Abstract
This chapter explores how public innovation is embedded in a sector with dynamic hybridization. Public administration research and related fields have examined how hybridity is manifest in the public sector. However, there is a lack of understanding of how hybridity affects or is affected by innovation. To provide an understanding of the intertwining of these phenomena, this chapter discusses the concept of hybridity at two levels of analysis: structure and practice. The structural level of analysis involves focussing on the hybridization of governance, organizational and institutional structures and worlds of reference, and how these are intertwined with innovation. The practice-based level of analysis focusses on how hybridity grows out of everyday action and innovation when employees and managers have to cope with challenges in everyday practice. How these understandings may be combined is discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alvesson, M., M. Blom, and S. Svenningsson. 2017. Reflexive Leadership. Organizing in an Imperfect World. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Battilana, J., B. Leca, and E. Boxenbaum. 2009. “How Actors Change Institutions: Towards a Theory of Institutional Entrepreneurship.” Academy of Management Annals 3: 65–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520903053598.
Baur, D., and H. P. Schmitz. 2012. “Corporations and NGOs: When Accountability Leads to Co-optation.” Journal of Business Ethics 106 (1): 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1057-9.
Billis, D. 2010. “Towards a Theory of Hybrid Organizations.” In Hybrid Organizations and the Third Sector: Challenges for Practice, Theory and Policy, edited by David Billis, 46–69. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Billis, D. 2020. “Hybrid Organisations in the Overlapping Territory with the Personal World.” In Handbook on Hybrid Organisations, edited by David Billis and Colin Rochester, 522–545. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham.
Bloch, C., and M. M. Bugge. 2013. “Public Sector Innovation—From Theory to Measurement?” Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 27: 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2013.06.008.
Boltanski, L., and L. Thévenot. 2006. On Justification: Economies of Worth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Boschma, R. A. 2005. “Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment.” Regional Studies 39 (1): 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887.
Bouty, I., M.-L. Gomez, and R. Chia. 2019. “Strategy Emergence as Wayfinding.” M@n@gement 22 (3): 438–465. https://doi.org/10.3917/mana.223.0438.
Capano, G. 2019. “Reconceptualizing Layering—From Mode of Institutional Change to Mode of Institutional Design: Types and Outputs.” Public Administration 97 (3): 590–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12583.
Carstensen, H. V., and C. Bason. 2012. “Powering Collaborative Policy Innovation: Can Innovation Labs Help?” The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal 17 (1): Article 4.
Cass, N., and E. Shove. 2017. Changing Energy Demand. Concepts, Metaphors and Implications for Policy. Lancaster: Lancaster University.
Christensen, T., and P. Lægreid. 2011. “Complexity and Hybrid Public Administration—Theoretical and Empirical Challenges.” Public Organization Review 11 (4): 407–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-010-0141-4.
Christensen, T., P. Lægreid, and K. A. Røvik. 2020. Organization Theory and the Public Sector: Instrument, In Culture and Myth. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
Cloutier, C., and A. Langley. 2007. “Competing Rationalities in Organizations: A Theoretical and Methodological Overview.” In Cahiers de recherche du GéPS, vol. 3, no. 1, HEC Montréal. 3.
Dekker, R., K. Geuijen, and C. Oliver. 2021. “Tensions of Evaluating Innovation in a Living Lab: Moving beyond Actionable Knowledge Production.” Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389021997848.
Denis, J.-L., E. Ferlie, and N. Van Gessel. 2015. Understanding Hybridity in Public Organizations. Public Administration 93 (2): 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12175.
Denis, J.-L., A. Langley, and L. Rouleau. 2007. “Strategizing in Pluralistic Contexts: Rethinking Theoretical Frames.” Human Relations 60 (1): 179–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726707075288.
Engen, M., L. Fuglsang, T. Tuominen, J. Sundbo, J. K. Møller, A. Scupola, and F. Sørensen. 2021. “Conceptualising Employee Involvement in Service Innovation: An Integrative Review.” Journal of Service Management. EarlyCite. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-11-2019-0348.
Fuglsang, L. 2010. “Bricolage and Invisible Innovation in Public Service Innovation.” Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 5 (1): 67–87. https://doi.org/10.3917/jie.005.0067.
Fuglsang, L. 2018. “Towards a Theory of a Practice-Based Approach to Service Innovation Within Spheres of Interaction.” In Services, Experiences and Innovation: Integrating and Extending Research, edited by Ada Scupola and Lars Fuglsang, 147–164. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Fuglsang, L., and A. V. Hansen. 2022. “Framing Improvements of Public Innovation in a Living Lab Context: Processual Learning, Restrained Space and Democratic Engagement.” Research Policy 51 (1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104390.
Fuglsang, L., and J. K. Møller. 2020. “Bridging Public and Private Innovation Patterns.” In Handbook on Hybrid Organisations, edited by David Billis and Colin Rochester, 151–168. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Fuglsang, L., and J. Sundbo. 2005. “The Organizational Innovation System: Three Modes.” Journal of Change Management 5 (3): 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010500258056.
Fuglsang, L., A. V. Hansen, I. Mergel, and M. T. Røhnebæk. 2021. “Living Labs for Public Sector Innovation: An Integrative Literature Review.” Administrative Sciences 11 (2): Article 58. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11020058.
Gascó, M. 2017. “Living Labs: Implementing Open Innovation in the Public Sector.” Government Information Quarterly 34 (1): 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.09.003.
Geels, F. W. 2004. “From Sectoral Systems of Innovation to Socio-technical Systems—Insights about Dynamics and Change from Sociology and Institutional Theory.” Research Policy 33 (6–7): 897–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015.
Gittell, J. H., and A. Douglas. 2012. “Relational Bureaucracy: Structuring Reciprocal Relationships into Roles.” Academy of Management Review 37 (4): 709–733. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0438.
Greenwood, R., M. Raynard, F. Kodeih, E. R. Micelotta, and M. Lounsbury. 2011. Institutional Complexity and Organizational Responses.” The Academy of Management Annals 5 (1): 317–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2011.590299.
Hartley, J. 2005. “Innovation in Governance and Public Services: Past and Present.” Public Money & Management 25 (1): 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9302.2005.00447.x.
Hartley, J., S. Parker, and J. Beashel. 2019. “Leading and Recognizing Public Value.” Public Administration 97 (2): 264–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12563.
Høiland, G., and E. Willumsen. 2018. “Resistance-Driven Innovation? Frontline Public Welfare Workers’ Coping with Topdown Implementation.” Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies 8 (2): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.18291/njwls.v8i2.106153.
Jay, J. 2013. “Navigating Paradox as a Mechanism of Change and Innovation in Hybrid Organizations.” Academy of Management Journal 56 (1): 137–159. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0772.
Lawrence, T. B., and R. Suddaby. 2006. “Institutions and Institutional Work.” In The Sage Handbook of Organization Studies, edited by S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence and W. R. Nord, 215–254. London: Sage.
Lindblom, C. E. 1979. “Still Muddling, Not Yet Through.” Public Administration Review 39 (6): 517–526. https://doi.org/10.2307/976178.
Mesny, A., and C. Mailhot. 2007. “The Difficult Search for Compromises in a Canadian Industry/University Research Partnership.” The Canadian Journal of Sociology 32 (2): 203–227. https://doi.org/10.2307/20460632.
Nachi, M. 2004. Compromise: Exploring Theory and Practice. London: Sage.
Nicolini, D. 2009. “Zooming in and Out: Studying Practices by Switching Theoretical Lenses and Trailing Connection.” Organization Studies 30 (2): 1391–1418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609349875.
Oldenhof, L., J. Postma, and K. Putters. 2014. “On Justification Work: How Compromising Enables Public Managers to Deal with Conflicting Values.” Public Administration Review 74 (1): 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12153.
Osborne, S. P. 2006. “The New Public Governance?” Public Management Review 8 (3): 377–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030600853022.
Pantzar, M., and E. Shove. 2010. “Understanding Innovation in Practice: A Discussion of the Production and Re-production of Nordic Walking.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 22 (4): 447–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537321003714402.
Quélin, B. V., I. Kivleniece, and S. Lazzarini. 2017. “Public-Private Collaboration, Hybridity and Social Value: Towards New Theoretical Perspectives.” Journal of Management Studies 54 (6): 763–792. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12274.
Reckwitz, A. 2002. “Toward a Theory of Social Practices: A Development in Culturalist Theorizing.” European Journal of Social Theory 5 (2): 243–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684310222225432.
Schatzki, T. 2016. “Keeping Track of Large Phenomena.” Geographische Zeitschrift 104 (1): 4–24.
Schatzki, T. R. 2002. The Site of the Social: A Philosophical Account of the Constitution of Social Life and Change. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Schot, J., and F. W. Geels. 2008. “Strategic Niche Management and Sustainable Innovation Journeys: Theory, Findings, Research Agenda, and Policy.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 20 (5): 537–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320802292651.
Sønderskov, M., and R. Rønning. 2021. “Public Service Logic: An Appropriate Recipe for Improving Serviceness in the Public Sector?” Administrative Sciences 11: Article 64. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11030064.
Sørensen, E. 2020. Interactive Political Leadership: The Role of Politicians in the Age of Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stacey, R. D. 2011. Strategic Management and Organizatonal Dynamics: The Challenge of Complexity. 6th ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Thornton, P. H., W. Ocasio, and M. Lounsbury. 2012. The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Timmermans, S., and M. Berg. 1997. “Standardization in Action: Achieving Local Universality through Medical Protocols.” Social Studies of Science 27 (2): 273–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631297027002003.
Tõnurist, P., R. Kattel, and V. Lember. 2017. “Innovation Labs in the Public Sector: What They Are and What They Do?” Public Management Review 19 (10): 1455–1479. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1287939.
Torfing, J., and P. Triantafillou. 2013. “What’s in a Name? Grasping New Public Governance as a Political-Administrative System.” International Review of Public Administration 18 (2): 9–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2013.10805250.
Warde, A. 2005. “Consumption and Theories of Practice.” Journal of Consumer Culture 5 (2): 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540505053090.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fuglsang, L., Geuijen, K., Rønning, R., Hartley, J. (2022). A Sector with Dynamic Hybridization. In: Valuing Public Innovation. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15203-0_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15203-0_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-15202-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-15203-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)