Реферат для аспирантуры на тему реферат: Английский язык

Содержание:

SUMMARY.. 3

THE ORIGINAL
TEXT. 13

TRANSLATION
OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT FROM ENGLISH INTO RUSSIAN   22

VOCABULARY.. 36

REFERENCES. 42

Введение:

The
text under review is named «New
Frontiers in Social Innovation Research» written by Alex Nicholls, Julie Simon,
Madeleine Gabriel. The work may is divided into
three main parts.

The
work aims to explore the multiple dimensions of social innovation – both
theoretically and empirically – in order to advance research and contribute to
shaping the formation of its boundaries and to advancing a wider recognition of
the opportunities and challenges of this new phase.

Specifically,
the first piece of work seeks to debunk some of the emerging normative
assumptions about «the perspective of social innovation» namely the general
acceptance that it is a seamless and invariably positive phenomenon with no
disadvantages or unintended consequences. Thus, this collection explores the
implications of social innovation in inter sectoral collaboration and hybrid
forms in multiple contexts and across different countries to highlight a number
of issues related to social innovation patterns. The studies presented here
deliberately cover different socio-structural levels and units of analysis —
from micro to macro — in order to offer many options for understanding the
different contexts in which social innovation can operate effectively. The big
part of the work here also has policy implications: by codifying and analyzing
practice, it is possible to envision the direction of future social innovation
policies in different countries. This book also aims to contribute to a
critical social innovation project already underway by a number of researchers
and organizations by complementing the existing body of knowledge on the
subject. However, it is hoped that the published work will also support the
creation of a community of social innovation researchers, adding legitimacy to
their work.

According
to the authors, the research literature on this topic devoted specifically to
social innovation is limited today, although it already has a significant
amount of works. This literature can be divided into five categories:

1.
Research Design Challenges: Early work on social innovation developed within
behavioral science with a particular interest in developing «social change»
approaches to address key contemporary social problems, often at the community
level.

2.
Changes in social structures. Some specialists argued that it is the processes
of social innovation that ultimately determine the economic and social
performance of nations, regions, industrial sectors and organizations. Social
innovation changes in cultural, normative or regulatory structures societies
that produce human resources and improve their economic and social performance.

3.
Changes in work processes (or innovations in the workplace). They focused on
social innovation within organizations, conceived as new social patterns of
employee interaction.

4.
Spreading social change. Sociology analyzes the micro-level structures of
innovation and diffusion affecting society, such as how medical innovation
diffuses among groups of doctors that are classified as social innovation.
Henderson was interested in the relationship between social innovation and
political change in terms of diffusion processes. He explored how civic
movements catalyze social innovation — conceptualized in contrast to dominant
cultural norms — from fluid positions outside of traditional social structures.

5.
Urban studies. Within the framework of urban research, a significant set of
works is being carried out to study innovative responses to social exclusion as
a social innovation under the heading «Integrated development of territories».
Much of this work focuses on innovation within social relationships in urban
settings, and as part of the work; it explores the potential of public, private
and civic models, interventions and interactions. In 2007, Moulaert
characterized social innovation as a polymorphic constellation of
counter-hegemonic movements and initiatives involved in active processes of
social struggle and change.

In
the part of work called «Innovation
to address social market failures» the authors
give information on social innovation model that focuses on innovation as a
means by which new products and services can be delivered to underserved market
segments. At the macro level, these are mechanisms by which new markets are
created in weak institutional spaces or to address market failures. The latter
implies failure not only in commercial markets, but also in public sector
«markets» where the state cannot provide public goods, and civil society
«markets» where charitable, non-profit and non-governmental organizations
cannot provide effective goods and services to their beneficiaries. However,
while such failures usually provide opportunities for innovation, they can also
pose challenges in terms of reconciling potentially competing institutional logics.

A
third branch of social innovation theory has emerged recently, focusing on its
relationship to overall resilience and, in particular, on the resilience of the
larger ecosystem in which it develops. The overall resilience of a system can
be examined through the lens of an adaptive cycle, which is graphically
represented as an endless cycle spanning four phases: release, reorganization,
exploitation, and conservation. The phases of exploitation and conservation in
the «forward» cycle are periods of growth and accumulation of resources, where
changes are routine and almost always adaptive, while the phases of release and
reorganization in the «reverse» cycle can represent the introduction of
novelty, either transforming (radical) or adaptive change and system update.
Thus, the reverse cycle can be risky in terms of whether the system remains
stable, adapting and learning, but not transforming, or whether it approaches a
threshold value that moves the system into a new area of ​​stability. The new
region may share characteristics with the old region of stability, but will
have radically different feedback loops, and, therefore, different
relationships between phases. The theory of sustainability offers a model at
the system level of the emergence and spread of models of social innovation.

The
fact that social innovation occurs in multiple contexts of practice reinforces
the need for theoretical concreteness in the analysis and presentation of the
phenomenon. Thus, a clear understanding of each case of social innovation in
health, education, economic development, agriculture, urban development or
governance and political transformation will require its own epistemology, as
well as a set of boundaries and logic. This is, of course, both a
methodological and a theoretical challenge for researchers.

One
of the important contributions of this part is the test the assumption that
social innovation is somehow socially positive in all contexts. As noted above,
it is easy to envision the «dark side» of social innovation. It is clear,
however, that positive social innovation may not be of equal benefit to all participants,
and for some it may indeed have negative consequences. Moreover, the
devastating consequences of some social innovations can undermine important
institutional norms, while at the same time bringing significant benefits to
the target populations.

Заключение:

Фрагмент текста работы:

THE ORIGINAL TEXT

At its simplest, social innovation can be seen as ‘new
ideas that address unmet social needs – and that work’ (Mulgan et al., 2007, p. 2). In practice, social
innovations can take the form of specific ideas, actions, frames, models,
systems, processes, services, rules and regulations as well as new organizational
forms. However, more specifically, there are two interlinked conceptualizations
of social innovation, focused on either new social processes or new social outputs
and outcomes. The first emphasizes changes in social relations and often
has a focus on rebalancing power disparities of economic inequalities in
society (see Moulaert et al., 2014a).
For example, Mumford (2002, p. 253) suggested that social innovation refers to
the generation and implementation of new ideas about how people should organize
interpersonal activities, or social interactions, to meet one or more common
goals.

Westley and Antadze (2010, p. 2) subsequently expanded
upon this by noting that social innovation is 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. Such successful social innovations have durability and broad
impact.

Second, social innovation can be seen as the answer to
social market failures in the provision of vital public goods. This is
reflected in the OECD’s definition of social innovation, which also includes a
reference to the process dimensions of social innovation. Social innovation is
distinct from economic innovation because it 
is not about introducing new types of production or exploiting new  markets in itself but is about satisfying new
needs not provided by  the market (even
if markets intervene later) or creating new, more  satisfactory ways of insertion in terms of
giving people a place and a  role in
production.

In addition to these two meta-definitions, three
levels of social innovation can be identified. First, there is incremental innovation in goods and
services to address social need more effectively or efficiently. This is the
objective of many successful charities and not for-profits, as well as some
so-called ‘Bottom of the Pyramid’ (Prahalad, 2006) commercial firms. From this
perspective, social innovation may simply be a good business opportunity.
Second, there is institutional innovation
that aims to harness or retool existing social and economic structures to
generate new social value and outcomes. Examples such as Fair Trade (Nicholls
and Opal, 2005) or mobile banking typically exploit or modify existing market
structures to deliver new or additional social value. Finally, disruptive social innovation aims at
systems change. This is typically the realm of social movements and
self-consciously ‘political’ actors, groups and networks aiming to change power
relations, alter social hierarchies and reframe issues to the benefit of
otherwise disenfranchised groups. Disruptive social innovation can be
characterized by structured mass participation in political parties or formal
membership schemes of social movements, on the one hand, or loose coalitions of
individuals and interests united by an evanescent issue or technology such as
social media, on the other. Policy entrepreneurs from within state structures
can also drive disruptive social innovation by focusing on reforming democracy
and enlarging or deepening citizens’ roles within it.

Social innovation can also be defined in terms of the
level of its action or impact from the individual to the systems level (micro-,
meso- or macro level). Such levels or dimensions can be mapped against the two
main definitions of social innovation focused either on new social processes or
on new social outcomes (see Table I.2). These differing levels of impact point to
the complexity of performance measurement on social innovation and emphasize
the need for clarity about the unit of impact of a social innovation.

Social innovation can also be considered in the
context of the more institutionalized fields of social entrepreneurship (Dees,
1998; Nicholls, 2006) and social enterprise (Alter, 2006; Nyssens, 2006).  In this setting, social innovation can be
seen as the biggest field of action encompassing any new idea or model that
addresses a social (or environmental) need. Social entrepreneurship can, then,
be seen as a subset of social innovation – the organizational enactment of
social innovation ideas and models. In the context of seemingly intractable
social challenges such as climate change, environmental destruction, youth
unemployment and social exclusion, social innovation has emerged as a
potentially sustainable solution. It is often assumed that social innovation
can lead to social change (see, for example, Cooperrider and Pasmore, 1991;
Mulgan et al., 2007; BEPA, 2010).
However, the relationship between social innovation and social change remains
underexplored: Rather than being used as a specifically defined specialist term
with its own definable area of studies, social innovation is used more as a
kind of descriptive metaphor in the context of phenomena of real world
problems, social change, and the modernization of society.  (Howaldt and Schwarz, 2010, p. 49)