The term ‘systemic innovation’ is increasing in use. However, there is no consensus on its meaning: four different ways of using the term can be identified in the literature. Most people simply define it as a type of innovation where value can only be derived when the innovation is synergistically integrated with other complementary innovations, going beyond the boundaries of a single organization. Therefore, the term ‘systemic’ refers to the existence of a co-ordinated innovation system.
This paper addresses the under-researched issue of stakeholder identification and engagement in problem structuring interventions. A concise framework to aid critical reflection in the design and reporting of stakeholder identification and engagement is proposed. This is grounded in a critical-systemic epistemology, and is informed by social identity theory. We illustrate the utility of the framework with an example of a problem structuring workshop, which was part of a green innovation project on the development of a technology for the recovery of rare metals from steel slag.
Expertise in research integration and implementation is an essential but often overlooked component of tackling complex societal and environmental problems. We focus on expertise relevant to any complex problem, especially contributory expertise, divided into ‘knowing-that’ and ‘knowing-how.’ We also deal with interactional expertise and the fact that much expertise is tacit. We explore three questions.
The language of co-creation has become popular with policy makers, researchers and consultants wanting to support evidence-based change. However, there is little agreement about what features a research or consultancy project must have for peers to recognise the project as co-creative, and therefore for it to contribute to the growing body of practice and theory under that heading. This means that scholars and practitioners do not have a shared basis for critical reflection, improving practice and debating ethics, legitimacy and quality.
The present document is the first deliverable from SALSA's Work Package 4 which includes, after an introductory section that explains the methodological approach and the workshops' preparatory process, a compilation of 11 reports from each region where the foresight analysis was undertaken. Each regional report contains the main outcomes from these foresight activities on the future potential role of small farms and small food businesses in food and nutrition security.
The present document is the second deliverable from SALSA's Work Package 4. It contains the comparative analysis carried out from the 13 regional reports (collected in D4.1) that were gathered from the outcomes of the participatory foresight workshop conducted in 13 different regions in Europe and Africa.
This final Deliverable of SALSA's WP4 'Participatory foresight analysis' aims to make a reflection precisely about the participatory character of the activities undertaken and the outcomes obtained in this WP. Namely, the objective of this deliverable is twofold: (i) to assess the engagement of stakeholders in these participatory scenario planning activities, and (ii) to discuss the legitimacy of the scenario planning method adopted in this research. In total, the regional foresight workshops held as part of this WP involved 243 participants, with women representing 42%.
This report represents findings on the role of women in small-scale farming (defined as farms up to 5 ha or 8 ESU), particularly in relation to governance frameworks associated with food and nutrition security. It follows SALSA Deliverable 5.1, which assesses the governance arrangements which impact upon small-scale farms and small food businesses. Both reports utilise the data collected in SALSA WP3 (In-depth assessment of food systems in 30 regions).
Deliverable 5.3 is based on an internal report produced under Task 5.3 'Enabling governance frameworks' (UPV team), and Task 5.4 'Governance Framework analysis'. Task 5.3 provided further analysis of 3 governance forms that were identified in Deliverable 5.1. (The Governance of Small Farms and Small Food Businesses to support food and nutritional security) as most enabling small farms and small food business to contribute to food and nutrition security. These were: 1. Cooperative arrangements and associations; 2. State subsidies and financial assistance; and, 3.