摘要
In this review of ten years of social innovation research(2012e2022),we define and explore three paradigms in the field:instrumentalist,strong,and democratic.We investigate how language usage and geography play a central role in identifying which paradigms recently published scholarship falls into.While we do not insist that sharp divisions exist between each paradigm,we do find that on the“instrumentalist”side,language tends to abstract or neutralize power relations.Further,these perspectives tend to derive from Western or Eurocentric orientations or biases.The“strong”paradigm accepts the necessity of institutional and stakeholder engagement and seeks to engage socially excluded populations.In contrast,geographical diversity,attendance to historicized and systemic inequalities,and elevation of the most marginalized communities are more likely to be centered in the“democratic”paradigm.We apply this discussion to recent research in arts-related social innovation and the related field of social entrepreneurship.
