Collaborative Social Innovation in the Hybrid Domain

Organization and Rationality
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 504)


What are the institutional attributes that support the use of ICTs for social innovation? Based on the concept of the ‘hybrid domain’, we seek to better understand how various stakeholders with different priorities collaborate, combine economic and social objectives, and reconceptualize multi-stakeholder collaborative governance in the Global South. Using insights from behavioral economics and social psychology, we focus on two institutional aspects of social innovation - organizational arrangements and rationality. On the one hand, it is well recognized that social innovation stakeholders include not just states and commercial enterprises, but also NGOs, social enterprises, and for-profit/non-profit hybrid organizations. On the other hand, the rationality that brings together these stakeholders is not well articulated. While scholarship has emphasized utilitarian rationality, we highlight the importance of pro-social behavior in collaboration. We argue that scholarship in the past century has focused on utilitarian rationality while neglecting the role of prosocial behavior in collaboration. Further research on prosocial behavior and its incorporation in organizational theory would contribute to understanding the dynamics of collaboration for social innovation.


Social innovation Collaborative governance Pro-social behavior Global South 


  1. 1.
    Aoyama, Y., Parthasarathy, B.: The Rise of the Hybrid Domain: Collaborative Governance for Social Innovation. Edward Elgar, New York, London (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Altenburg, T., Lundvall, B.-A.: Building inclusive innovation systems in developing countries: challenges for IS research. In: Lundvall, B.-A., Joseph, K.J., Chaminade, C., Vang, J. (eds.) Handbook of Innovation Systems and Developing Countries: Building Domestic Capabilities in a Global Setting, pp. 33–56. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Foster, C., Heeks, R.: Conceptualising inclusive innovation: modifying systems of innovation frameworks to understand diffusion of new technology to low-income consumers. Europ. J. Devel. Res. 25, 333–355 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sonne, L.: Innovative initiatives supporting inclusive innovation in India: social business incubation and micro venture capital. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 79, 638–647 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ostrom, E.: Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems. Am. Econ. Rev. 100(3), 641–672 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jessop, B.: The rise of governance and the risks of failure: the case of economic development. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 50, 29–45 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mittelman, J.H.: Global bricolage: emerging market powers and polycentric governance. Third World Q. 34, 23–37 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Swanson, E.B.: Information systems innovation among organizations. Manag. Sci. 40, 1069–1092 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Swanson, E.B., Ramiller, N.C.: Innovating mindfully with information technology. MIS Q. 28, 553–583 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pfeiffer, J.: International NGOs and primary health care in Mozambique: the need for a new model of collaboration. Soc. Sci. Med. 56, 725–738 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boddewyn, J., Doh, J.: Global strategy and the collaboration of MNEs NGOs and the government for the provisioning of collective goods in emerging markets. Glob. Strategy J. 1, 345–361 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    den Hond, F., de Bakker, F.G.A., Doh, J.: What prompts companies to collaboration with NGOs? Recent evidence from the Netherlands. Bus. Soc. 54, 187–228 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Michelini, L.: Social Innovation and New Business Models: Creating Shared Value in Low-Income Markets. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van Dyck, B., Van den Broeck, P.: Social innovation: a territorial process. In: Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D., Mehmood, A., Hamdouch, A. (eds.) The International Handbook of Social Innovation: Colelctive Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D., Hillier, J.: Social innovaton: intuition, percept, concept, theory and practice. In: Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D., Mehmood, A., Hamdouch, A. (eds.) The International Handbook on Social Innovation, pp. 13–24. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sassen, S.: Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global Assemblages. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Castells, M.: The Rise of the Network Society. The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, vol. 1. Blackwell, Oxford (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Castells, M.: Preface. In: Evans, P.B. (ed.) Livable Cities? Urban Struggles for Livelihood and Sustainability, pp. ix–xi. University of California Press, Berkeley (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chesbrough, H.: Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Quan, X., Chesbrough, H.: Hierarchical segmentation of R&D process and intellectual property protection: evidence from multinational R&D laboratories in China. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 57, 9–21 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    The World Bank: Unleashing India’s Innovation: Toward Sustainable and Inclusive Growth. The World Bank, Washington, D.C. (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Swanson, E.B., Ramiller, N.C.: The organizing vision in information systems innovation. Organ. Sci. 8, 458–474 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    March, J.G.: Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. Bell J. Econ. 9, 587–608 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Simon, H.A.: From substantive to procedural rationality. In: Kastelein, T.J., Kuipers, S.K., Nijenhuis, W.A., Wagenaar, G.R. (eds.) 25 Years of Economic Theory: Retrospect and Prospect, pp. 65–86. Springer, Boston (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Simon, H.A.: Rationality in psychology and economics. J. Bus. 59, S209–S224 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hirschman, A.O.: Rival interpretations of market society: civilizing, destructive, or feeble? J. Econ. Lit. 20, 1463–1484 (1982)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hirschman, A.O.: Shifting Involvements: Private Interest and Public Action. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1982)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Genov, N.: Towards a multidimensional concept of rationality: the sociological perspective. Sociol. Theory 9, 206–211 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lockyer, J., McCabe, D.: Leading through fear: emotion, rationality and innovation in a UK manufacturing company. Eur. J. Int. Manag. 5, 48–61 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Miller, D.T.: The norm of self-interest. Am. Psychol. 54, 1053 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Avgerou, C., McGrath, K.: Power, rationality, and the art of living through socio-technical change. MIS Q. 31, 295–315 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    DiMaggio, P., Powell, W.W.: The iron cage revisited: collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. Am. Sociol. Rev. 48, 147–160 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Li, Y., Ashkanasy, N.M., Ahlstrom, D.: The rationality of emotions: a hybrid process model of decision-making under uncertainty. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 31, 293–308 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Moshman, D., Geil, M.: Collaborative reasoning: evidence for collective rationality. Think. Reason. 4, 231–248 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ostrom, E.: A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action: presidential address, American political science association, 1997. Amer. Polit. Sci. Rev. 92, 1–22 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Axelrod, R.M.: The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books, New York (2006)MATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jensen, M.C.: Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Bus. Ethics Q. 12, 235–256 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pinker, S.: The Better Angels of Our Nature: The Decline of Violence in History and its Causes. Penguin, London (2011)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lindenberg, S.: Prosocial behavior, solidarity, and framing processes. In: Fetchenhauer, D., Flache, A., Buunk, B., Lindenberg, S. (eds.) Solidarity and Prosocial Behavior. Critical Issues in Social Justice, pp. 23–44. Springer, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yamagishi, T.: Social dilemmas. In: Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology, pp. 311–335 (1995) Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Horner, V., Carter, J.D., Suchak, M., de Waal, F.B.: Spontaneous prosocial choice by chimpanzees. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 13847–13851 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Warneken, F., Tomasello, M.: Altruistic helping in human infants and young chimpanzees. Science 311, 1301–1303 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Silk, J.B., House, B.R.: Evolutionary foundations of human prosocial sentiments. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 10910–10917 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    de Waal, F.B., Suchak, M.: Prosocial primates: selfish and unselfish motivations. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 365, 2711–2722 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    DiMaggio, P.: The new institutionalisms: avenues of collaboration. J. Inst. Theor. Econ. (JITE)/Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft 154, 696–705 (1998)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ostrom, V., Ostrom, E.: Public goods and public choices. In: Savas, E.S. (ed.) Alternatives to Delivering Public Services: Toward Improved Performance, pp. 7–49. Westview Press, Boulder (1977)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Blair, D.H., Pollak, R.A.: Collective rationality and dictatorship: the scope of the arrow theorem. J. Econ. Theory 21, 186–194 (1979)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Searle, J.R.: The Construction of Social Reality. Penguin Books, London (1995)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Burchell, J., Cook, J.: Sleeping with the enemy? Strategic transformations in business–NGO relationships through stakeholder dialogue. J. Bus. Ethics 113, 505–518 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Arts, B.: ‘Green alliances’ of business and NGOs. New styles of self-regulation or ‘dead-end roads’? Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 9, 26–36 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yaziji, M., Doh, J.: NGOs and Corporations: Conflict and Collaboration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Churchman, W.: Wicked problems. Manag. Sci. 4, 141–142 (1967)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Buchanan, R.: Wicked problems in design thinking. Des. Issues 8, 5–21 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Clark UniversityWorcesterUSA
  2. 2.International Institute of Information TechnologyBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations