Introduction
Co-creative platforms for developing new knowledge and measures are increasingly common in Sweden and internationally, as part of a global trend to improve the societal impact and the societal relevance of science and innovation (Mauser et al, 2013; Owen et al, 2013; Reypens et al, 2016). Co-creation here means that experts and stakeholders jointly identify, explore and address societal and organizational challenges. The platforms may take the form of networks, partnerships, projects, events or labs, which involve actors from multiple societal sectors, organizations and communities. Research on social innovation suggests that co-creative platforms may reinforce the societal impact of science and innovation by enhancing structural transformation in organizations and society (Haxeltine et al, 2017; Westley et al, 2017).
Public policy in the European Union promotes co-creative platforms in science and innovation as part of policy agendas for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (European Union, 2016; The Knowledge Coalition, 2016). The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) provides funding for such platforms in the member states. The fund has, for example, financed the initiation of two platforms in Sweden called The Gender Academy and Gender Contact Point. The purpose of these platforms is to improve the societal impact and the societal relevance of research on gender and gender equality, through knowledge-based gender equality measures,
In this chapter, the experiences from Gender Contact Point and The Gender Academy are harnessed with the purpose of advancing knowledge on how the societal impact and the societal relevance of research on gender issues may be reinforced by co-creative platforms for academia-society cooperation. In exploring Swedish cases, this study adds to the research stream on gender in regional innovation systems that was established by Scandinavian scholars (cf. Andersson et al, 2012; Alsos et al, 2016). The research questions addressed in the study are: i) how are these co-creative platforms organized and managed?; ii) what co-creative forms and forums are applied in the platforms?; and iii) what challenges and potentials are perceivable in the platforms’ efforts to reinforce the societal impact and the societal relevance of research on gender issues? Previous research on social innovation helps address these questions, by pinpointing mechanisms for societal and organizational transformation in co-creative platforms (cf. Westley et al, 2017; Howaldt et al, 2018).
Previous research
Co-creation
The concept of co-creation stems from the design field, where it refers to the joint development of new insights and solutions by experts, users and other stakeholders (Sanders and Stappers, 2008). It shifts the focus of design studies and practices from products and technology to human experiences and social needs. The interest in co-creation rose among scholars in the 1970s, in regard to customer-involvement in the product development of American companies, as well as employee-involvement in the renewal of industrial workplaces in Scandinavian countries. Co-creation has thereafter increasingly been understood and applied as a strategy for organizational and societal development by researchers and practitioners in various fields and sectors. It has recently become part of a global trend of improving the societal impact and the societal relevance of science and innovation, manifested in the establishment of co-creative platforms for joint development of new knowledge and measures (cf. Dutilleul et al, 2010; Beunen et al, 2012; Mauser et al, 2013; Nevens et al, 2013; Owen et al, 2013; Baraldi et al, 2016; Reypens et al, 2016).
Co-creative platforms take the form of networks, partnerships, projects, events, labs, among others (Dutilleul et al, 2010; Beunen et al, 2012; Mauser et al, 2013; Nevens et al, 2013; Owen et al, 2013; Baraldi et al, 2016; Reypens et al, 2016). The platforms can either be permanent in specific locations, ambulate between different locations or be omnipresent
Social innovation
Studies in the field of social innovation have engaged quite extensively with the role of co-creative platforms for societal and organizational renewal (cf. Haxeltine et al, 2017; Howaldt et al, 2018). Social innovation refers, on a general level, to the development of new solutions to societal challenges, that intend to improve people’s lives in regard to health, education, employment, housing, environment or other issues (Moulaert et al, 2013; Nicholls et al, 2015). It can, for example, take the form of a new method for matching unemployed youth or immigrants with potential employers, a new service for health care provision in rural areas, or a new alliance of citizens and professionals for building affordable housing. Social innovation aspires specifically to life improvement among those who are disadvantaged in regard to these issues due to age, origin, disability, gender, place or other factors. Empowerment and social inclusion are thus recurrent ambitions in social innovation.
In order to match the complexity of the addressed challenges, social innovation often engage stakeholders from various societal sectors, organizations and communities (Howaldt et al, 2018). It commonly involves those citizens who are negatively affected by the addressed challenge and whose lives may be improved by new solutions. Organizations from the civil society are also frequently involved, based on their established roles as voice-bearers for disadvantaged groups of people and advocacy actors for citizen interests. Municipalities, governmental agencies and other public authorities are also recurrently involved, based on their formal responsibilities for providing policies and services related to the addressed issues. Commercial businesses may be involved to some extent, based on their provision of products, services and employment in relation to the issues in question. Researchers, students and other academic professionals are least involved, since citizens or other stakeholders tend to replace traditional experts in social innovation.
Gendered social innovation
The cited research on co-creative platforms for social innovation serves in this chapter as a springboard for advancing our knowledge on how the societal impact and the societal relevance of research on gender issues may be reinforced by such platforms. This chapter thereby contributes to the research stream of gender in regional innovation systems that investigates gender-related patterns and dynamics in platforms for industrial innovation in Scandinavian countries. Research in this area shows that a delimited range of actors, industries and innovations are usually involved in these forums, with a distinct gendered pattern of segregation and hierarchy between women and men (Andersson et al, 2012). The segregation is perceivable in the male dominance of the networks, companies, industries and professions that are most often involved in the studied innovation systems. A gendered hierarchy is perceivable in the higher value and relevance ascribed to male-dominated settings and competences, as well as to technological innovation, in the platforms.
As a consequence, women are under-represented in these innovation systems, in the sense that the industries and sectors that employ most women – such as services industries and the public sector – as well as the types of innovations most common in these industries – such as service innovations and social innovations – are marginalized (Andersson et al, 2012). This means that power and resources are often unevenly distributed between women and men in these platforms. Studies suggest that the
Based on the combined insights from studies on gender in innovation and social innovation, the concept of ‘gendered social innovation’ has been elaborated in order to enhance the knowledge development regarding gendered transformation in innovation systems (Lindberg et al, 2015; Lindberg and Berglund, 2016). It refers to the identification of gender inequality as a societal and organizational challenge in regard to specific areas such as employment, education or entrepreneurship, as a basis for developing innovative solutions that counteract segregating and hierarchical patterns of gender in these areas. It thus helps pinpoint and analyze initiatives and mechanisms for the innovative transformation of gendered structures in organizations and society.
Research design
The research design consists of a comparative case study of two co-creative platforms for academia-society cooperation in Sweden: The Gender Academy and Gender Contact Point. These are rewarding to study since they provide valuable insights into the role of co-creative platforms for enforcing the societal impact and the societal relevance of research on gender issues. The primary criterion for the selection of these cases is thus relevance, rather than randomness, in line with recommendations for comparative case studies (cf. Yin, 2009; Wiebe et al, 2010). The relevance of these Swedish cases is based on their potential to add to the existing research on gender in regional innovation systems (cf. Andersson et al, 2012; Alsos et al, 2016). The comparative case study design makes it possible to gain in-depth insights into each case, while also distinguishing multi-faceted patterns of similarities and differences between them. This has helped identify similarities and differences regarding the platforms’ aims, organization, strategies and challenges described in the subsequent parts of this chapter.
The in-depth and multi-faceted data from the case studies were enhanced by a participatory research approach, where researchers and stakeholders jointly investigated the topic in question (cf. Aagaard Nielsen and Svensson, 2006). This approach is inherent in the platforms, due to their purpose of enabling joint development of new knowledge and measures through academia-society cooperation. Continuous interaction between researchers and stakeholders, described further later, has, consequently, taken place throughout the entire process from the initial identification of relevant topics
The data collection for the study discussed here was carried out during a three-year period, 2018–20, through a combination of participatory observations of platform activities, individual and group interviews with the researchers, facilitators and stakeholders involved in the platforms, as well as document analyses of project plans, external communication, internal meeting minutes and the digital tools developed in the platforms. In The Gender Academy, participatory observations were carried out at ten regular meetings of the university’s project team, documented in field notes. Eighteen semi-structured qualitative interviews with individual researchers, facilitators and companies were conducted, documented in field notes. In addition, two workshops were carried out with the university’s project team, where the planning and progress of the platform were discussed for the sake of this study, documented in field notes. In Gender Contact Point, participatory observations were carried out at 17 regular meetings of the university’s project team, documented in field notes. Participatory observations were thereto carried out at three of the platform’s workshops with researchers and stakeholders, and documented in field notes. In addition, one joint workshop was carried out with the project teams from both platforms, where their organization, management, stakeholder engagement, challenges and results were discussed and compared for the purposes of this study. These were documented in a transcribed recording. The collected data were analyzed by means of a thematic analysis approach, where the character and variations of the studied cases were distinguished regarding their aims, organization, strategies and challenges (cf. Guest et al, 2012).
No ethics approval was required for this study, since it did not concern any of the application areas regulated in the Swedish Law of Ethical Review (2003: 460). It did, however, require some ethical considerations, as individuals were continuously involved in the research process, through meetings, interviews and participatory observations. In this, the study was guided by the ethical guidelines provided by The Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet, 2017) as well as the extensive discussion on research ethics in the literature on the applied participatory research approach (cf. Aagaard Nielsen and Svensson, 2006). Informed consent was, for example, applied
The Gender Academy
Aim and organization
The Gender Academy1 was initiated in 2016 by Karlstad University – situated in the region of Värmland in central Sweden – in order to create a permanent platform for university-society cooperation on knowledge-based gender equality practices. The platform is part of the Centre for Gender Studies at Karlstad University and their research profile Action for Organisational Change. It is also part of a regional declaration of intent for university-society cooperation on smart specialization, signed by the university and the regional county council. The establishment of the platform was preceded by several individual projects on similar topics, involving university researchers, industrial companies and public authorities. During 2017–20, it was managed by the university as part of an ERDF-funded project that aimed to improve the competitive advantage, innovation capacity and gender equality among small and medium-sized companies (SMEs) through knowledge-based gender equality practices. The project plan stated that this would be achieved through joint learning by university researchers and company representatives, where they jointly manage gender equality measures in the companies, workshops with all companies for mutual learning, as well as the development of a digital tool for guiding gender equality measures in SMEs.
The Gender Academy involved managers and employees from eight companies, as well as representatives from the county council and business promoters in the region. The participating companies are mainly small and medium-sized, producing products and services primarily in male-dominated industries such as ICT, transports, steels and foods, except for one company that operates in the female-dominated wellness industry. The main incentive for the companies to engage with The Gender Academy was, according to the project plan and interviews with four of them, to gain access to useful knowledge and practical measures for improving their competitiveness and attractiveness through a more diverse workforce, a better work environment and by better meeting market demands. As SMEs, they have limited internal resources – in the form of expertise, staff and funding – to manage gender equality measures on their own and are thus in need of external support and practical tools for guidance.
Strategies and challenges
The limited internal resources among SMEs make it difficult for them to prioritize time-consuming development processes. This has complicated the recruitment and participation of companies in The Gender Academy, according to the interviews with the project team and the companies. Extensive dialogues between the university’s team and company managements have often been required to seal the deal. Since the companies differ in size, industry and operations, which implies varying needs and preconditions, it has been fruitful to identify each company’s specific needs and to tailor the process accordingly. The applied measures in The Gender Academy such as surveys, interviews, observations and workshops, have consequently been customized to each company. The use of surveys has proven difficult in the smallest companies, since the anonymity among the few employees is likely to be compromised. For this reason alternative measures have been used there, such as ‘norm tours’ where employees and the university’s team jointly identified gendered norms in various parts of their workplaces.
The companies’ differences have also restricted their benefits of exchanging experiences at the joint workshops and complicated the compilation and communication of results from The Gender Academy, according to the interviews with the project team and participatory observations of their meetings. The results have nevertheless formed the basis for developing a digital tool – named iGen2 – that guides gender equality measures in various types of SMEs and other organizations. The tool presents knowledge, measures and examples in an inspiring and interactive manner. It was
A continuous challenge has been to advance the joint process because of recurrent changes in the stakeholders’ ability and willingness to prioritize participation due to personnel turnover, re-organization, ownership transfer and market fluctuation, according to interviews with the project team and the companies. The joint process has been further hampered by persistent resistance towards advancements among some stakeholder participants, expressed either as outright discredit of the applied measures and anticipated results or implicit refusal to scrutinize their operations or implement planned measures. Some managers have, for example, reacted with disbelief when receiving the results from surveys conducted among their employees. Others have restricted the university team’s access to certain parts of their everyday operations. Some initially expressed a positive and progressive approach to gender equality in their companies, while preserving the status quo in practice by prioritizing their everyday business. These challenges have been addressed by further tailoring the activities and interactions to the stakeholders’ needs and preconditions, with varying degree of success.
Gender Contact Point
Aim and organization
Gender Contact Point3 was initiated in 2014 by Luleå University of Technology – situated in the region of Norrbotten in northern Sweden – in order to create a permanent platform for university-society cooperation on knowledge-based gender equality practices. The platform is part of an alliance of several departments at Luleå University of Technology. The establishment of the platform was preceded by several individual projects on similar topics, involving university researchers, industrial companies, public authorities and other stakeholders. During 2018–20, it was managed by the university as part of an ERDF-funded project called Gender Smart Arena4 that aimed at smart, sustainable and inclusive growth through gender-equal business models in SMEs and other organizations. This was to be achieved through joint learning by researchers, companies and municipalities in the form of workshops where a framework for gender-equal business models is jointly developed. The framework formed the basis for the development of a digital tool for guiding gender equality measures in industrial SMEs and other organizations.
Gender Smart Arena was managed by a project team from the university, with a project manager and researchers with expertise in gender and gender equality practices in relation to relevant fields, such as business models, design, ethics, entrepreneurship, innovation and ICT. Their main incentive to engage in the project was, according to the project plan and participatory observations of their meetings, to develop new knowledge on gendered patterns and gendered transformation among SMEs and other organizations. The university’s team met regularly in order to plan and evaluate the project activities. They arranged workshops with participants from the ICT companies and municipalities involved, as well as open seminars with a broader range of stakeholders, which involved inspirational talks by invited speakers as well as presentations and discussions of preliminary project results. The university’s team also managed the development of the digital tool for guiding gender equality measures.
Strategies and challenges
Gender Smart Arena was preceded by another ERDF-funded project, where ICT companies and researchers jointly translated research results into practical tools for guiding gender equality measures. This resulted in a tool for gender-equal recruitment and a perceived potential to develop a practically useful framework for gender-equal business models, and motivated the initiation of the Gender Smart Arena project. In the latter project researchers and stakeholders jointly developed such a framework, which helps to analyze and advance the stakeholders’ regular operations from a gender perspective. This means that specific activities and areas in their operations and organizations are pinpointed where gendered patterns are formed and reinforced. The stakeholders found that this makes it easier for them to identify manageable issues to address in their everyday work, instead of being overwhelmed by
In order to make practical use of the framework, a digital tool – named Richer Business5 – was developed as part of the project. The tool helps guide gender equality measures in SMEs and other organizations by presenting a number of practical scenarios of gender inequality in various parts of the organization, as well as reflective queries for relating each scenario to the user’s own organization. It also provides links to measures, examples and literature related to each scenario. The tool was developed in cooperation with a professional communication agency, specialized in digital formats with a gender equality perspective. It differs from pre-existing tools in that it offers a solid academic knowledge base and a design that matches the needs and preconditions of SMEs and other organizations with limited internal resources.
A continuous challenge has been to schedule joint meetings and workshops, due to calendar mismatches and the participants’ prioritization of regular operations, according to participatory observations of team meetings and stakeholder workshops. This has postponed several planned activities, which means that the joint process has been slower and less participatory than anticipated. The participation has been further delimited by difficulties to engage men and women to an equal extent, resulting in a female-dominated representation from both the stakeholders and the university. This challenge has been addressed by initiating cooperation with other industrial networks and projects, where more men are involved. Another challenge has been to reconcile the stakeholders’ main interest in improved competitiveness and attractiveness and the researchers’ main interest in improved insights into gendered patterns and practices. When meeting, the participants have nevertheless appreciated the mutual exchange of knowledge and experiences, engendering continuous insights that they can apply in their everyday work. In order to further extend this exchange, knowledge exchange and results dissemination to a wider national and international audience has been prioritized by the university’s team.
Analysis
Co-creative forms and forums
Gender Contact Point and The Gender Academy share the ambition to establish permanent platforms for academia-society cooperation on knowledge-based gender equality practices, primarily in industrial companies. Their involvement of researchers from the university as well as managers and employees from companies and public organizations aligns with the multi-actor and multi-level mobilization of various societal sectors,
Gender Contact Point and The Gender Academy also share similarities with the co-creative forums and forms highlighted in studies of social innovation, where new solutions to societal and organizational challenges are developed through and for social inclusion (cf. Moulaert et al, 2013; Nicholls et al, 2015). Since the social inclusion in the platforms regards gender-focussed processes in regional networks of stakeholders, it is also similar to previous research on gender in regional innovation systems (cf. Andersson et al, 2012; Alsos et al, 2016). And since the platforms aim at improved knowledge and practices on gender equality, they also reflect previous research on ‘gendered social innovation’ (cf. Lindberg et al, 2015; Lindberg and Berglund, 2016). Specific forms of social innovation, perceivable in The Gender Academy and Gender Contact Point, are new cooperations in terms of researcher and stakeholder networks, new processes in terms of the joint development of new knowledge and measures, new methods in terms of knowledge-based gender equality measures, as well as new services in terms of digital tools for guiding gender equality measures (cf. Moulaert et al, 2013; Nicholls et al, 2015).
Mediating interests
In contrast to the most common co-creative constellations in social innovation – that include civil society organizations and public authorities – The Gender Academy and Gender Contact Point primarily involve universities and companies, and to some extent local and regional authorities (cf. Howaldt et al, 2018). The platforms nevertheless differ from each other in their stakeholder involvement, since Gender Contact Point involves the public sector actors more actively and The Gender Academy
These conflicting interests were mediated in Gender Contact Point and The Gender Academy by framing the academic scrutiny of the stakeholders’ preconditions and potentials as a way to help improve the soundness and effectiveness of the applied measures for gender equality, and thus improve the stakeholders’ competitiveness and attractiveness. The need among stakeholders for external support and practical tools to guide their gender equality measures – especially among SMEs due to their limited internal resources – may have enhanced the mediation. The digital tools, developed in both The Gender Academy and Gender Contact Point, manifest this mediation by compiling and communicating the developed knowledge, measures and examples in a manner that is easily accessible and useful for SMEs and other organizations. This mediation reflects the participatory research approach applied in both platforms, which emphasizes the mutual reinforcement of societal impact and societal relevance of science and innovation, here in the form of research on knowledge-based gender equality measures (cf. Aagaard Nielsen and Svensson, 2006; Gunnarsson et al, 2015).
Societal impact and relevance of research on gender issues
Gender Contact Point and The Gender Academy both aspire to improve the societal impact and the societal relevance of science and innovation, by establishing permanent platforms for university-society cooperation on knowledge-based gender equality practices. Previous studies of social innovation help distinguish the platforms’ potentials and challenges for structural transformation in organizations and society (cf. Haxeltine et al, 2017; Westley et al, 2017). The joint development of new knowledge and measures in the platforms, through co-creative forms and forums, has the potential to challenge, change or replace existing understandings, solutions and institutions among the involved actors, in line with previous findings on how to achieve structural transformation (cf. Haxeltine et al, 2017; Westley
The transformative potential of The Gender Academy and Gender Contact Point share similarities with the previously discussed potential of gendered transformation in regional innovation systems (cf. Andersson et al, 2012; Alsos et al, 2016). The similarities primarily regard the potential to expand the range of actors, industries and innovations involved in co-creative platforms for societal impact and societal relevance of science and innovation, in a way that challenges, changes or replaces prevalent gendered patterns of segregation and hierarchy between women and men. There are also similarities with the previously highlighted potential of ‘gendered social innovation’ to develop innovative solutions that counteract segregating and hierarchical patterns of gender in various areas (cf. Lindberg et al, 2015; Lindberg and Berglund, 2016). The realization of these transformative potentials of Gender Contact Point and The Gender Academy is, according to studies of social innovation, dependent on simultaneous changes on the individual, organizational and societal levels (cf. Haxeltine et al, 2017; Westley et al, 2017).
On the individual level, transformative potential in The Gender Academy and Gender Contact Point might be distinguished in the form of increased use of academic knowledge on gendered patterns and gendered transformation among stakeholder employees, on the one hand, and increased know-how among researchers on how to collect, compile and communicate insights on these patterns and potentials, on the other. On the organizational level, a similar potential might be distinguished in the form of long-term commitment among the universities, companies and public authorities to promote and participate in the platforms and their co-creative processes, as well as improved gender equality in the stakeholders’ organizations as a result of their participation. On the societal level, such potential might be distinguished in the form of an improved ability of these and other regional innovation systems to address complex societal and organizational challenges, by reinforcing the societal impact and the societal relevance of research on gender issues. There are, however, currently no plans for continued measurement of the platforms’ long-term impact on these levels.
These multi-level potentials of Gender Contact Point and The Gender Academy are, in the light of social innovation studies, determined by complex interactions between the societal institutions that frame and regulate forms and forums for societal impact and relevance of science and innovation,
Taken together, the comparative case study of The Gender Academy and Gender Contact Point presented in this chapter shows that they largely align with the tradition of co-creation in the design field and other fields, where new insights and solutions are jointly developed by experts, users and other stakeholders for innovative transformation of gendered structures in organizations and society (cf. Sanders and Stappers, 2008). By establishing co-creative platforms, they have the potential to reinforce the societal impact and the societal relevance of research on gender issues, based on their similar and different aims, organization, strategies and challenges. This is in line with the highlighted trend of using such platforms to improve the societal impact and relevance of science and innovation in general (cf. Mauser et al, 2013; Owen et al, 2013; Reypens et al, 2016).
Acknowledgements
The research presented in this chapter was funded by The European Regional Development Fund and the subject of Design at Luleå University of Technology, Sweden.
Notes
References
Aagaard Nielsen, K. and Svensson, L. (eds) (2006) Action Research and Participatory Research, Maastricht: Shaker Publishing.
Alsos, G.A., Hytti, U. and Ljunggren, E. (eds) (2016) Research Handbook on Gender and Innovation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Andersson, S., Berglund, K., Gunnarsson, E. and Sundin, E. (eds) (2012) Promoting Innovation: Policies, Practices and Procedures, Stockholm: VINNOVA.
Baraldi, E., Lindahl, M. and Severinsson, K. (2016) ‘A proactive approach to the utilization of academic research: the case of Uppsala University’s AIMday’, Science and Public Policy, 43(5): 613–21.
Beunen, R., Duineveld, M., During, R., Straver, G. and Aalvanger, A. (2012) ‘Reflexivity in performative science shop projects’, Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement, 5: 135–51.
Dutilleul, B., Birrer, F.A.J. and Mensink, W. (2010) ‘Unpacking European living labs: analysing innovation’s social dimensions’, Central European Journal of Public Policy, 4(1): 60–85.
Edvik, A. and Björk, F. (2016) ‘Social change through temporary, short-term interventions: the role of legitimacy in organizing social innovations’, in L. Andersen, M. Gawell and R. Spear (eds) Social Entrepreneurship and Social Enterprises: Nordic Perspectives, New York: Routledge.
European Union (2016) Open Innovation, Open Science, Open to the World,Brussels: European Commission.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K.M. and Namey, E.E. (2012) Applied Thematic Analysis, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gunnarsson, E., Hansen, H.P., Steen Nielsen, B. and Sriskandarajah, N. (eds) (2015) Action Research for Democracy: New Ideas and Perspectives from Scandinavia, New York: Routledge.
Haxeltine, A., Pel, B., Dumitru, A., Avelino, F., Kemp, R., Bauler, T., Kunze, I., Dorland, J., Wittmayer, J. and Jørgensen, M.S. (2017) Towards a TSI Theory: A Relational Framework and 12 Propositions, working paper from The TRANSIT project, EU SSH.2013.3.2-1.
Howaldt, J., Kaletka, C., Schröder, A. and Zirngiebl, M. (eds) (2018) Atlas of Social Innovation: New Practices for a Better Future, Dortmund: TU Dortmund University.
Lindberg, M. and Berglund, K.-E. (2016) ‘Gendered social innovation: a new research stream for gender inclusive innovation policy, research and practice’, in G.A. Alsos, U. Hytti and E. Ljunggren (eds) Research Handbook on Gender and Innovation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp 214–28.
Lindberg, M., Forsberg, L. and Karlberg, H. (2015) ‘Gendered social innovation: a theoretical lens for analysing structural transformation in organisations and society’, International Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 3(6): 472–83.
Mauser, W., Klepper, G., Rice, M., Schmalzbauer, B.M., Hackmann, H., Leemans, R. and Moore, H. (2013) ‘Transdisciplinary global change research: the co-creation of knowledge for sustainability’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5: 420–31.
Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D., Mehmood, A. and Hamdouch, A. (eds) (2013) The International Handbook on Social Innovation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Nevens, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Gorissen, L. and Loorbach, D. (2013) ‘Urban transition labs: co-creating transformative action for sustainable cities’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 50: 111–22.
Nicholls, A., Simon, J. and Gabriel, M. (eds) (2015) New Frontiers in Social Innovation Research, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Owen, R., Bessant, J.R. and Heintz, M. (eds) (2013) Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Reypens, C., Lievens, A. and Blazevicc, V. (2016) ‘Leveraging value in multi-stakeholder innovation networks: a process framework for value co-creation and capture’, Industrial Marketing Management, 56: 40–50.
Sanders, E.B.N. and Stappers, P.J. (2008) ‘Co-creation and the new landscapes of design’, CoDesign International Codesign, 4(1): 5–18.
Swedish Law of Ethical Review (2003) Lag (2003:460) om etikprövning av forskning som avser människor [About Ethics Reviews of Research Involving Humans], Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet.
The Knowledge Coalition (2016) Portfolio for Research and Innovation: Cooperation, Creativity, Game Changers, Amsterdam: The Knowledge Coalition.
Vetenskapsrådet (2017) God forskningssed [Good Research Practice], Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet.
Westley, F., McGowan, K. and Tjörnbo, O. (eds) (2017) The Evolution of Social Innovation: Building Resilience Through Transitions, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Wiebe, E., Mills, A.J. and Durepos, G. (2010) Encyclopedia of Case Study Research, Los Angeles: Sage.
Yin, R.K. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, London: Sage.
