‘Measuring cases of social innovation using Qualitative Comparative Analysis

‘Measuring cases of social innovation using
Qualitative Comparative Analysis: moving
away from anecdotalism towards
sensemaking patterns’
Parallel Session: 28 October, 13.30-15.30
Measurement of social innovation
Peter Oeij / TNO, Netherlands
This project has
received funding
from the European
Union’s Horizon
2020 research and
innovation
programme under
grant agreement
No 8222293.

Content of my talk
- 1.The cases of social innovation of SI-DRIVE
- 2.What is Qualitative Comparative Analysis?
- 3.Measuring Social Innovation?
- 4.Results
- 5.Conclusions and future avenues

1. The cases of social innovation of SI DRIVE

EDUCATION AND LIFELONG LEARNING
EMPLOYMENT
ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE
ENERGY SUPPLY
TRANSPORT AND MOBILITY
HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE
POVERTY REDUCTION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
…82 cases out of 22 practice fields from more than
30 countries… taken from the existing database of
the 1.005 mapped cases

2. What is Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA)?

• “comparative, caseoriented
approach and aims to
capture the complexity of a
case while providing a
certain level of
generalization” (Rihoux &
Ragin, 2008).
• Basic question: what do
have case A and B in
common, and where do
they differ?
https://ordinarymostly.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/fun-with-google-and-
venn-diagrams/

Social Innovation Cases: 1,2,3,4…….. 82
Succesful
innovation
(here: successful
adoption of social
innovation)
Variable 1
Variable 2
Variable 3
Variable 4
Variable 5
Variable 6
Variable 7
Which combinations of ‘condition variables’ (‘configuration’)
will explain successful innovation (‘outcome’)?

Purpose is to reduce data and make senseful
observations
• Theoretical assumption: there is not ‘one simple explanation’
for succesful innovation: from practice we know there are
different reasons for failure and success
• In the case of 7 variables there are 128 combinations
possible (27 = 128)
• How to arrive at a meaningful reduction that allows for some
generalization?

QCA looks for ‘combinations of variables’ in the empirical world:
Sufficiency and Necessity
[Wendy Olsen: http://hummedia.manchester.ac.uk/institutes/methods-manchester/docs/qca.pdf]
[here: successful
social
innovation]
[here: successful
social
innovation]

Selecting the
plausible
configurations
(paths)
The QCA sub stages:
1. Calibration
2. Analysis of necessary causes
3. The analysis of sufficient causes
4. Analysis of truth table of
configurations (paths)
Describing the
plausible
configurations and
adding these with
‘rich’ data from the
cases
Data gathering
Providing a
theoretical
explanation and
progressing
generalized theory
building
Case selection or
casing
Data collection by case
study
Extracting a subset of
data that bear a
plausible theoretical
explanation
Creating a dataset by
coding and recoding
Data analysis Data interpretation and reporting
QCA research design

Selecting the
plausible
configurations
(paths)
The QCA sub stages:
1. Calibration
2. Analysis of necessary causes
3. The analysis of sufficient causes
4. Analysis of truth table of
configurations (paths)
Describing the
plausible
configurations and
adding these with
‘rich’ data from the
cases
Data gathering
Providing a
theoretical
explanation and
progressing
generalized theory
building
Case selection or
casing
Data collection by case
study
Extracting a subset of
data that bear a
plausible theoretical
explanation
Creating a dataset by
coding and recoding
Data analysis Data interpretation and reporting
QCA research design
Selection of the
82 cases
Selection of the
theoretical model
and variables
Re-analyze the
82 cases
and code new
answering categories

3. How did we measure social innovation?

…structure follows strategy, culture follows structure…
8. Investors/Top
Management
9. Relationships
with others
10. Infrastructure
development
Initial period Developmental period
Implementation/
termination period
Key components of the innovation journey of technological innovations (Van de Ven et al., 1999/2008, p. 25; re-used in Oeij et al., 2019)).

14
…structure follows strategy, culture follows structure…Key element Business & technological
innovation
Operationalization towards
social innovation
Questions and
(1‒5-point scale)
Initial period
1. Gestation
(incubation)
Phase of incubation in which people
engage in activities that set the stage for
innovation.
1. (initial) Stakeholder commitment
(Agest1)
Bringing together the people who start
developing a social innovation
initiative. Incubation can sometimes
be rather lengthy, even years.
A. To what degree were
relevant stakeholders involved
in the start-up phase? (1-5)
3. Plans Development of plans and budgets
submitted to top management and
investors to launch the innovation.
2. Financial/political support
(Bplan2)
Developing a concrete approach and a
concrete goal coupled to a concrete
target group that attracts
investors/subsidizers.
B. To what degree was there
concrete support for the
initiative? (1-5)
Developmental period
5. Setbacks Setbacks occur frequently because
initial plans go awry or unanticipated
environmental events occur that
significantly alter ground assumptions
and context.
3. Overcoming setbacks (Cset3)
Setbacks include the ending of initial
funding and the absence of follow-up
funding; the absence of good-quality
personnel; the lack of
acknowledgement by policy; the
dependency of the project on the
initiator or volunteers.
C. To what degree were the
project team/members resilient
enough to effectively deal with
setbacks? (1-5)
6. Criteria shift The divergent-convergent pattern of
outcome criteria held by (internal)
innovation managers and (external)
resource controllers implies that at the
beginning IMs stress input but RCs
outcome, while at the end RCs stress
input and IMs outcome.
4. Consensus (Dshift4)
Upscaling an initiative requires
sustainable organizational structure
and institutionalizations, initial
successes and a clear focus on the
intended results, but with more
stakeholders it is difficult to achieve
consensus.
D. To what degree is
consensus created among the
relevant stakeholders?
(1-5)
7. Fluid
participation
Personnel in innovation teams show
part-time work, high turnover rates, and
lack of experience due to job mobility
and promotion processes.
5. Availability of staff (Epart5)
Volunteers may come and go and the
initiator may lack the stamina needed,
or the qualifications to guide the
project from one phase to another.
E. To what degree are
qualified personnel/staff
available?
(1-5)
8. Intervention
investors/top
management
Top management involvement and roles
differ according to conditions and
organizational settings and were most
evident when significant setbacks were
encountered.
6. Leadership (Flead6)
Stakeholders, partners, investors and
policy supporters may complicate the
project, or may leave the project; or
they can give the project a positive
boost and clear direction.
F. To what degree did
leadership create synergy?
(1-5)
10. Infra-
structure
development
To implement or commercialize an
innovation a community of industry
infrastructure needs to be created with
financial, educational and research
organizations.
7. Infrastructure (Ginfr7)
To become sustainable or to scale up,
an infrastructure is needed that
bundles a variety of expertise/experts
and (supporting) organizations.
G. To what degree was a
sustainable infrastructure
created?
(1-5)
Implementation/termination period
11. Adoption Implementation begins when an
innovation is applied and adopted.
8. Adoption (Hadop0)
Adoption and dissemination of social
innovation depends on the
public/social value experienced by
target groups and
stakeholders/policymakers.
[Outcome variable]
H. To what degree did the
social innovation (SI) scale up
to achieve growing
cooperation and stimulating
social change? (1-5)

15
…structure follows strategy, culture follows structure…Key element Business & technological
innovation
Operationalization towards
social innovation
Questions and
(1‒5-point scale)
Initial period
1. Gestation
(incubation)
Phase of incubation in which people
engage in activities that set the stage for
innovation.
1. (initial) Stakeholder commitment
(Agest1)
Bringing together the people who start
developing a social innovation
initiative. Incubation can sometimes
be rather lengthy, even years.
A. To what degree were
relevant stakeholders involved
in the start-up phase? (1-5)
3. Plans Development of plans and budgets
submitted to top management and
investors to launch the innovation.
2. Financial/political support
(Bplan2)
Developing a concrete approach and a
concrete goal coupled to a concrete
target group that attracts
investors/subsidizers.
B. To what degree was there
concrete support for the
initiative? (1-5)
Developmental period
5. Setbacks Setbacks occur frequently because
initial plans go awry or unanticipated
environmental events occur that
significantly alter ground assumptions
and context.
3. Overcoming setbacks (Cset3)
Setbacks include the ending of initial
funding and the absence of follow-up
funding; the absence of good-quality
personnel; the lack of
acknowledgement by policy; the
dependency of the project on the
initiator or volunteers.
C. To what degree were the
project team/members resilient
enough to effectively deal with
setbacks? (1-5)
6. Criteria shift The divergent-convergent pattern of
outcome criteria held by (internal)
innovation managers and (external)
resource controllers implies that at the
beginning IMs stress input but RCs
outcome, while at the end RCs stress
input and IMs outcome.
4. Consensus (Dshift4)
Upscaling an initiative requires
sustainable organizational structure
and institutionalizations, initial
successes and a clear focus on the
intended results, but with more
stakeholders it is difficult to achieve
consensus.
D. To what degree is
consensus created among the
relevant stakeholders?
(1-5)
7. Fluid
participation
Personnel in innovation teams show
part-time work, high turnover rates, and
lack of experience due to job mobility
and promotion processes.
5. Availability of staff (Epart5)
Volunteers may come and go and the
initiator may lack the stamina needed,
or the qualifications to guide the
project from one phase to another.
E. To what degree are
qualified personnel/staff
available?
(1-5)
8. Intervention
investors/top
management
Top management involvement and roles
differ according to conditions and
organizational settings and were most
evident when significant setbacks were
encountered.
6. Leadership (Flead6)
Stakeholders, partners, investors and
policy supporters may complicate the
project, or may leave the project; or
they can give the project a positive
boost and clear direction.
F. To what degree did
leadership create synergy?
(1-5)
10. Infra-
structure
development
To implement or commercialize an
innovation a community of industry
infrastructure needs to be created with
financial, educational and research
organizations.
7. Infrastructure (Ginfr7)
To become sustainable or to scale up,
an infrastructure is needed that
bundles a variety of expertise/experts
and (supporting) organizations.
G. To what degree was a
sustainable infrastructure
created?
(1-5)
Implementation/termination period
11. Adoption Implementation begins when an
innovation is applied and adopted.
8. Adoption (Hadop0)
Adoption and dissemination of social
innovation depends on the
public/social value experienced by
target groups and
stakeholders/policymakers.
[Outcome variable]
H. To what degree did the
social innovation (SI) scale up
to achieve growing
cooperation and stimulating
social change? (1-5)
Selected and operationalised
condition and outcome variables
Scoring / answering categories:
3 researchers scored all 82 cases
on these 8 variables

Source:
Peter R.A. Oeij, Wouter van der Torre, Fietje Vaas, Steven Dhondt (2019). Understanding social innovation as an
innovation process: Applying the innovation journey model. Journal of Business Research, 101 (August), 243-
254, ISSN 0148-2963, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.028. [want a copy? Mail peter.oeij@tno.nl]

QCA analysis
• Step 1 – Calibration: In fsQCA the original data must be transformed into an interval
scale
• Step 2 – Analysis of necessary causal conditions: Necessary conditions are variables
that should always be present for the outcome to occur. Hence, if the outcome is
present in such a situation, so is that particular condition, and if that particular
condition is absent, the outcome is absent as well.
• Step 3 – Truth table analysis of sufficient causal conditions: A truth table consists of
all the possible combinations of the seven condition variables (128 combinations),
but only consistent combinations remain valid.
• Step 4 – Finalizing solutions: The final step in the analysis is to interpret the six paths
(combinations or configurations) that lead to outcomes, and to conclude which cases
correspond to certain solutions
Ragin, C.C. assisted by Sarah Ilene Strand & Claude Rubinson (September 2008). USER’S GUIDE TO Fuzzy-Set /
Qualitative Comparative Analysis. http://www.compasss.org/files/fsQCA_manual.pdf.
The software is free

74% of cases is covered by the theoretical model
the 6 solutions are logically consistent
6 out of 128 paths are shown to be internally consistant
66 empirical cases could be assigned to the six paths
QCA statistical results
most
consistent
path
paths with
most cases
‘solution’ means that this combination of condition
variables (caulal conditions) results in the adoption of social
innovation

QCA interpretation
More examples in: Oeij, P. R. A., Van Der Torre, W., Vaas, S., & Dhondt, S.
(2018). Understanding social innovation as an innovation process. Report
based on data from SI-Drive, Social Innovation: Driving force of social
change. Leiden: TNO. (download from www.si-drive.eu)

5. Conclusions and future avenues

Conclusions that can be drawn from applying
QCA
• 1] There are different combinations of variables that can lead to adoption of
social innovation (equifinality)
• 2] there are no ‘necessary’ conditions for adoption of social innovation to
emerge: there is choice for unique combinations
• 3] there are no ‘sufficient’ conditions for adoption of social innovation to
emerge: there must be more than one condition present in conjunction
with others
• 4] some limited generalization is possible: the 6 combinations offer better
chances than the 122 others: they are recommendable strategies
• 5] while complex innovation is hard to predict, we found there are patterns,
and this is helpful for practitioners as well

The practice of social
innovation is better
served with good
descriptions of cases,
which may differ, but that
is only realistic (do not
favour simplicity for
complexity as that is not
gonna help us); benefit
from the patterns
QCA differs from linear statistics (more
realistic) and from qualitative methods
(more generalizability) but maintains
the ‘richness’ of cases
The Innovation Journey model
captures the process of social
innovation and can be further
refined
Future avenues?

Discount publication on Workplace Innovation

References
-Dhondt, S. and P. Oeij. “Social innovation related to innovation in management studies”. In Theoretical approaches to social innovation
– A critical literature review (pp.122-150), edited by J. Howaldt, A. Butzin, D. Domanski and C. Kaletka. Dortmund: SI-Drive [EU Seventh
Framework Programme], September 2014.
-Howaldt, Jürgen and Oeij, Peter R.A. (Eds.) (2016). Workplace innovation – Social innovation: Shaping work organisation and working
life. Special issue of World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable, Issue, 12, Vol. 1, pp. 1-129.
-Oeij, P.R.A., Dhondt, S. & Korver, T. (2011). Social innovation, workplace innovation and social quality. International Journal of Social
Quality, 1 (2, Winter), 31-49.
-Oeij, P., Dhondt, S., Pot, F., Totterdill, P. (2018). Workplace innovation as an important driver of social innovation. In: Howaldt, J.,
Kaletka, C., Schröder, A., Zirngiebl, M. (eds), Atlas of Social Innovation – New Practices for a Better Future (pp. 54-57). Dortmund:
Sozialforschungsstelle, TU Dortmund.
-Oeij, P., Dhondt, S., Torre, W. van der (2018). Linking practice fields of social innovations in the domain of employment. In: Howaldt, J.,
Kaletka, C., Schröder, A., Zirngiebl, M. (eds.), Atlas of Social Innovation – New Practices for a Better Future (pp. 173-175). Dortmund:
Sozialforschungsstelle, TU Dortmund.
-Oeij, P.R.A., Rus, D., Dhondt, S. & Van Hootegem, G. (Eds) (2019). Workplace innovation in the era of disruptive technologies. Special
Issue of International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation.16(3), 199-309. DOI: 10.1504/IJTTC.2019.10021355
-Oeij, P. R.A., Rus, D. and Pot F.D. (eds) (2017). Workplace Innovation: Theory, Research and Practice, Series 'Aligning Perspectives on
Health, Safety and Well-Being’. Springer: Cham (Switzerland); DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56333-6; ISBN 978-3-319-56332-9.
-Oeij, P.R.A., Van der Torre, W., Vaas, S., & Dhondt, S. (2019). Understanding Social Innovation as an innovation process: Applying the
Innovation Journey model. Journal of Business Research, 101(8), 243-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.028
-Pot, F., Dhondt, S. & Oeij, P. (2012), Social innovation of work and employment. In: Franz, H-W. and Hochgerner, J. (Eds.), Challenge
Social Innovation (pp. 261-274). Berlin: Springer.
-Pot, F., Dhondt, S., Oeij, P., Rus, D., & Totterdill, P. (forthcoming). Complementing digitalisation with workplace innovation. In: Atlas of
Social Innovation II, 2019.
[Available on request: peter.oeij@tno.nl]

Thank you for your attention!
• Peter Oeij [peter.oeij@tno.nl] www.beyond4-0.org

‘Measuring cases of social innovation using Qualitative Comparative Analysis

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Similar to ‘Measuring cases of social innovation using Qualitative Comparative Analysis (20)

More from BEYOND4.0 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

‘Measuring cases of social innovation using Qualitative Comparative Analysis