons from these socially creative initiatives and realise their potential transferability. Long-term action
Establish a more encompassing European research and training network on SCS.
Develop joint research projects at various levels (local, regional, national and European).
Influence national research programmes by building national research networks on SCS.
Capitalise on “locally funded” research programmes and strengthen them through the use of a shared European theoretical and methodological framework.
Contribute to the development of cooperation networks between local SCS actors across Europe, preferably in the form of sustainable Social Platforms.
Help shape the European social, regional, education, training and youth policy agendas by drawing lessons from local SCS about how to overcome social exclusion. Research methods Research on SCS against social exclusion requires methods that meet all of the following criteria: identification and understanding of the roles of all the actors involved, the social and cultural relations of which they are part, the agendas for change that they pursue, and institutional dynamics that support or hamper their actions. So the following methodological perspectives must be combined:
cultural context and changes within which the actors operate
SCS actor and guarantees of their involvement in the research activity itself
and post-structuralist approaches to understanding the creativity of actors in the search for social innovation within a complex socio-cultural world.
7
RESEARCH PARAMETERS Specialised research teams are studying the consequences of growing inequality and social exclusion, as well as socially creative strategies (SCS) for overcoming them. KATARSIS provides these researchers with a platform for exchanging their knowledge and working towards a better integration of their research programmes and methodologies. Objectives
To provide an up-to-date review of the specific consequences of growing inequality in Europe and the innovative and/or creative ways in which groups particularly hard-hit by exclusion have responded.
To examine how those consequences have been researched.
To review attempts to integrate various approaches into the analysis of socially creative strategies (SCS) aimed at overcoming social exclusion, and to link this overview to broader debates about social science methodologies.
To develop new methods for analysing SCS and for coordinating ongoing research in this field. This methodology will later be used to guide a wider scientific discussion of both the policy and the practice of SCS.
fields: -
the labour market, employment strategies and the social economy -
-
housing and neighbourhoods -
health and the environment -
governance and democracy.
With the aim of integrating policy and collective action approaches, surveys on three aspects of SCS: -
bottom-up creativity -
governance -
social innovation.
organisation and impact of socially innovative initiatives.
and policy-makers in the field of social inclusion, empowerment and participation.
8
PROJECT IDENTITY Coordinator Frank Moulaert in collaboration with Jean Hillier, Newcastle University UK.
Dept. of Sociology and Social Research, Milan-Bicocca University Serena Vicari, serena.vicari@unimib.it Bristol Centre for Public Health Research, University of West England Judy Orme, Judy.Orme@uwe.ac.uk Berlin Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, Stadt- und Regionalsoziologie, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Hartmut Häussermann, hartmut.haeussermann@sowi.hu-berlin.de
Centro de Estudos Geográficos, Universidade de Lisboa Isabel André, isabelandre@fl.ul.pt
Institute for Economic Geography, Regional Development and Environmental Management, Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien Andreas Novy, andreas.novy@wu.wien.ac.at
Research Centre on Citizenship and Civil Society, Universitat de Barcelona Marisol García,
MarisolGarcia@ub.edu Utrecht Stichting Dr. Hilda Verwey-Jonker Instituut, Utrecht Hugo Swinnen, H.Swinnen@verwey-jonker.nl
Bas Tierolf, BTierolf@verwey-jonker.nl
Brno Institute for Social Issues, Masaryk University Tomas Sirovatka,
Sirovatka@fss.muni.cz
Dept. of Urban and Regional Planning, National Technical University of Athens
Dina Vaiou, DiVaiou@central.ntua.gr Lille IFRESI-CNRS, Délégation Nord Pas de Calais Picardie, Lille Abdellilah.Hamdouch, Abdel.Hamdouch@univ-lille1.fr Cardiff Wales Institute for Research into Co-operatives, University of Wales Institute, Cardiff Len Arthur LArthur@uwic.ac.uk
CERISIS, Université Catholique de Louvain, Charleroi Marthe Nyssens,
Nyssens@ires.ucl.ac.be Montreal CRISES, Université du Québec à Montréal Juan-Luis Klein,
Klein.Juan-Luis@uqam.ca Ghent Rijksuniversiteit Gent, Centre for Intercultural Communication and Action Hendrik Pinxten, Hendrik.Pinxten@UGent.be
Ine Pisters, inepisters@hotmail.com
Rome Abaton S.r.l., Rome Matteo Scaramella, ms@abatonmail.it
9 Budapest Corvinus University, Budapest János Ladányi, Janos.Ladanyi@bkae.hu Roskilde Centre for Urban Studies, Roskilde University John Andersen, JohnA@ruc.dk Paris Centre de recherche et d'information sur la démocratie et l'autonomie, Paris Jean-Louis Laville, Laville@iresco.fr
Laurent Fraisse, laurent.fraisse@lise.cnrs.fr
European Commission DG Research Project Officer: Pia Laurila, (Pia.Laurila@ec.europa.eu)
May 2006 – December 2009 Funding scheme 6th Framework Programme, Priority 7, Citizens and governance in a knowledge-based society, Coordination Action EC contribution € 767220 Website http://katarsis.ncl.ac.uk For more information Contact Frank Moulaert ( Frank.Moulaert@ncl.ac.uk )
Research papers and work-package reports are available at http://katarsis.ncl.ac.uk Document Outline
Yüklə 83,41 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|