Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales

ISSN 1012-1587/ ISSNe: 2477-9385

Depósito legal pp. 198402ZU45

Portada: Allí estás!

Artista: Rodrigo Pirela

Medidas: 50 x 30 cm

Técnica: Mixta sobre tela

Año: 2011

Año 38, Regular No.97 (2022): 20-46

ISSN 1012-1587/ISSNe: 2477-9385

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7486085

Recibido: 01-01-2022 •Aceptado: 21-02-2022

Social Creative Economy: A prototype for Social

Innovation

Javier Castro Spila

SOCINNOVA (España), e Investigador Asociado en Ecole Supérieure

des Technologies Industrielles Avancées (ESTIA) (Francia)

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1433-7734

jcastro@socinnova.net

David Alonso González

Universidad Complutense de Madrid, España

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8876-8916

dalonso@ucm.es

Abstract

This article presents the concept of "social creative economy"

as a pragmatic model to promote social innovation in the creative

economy. Throughout the text it describes the methodology (Agile

Labs and collaborative experimentation) for the design of Pilot

Actions (cultural experiences) co-developed among groups at risk of

exclusion, social enterprises and organizations of the creative

economy. The article presents three key concepts: social creative

economy, social innovation in the creative economy and Agile Labs as

an experimental platform for the promotion of the social creative

economy. This model boost social enterprises as catalysts for social

innovations.

Keywords: Social creative economy, agile labs, social

innovation, collaborative experimentation.

Economía Social Creativa: Un prototipo para la

Innovación Social

Resumen

Este artículo presenta el concepto de "economía social

creativa" como modelo pragmático para promover la innovación

social en la economía creativa. A lo largo del texto se describe la

metodología (Agile Labs y experimentación colaborativa) para el

diseño de Acciones Piloto (experiencias culturales) codesarrolladas

entre colectivos en riesgo de exclusión, empresas sociales y

21

Javier Castro Spila et al.

Opción, Año 38, Regular No.97 (2022): 19-46

Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. FEC-LUZ

organizaciones de la economía creativa. El artículo presenta tres

conceptos clave: economía creativa social, innovación social en la

economía creativa y Agile Labs como plataforma experimental para la

promoción de la economía creativa social. Este modelo impulsa las

empresas sociales como catalizadoras de innovaciones sociales.

Palabras clave: Economía Social Creativa, Agile Labs,

Innovación Social, Experimentación Colaborativa.

1. Introduction

The cultural industries, cultural heritage and creative industries

have been analysed from different institutional and academic

perspectives. There is extensive literature that discusses the sectors and

sub-sectors that compose them (Brithish Council, 2010; DCMS, 2001;

UNTACD, 2008), their spatial distribution (BAGWELL, 2009;

FLORIDA, 2011; WAITT & GIBBONS, 2009), their talent (creativeness

kind) and their relation to social development (FLORIDA, 2002, 2014;

MARKUSEN, 2006; PRATT, 2008); their connection to public policies

(CUNNINGHAM, 2018; GALLOWAY & DUNLOP, 2007;

GARNHAM, 2005), their clusterisation strategies (BAGWELL, 2009;

HARVEY et al., 2012; PRATT, 2018), and their relation to cultural

tourism (HELGADOTTIR, 2011), among other relationships.

All these relations have been articulated around the concept of the

creative economy (HOWKINGS, 2001; UNTACD, 2008; WAITT &

GIBBONS, 2009). The creative economy is generally defined as the

interface between creativity, culture, technology, and market within the

framework of the creative industries. The creative economy promotes job

creation and export earnings while promoting social inclusion, cultural

diversity and human development. It embraces economic, cultural and

social aspects interacting with technology, intellectual property and

tourism objectives; at the heart of the creative economy are the creative

industries (UNTACD, 2008: 15). There is a significant effort to

demonstrate that the creative economy represents a clear opportunity for

social inclusion and socio-economic development of cities and regions

(FLORIDA, 2014; STERN & SEIFERT, 2008; UNTACD, 2008).

However, while recognising the social impact of the creative economy,

there is no model that connects the creative economy to social inclusion

beyond general statements and a social cohesion rhetoric.

Social Creative Economy: A prototype for Social Innovatio 22

Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. FEC-LUZ

The aim of this paper is to introduce the concept of "social

creative economy". Whereas the creative economy links creativity with

market opportunities through technological innovation and its digital

technologies; the social creative economy links creativity with

opportunities for social inclusion through social innovation and its

social technologies. This double role of creativity-oriented to the

market / oriented towards social inclusion- is conceptualised in this

article as the double helix of creativity. This notion of double helix

implies that creativity is a social process (WILSON, 2010) that can be

spurred in different directions by the design of creative-fostering

contexts (AMABILE, 1998; CUMMINGS & OLDHAM, 1997) and

the drive of collaborative models (UZZI & SPIRO, 2005) for

knowledge generation. Thus, creativity can be a driving force for both

technological innovations and social innovations (MARCY &

MUMFORD, 2007; MUMFORD, 2002; OLIVEIRA & BREDA-

VÁSQUES, 2012).

How can creativity-fostering contexts and collaborative models

be developed to boost creativity in the social creative economy? The

article offers an operational concept of collaborative experimentation.

Collaborative experimentation has been conceptualised within the

framework of collaborative research which is the process of

multidisciplinary collaboration across multiple organisations

(CUMMINGS & KIESLER, 2005). Collaborative experimentation is

a relational competence for the co-production (designing,

prototyping, testing and transferring) of knowledge by asymmetrical

participants in conditions of uncertainty.

The methodology to stabilise these interactions -Agile labs and

collaborative experimentation- allows for the prototyping of Pilot

Actions (cultural experiences) by groups at risk of exclusion and social

enterprises, together with organisations of the creative economy

(organisations classified as cultural and creative industries, and cultural

heritage).

The article is a contribution to a better understanding of the

relationship between social innovation, social enterprises and the

creative economy. It provides a model of how social innovations are

created, legitimated, absorbed and institutionalised in the creative

economy through the intermediary role of social enterprises.

23

Javier Castro Spila et al.

Opción, Año 38, Regular No.97 (2022): 19-46

Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. FEC-LUZ

The paper is organised into four sections. The first section is

devoted to the difference between the creative economy and the

social creative economy, establishing parameters for action. The

second section is an introduction of the concept of social enterprises

conceived as catalysers of social innovation in the creative economy.

The third section is focused on the methodological framework of the

social creative economy. Agile Labs and collaborative experimentation

are a model that facilitates the pragmatical articulation between groups

at risk of exclusion, social enterprises with organisations of the

creative economy. Lastly, the concluding section is dedicated to final

remarks and the description of some impacts of the model.

2. Framing the scene

2.1. Creative Economy

The creative economy is a relatively new concept. In general

terms, the creative economy conceives creativity as the driving force

for a globalised, increasingly technological economy. The creative

economy is a socio-technical network based on 6 basic principles: the

invention of an industry (the creative industries), the boost of a

privileged technology (the digital technologies), the circumscription to

a prevailing spatiality (the creative cities), the development of a

particular type of human resources (the creative class, artists and

engineers), and the academic and institutional diffusion of a particular

development model (the creative economy).

Thus, the creative economy is the result of a political process,

the clustering of very heterogeneous cultural and technological sectors

(theatre, music, museums, software, architecture, video games, etc.)

These inorganic agglomerations make it possible to structure an

"economic entity" sufficient enough to justify an institutional and

political intervention (policies, resources and discourses) in order to

steer creativity towards the market (O’CONNOR, 2000; WILSON,

2010).

The first sectoral clustering initiative to drive creativity into the

market is the "cultural industries". The Frankfurt School has already

advised about the cultural industry understood as the mass

consumption of culture, that is, the commodification (in the Fordist

Social Creative Economy: A prototype for Social Innovatio 24

Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. FEC-LUZ

sense) of culture and the consequential loss of authenticity and

originality of cultural artefacts (ADORNO & RABINBACH, 1975).

This critical perspective anticipated very early on the dilemma

between the economic dimension (profitability and consumption) and

the cultural dimension (originality and identity) of cultural industries.

Despite the warning, international organisations such as UNESCO

encourage the artificial agglomeration among highly heterogeneous

economic and artistic sectors (cinema, music, TV, radio, plastic arts,

theatre) (UNESCO, 1982) as a strategic means of boosting the link

between culture and economy and establishing a field suitable for

institutional intervention.

The second sectoral clustering initiative intended to boost

creativity in the market is the "creative industries". These constitute a

political response to the emerging role of new technologies (ICT) in

the global economy and to the problem of capitalising on and

profiting from their creativity. It is for this reason that the first

definitions of creative industries are concerned with industries and

sectors (design, software, video games, etc.) whose products are (or

may be) subject to intellectual property rights (DCMS, 2001).

Finally, the cultural heritage field constitutes the stage of the

third clustering wave. Originally, the cultural heritage field was limited

to monuments (considered as art objects), historic cities, and the

preservation of antiques. At present, cultural heritage has extended

from tangible to intangible and even digital heritage, thus encouraging

the transition from memorials (recovery and preservation) to

experiences (innovation and transformation) (AHMAD, 2006;

MUNJERI, 2004; VECCO, 2010). With this new impetus, cultural

heritage has transformed into a complex and transdisciplinary

approach, which supports a set of heterogeneous developments: a)

the exploitation of the creativity of cities, based on new ways of

valorising local culture; b) the improvement of social inclusion by

facilitating and promoting the building of cultural identities, and

rooting citizens to the heritage (tangible/intangible); c) the boost of

economic development by fostering different business models and

types of cultural tourism; and d) the increase of urban development,

by preserving and reinventing urban areas (old factories, districts,

docks, etc.); thus modifying urban landscapes (HOSAGRAHAR et al.,

2016).

25

Javier Castro Spila et al.

Opción, Año 38, Regular No.97 (2022): 19-46

Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. FEC-LUZ

2.2. Social Creative Economy

Unlike the creative economy, with its long history of clustering,

the social creative economy has not yet been developed neither in

academic nor in institutional literature. For the moment, it is an

experimental concept that relates the social economy to the creative

economy.

The social economy is a long-established paradigm that

promotes a set of social values (solidarity, mutuality, cooperation) that

go beyond the values associated with the market (benefits,

profitability, competitiveness). Thus, the social economy fosters social

and inclusive entrepreneurship and the creation of business

organisations that operate in markets with social purposes and under

the principles of solidarity and cooperation. Many of the activities of

the social economy are related to those of the third sector (non-for-

profit, NGOs), thus encouraging hybrid activities (monetary/non-

monetary) oriented towards the inclusion of vulnerable groups to

favour their transformation into agents and citizens economically and

politically active.

All these principles of the social economy are not present in the

conceptual or practical corpus of the creative economy. This way, the

Social Creative Economy seeks to set a new scenario for social

enterprises and social innovation as drivers of social cohesion within

the creative economy.

In practical terms, the Social Creative Economy can be defined

as the socio-economic space in which creativity and social problems

are connected to create opportunities for social inclusion through

knowledge alliances between vulnerable groups, social enterprises and

organisations of the creative economy (museums, software

companies, video games industry, theatres, archaeological sites,

sustainable cultural tourism, etc.).

In figure 1 the double helix of creativity is presented through

the differences between the social creative economy and the creative

economy. Some dimensions allow to compare them: the place of

creativity, key agents, the creative context, the place of the creative

industries, clustering and alliances, the relations of knowledge, the

Social Creative Economy: A prototype for Social Innovatio 26

Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. FEC-LUZ

spatial scope of the impact, the dynamics of innovation and the type

of value chain that both types of economy give rise to.

27

Javier Castro Spila et al.

Opción, Año 38, Regular No.97 (2022): 19-46

Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. FEC-LUZ

3. Framing the concepts

3.1. Understanding the social innovation process: anomalies and

institutionalisation

Social innovation is a "quasi-concept", which is plural and

fragmented in nature, and is scattered across different fields and

disciplines (sociology, economics, political science, communication,

anthropology, design) and policy domains (CAJAIBA-SANTANA, 2014;

VAN DER HAVE & RUBALCABA, 2016; SIEGLER, 2017).

In this paper, social innovation is understood as the creation of

resilience strategies embedded in products, methods or services to

develop mechanisms focused on the inclusion of vulnerable groups

(CASTRO SPILA et al., 2016; ALONSO, 2021; WESTLEY, 2008).

Vulnerable groups are those social groups that share one or more

common attributes (age, sex, ethical condition, health, economic, cultural

condition, etc.) and which are exposed to risks of exclusion (in a higher

proportion than other social groups). Vulnerability is the relationship

between exposure to risk (social, economic, institutional or

environmental) and the relative inability to cope with or adapt to it

(CASTRO-SPILA et al., 2016).

By this definition, social innovation is a micro-process focused on

specific target groups, which changes the concrete conditions of

exclusion (technological, social, cultural and institutional) and enhances

their competencies (reducing their vulnerabilities). In this sense, social

innovation is a process for empowering people through identifiable and

measurable results.

In this model, social innovation does not refer to the solution of

social problems in a general sense (BONIFACIO, 2014), but to the fact

that focusing on the inclusion of vulnerable groups, social innovation

creates the conditions to solve an anomaly (CASTRO SPILA et al.,

2016). An anomaly is a dimension of a social problem that cannot be

addressed with the knowledge and resources available inside the localised

institutional mainstream. The mainstream articulates ways to resolve (or

not) anomalies within the local (or national) standard of welfare. An

anomaly is not a generalised social problem, but rather a specific one that

produces specific vulnerabilities for which the institutional context does

not have any satisfactory solution. Thus, an anomaly is a specific problem

that exposes a general inability of the prevailing paradigm to solve

problems of such a nature (KUHN, 2012).

Social Creative Economy: A prototype for Social Innovatio 28

Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. FEC-LUZ

In this model of social innovation, the anomalies are the starting

point for social innovation. In this model, the social innovation process

has four phases (figure 2):

1) Exploration phase: In this phase social innovation works

understanding the anomaly, transforming the social problem into a causal

hypothesis, defining the problem in manageable and solvable dimensions

(UNCETA et al., 2016). In this phase, social participation (vulnerable

groups) has a contributory character and the production of knowledge is

focused on the capture of existing knowledge to understand the problem,

generate ideas and prototype solutions.

2) Experimental phase: In this phase the social innovation works

selecting and testing solutions (failure, error, with partial success of

inclusion of vulnerable groups), redesigning solutions, searching for

resources, and modelling solutions (demonstration). In this phase,

interactive participation is key, and the production of knowledge is

focused on the creation of new knowledge by means of experimentation.

3) Exploitation phase: In this phase the social innovation works

implementing solutions, developing social business models and creating a

demonstration strategy based on good practice. Participation is

experimental (using, adopting, re-testing solutions) based on incremental

innovation. At this point, the new knowledge expands.

4) Expansion phase: In this phase the social innovation is

integrated into the mainstream (generalisation of the solution) without

implying a systemic change (CASTRO SPILA et al., 2016) but rather a

new framework that allows re-engaging vulnerable populations in our

mainstream economic, social and cultural institutions (WESTLEY &

ANTANDSE, 2010). In the expanding process, the participation is

transformational, changing the rules; the vulnerable groups are

empowered, and the conditions of vulnerability have changed.

This approach focused on anomalies (specific vulnerabilities and

target groups), understands social innovation as an institutionalisation

process to transform a specific mainstream way to solve a type of social

problem that results in vulnerabilities. The model aims at the

empowerment of vulnerable groups, by promoting the development of

new skills and changing their peripheral participation (LAVE et al., 2001)

into transformative participation. Social innovation understood in this

way promotes a process in which vulnerable groups go through different

phases taking different roles (contributors, experimenters and exploiters),

29

Javier Castro Spila et al.

Opción, Año 38, Regular No.97 (2022): 19-46

Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. FEC-LUZ

creating a collective-learning some that empowers them due to the

different forms and intensities in which their participation takes place.

3.2. Understanding Social Enterprise: absorptive capacity for

social innovation

The ability to generate social innovations depends on the

absorptive capacity of organisations(UNCETA et al., 2016). The

absorptive capacity refers to the organisational ability to capture and

transform external knowledge, based on the internal knowledge of the

organisation, in order to create and exploit innovations (COHEN &

LEVINTHAL, 1990; SAHRA & GEORGE, 2002). On the one hand,

absorptive capacity draws attention to models of internal knowledge

Social Creative Economy: A prototype for Social Innovatio 30

Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. FEC-LUZ

management (NONAKA et al., 2006); on the other hand, it focuses on

models of external knowledge management (VANHAVERBEKE,

2006). This knowledge dynamics (internal-external, external-internal)

has been conceptualised as open innovation, innovation networks, or

knowledge alliances between organisations (BLOMQVIST & LEVY,

2006; CHESBROUGH & APPLEYARD, 2007; TSAI, 2001).

However, in recent years, co-creation models have emerged strongly

as innovation strategies in which not only other organisations but also

users, stakeholders and civil society are included as co-producers of

knowledge and innovation (BALDWIN & VON HIPPEL, 2011;

VON HIPPEL, 2009; KASADI et al., 2016).

Social enterprises can be understood as business models, in

which the primary objective is to meet unmet social demands and the

profits are reinvested in the development of opportunities for social

improvement rather than in the maximisation of return HARDING,

2004). Social enterprises are organised by institutional principles

rather than by market principles (DART, 2004; KOKKO, 2018).

In this article, social enterprises are conceptualised from the

perspective of the absorptive capacity in order to develop social

innovations. That is, from the ability to integrate external knowledge

departing from internal knowledge in order to generate products,

services or models that facilitate the integration of vulnerable groups

or at risk of exclusion. In this case, it is about ambidextrous ability to

cooperate with organisations and collaborate with stakeholders,

vulnerable groups and communities (DEFOURNY & NYSSENS,

2008).

From the perspective of absorptive capacity (Q), social

enterprises must deploy the following set of competencies to drive

social innovations (CASTRO-SPILA et al., 2016):

Q1: Exploration capabilities

Exploration capabilities refer to the set of organisational

capabilities from which social problems are interpreted and social

innovation opportunities are explored. These capabilities are

operationalised in three dimensions:

31

Javier Castro Spila et al.

Opción, Año 38, Regular No.97 (2022): 19-46

Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. FEC-LUZ

1.1. Level of knowledge acquired (capacity to interpret

problems) made up of three factors: degree of disciplinary diversity of

HR; level of training achieved by HR; HR’s degree of experience to

develop social innovation activities.

1.2 Level of learning (capacity to socialise internal knowledge)

composed by two factors: degree of diversity of the internal

mechanisms of socialisation of knowledge; degree of diversity of the

actions of permanent training for the development of new ideas

linked to social innovation (creativity).

1.3. Level of external linking (capacity to identify social

innovation opportunities) made up of two factors: degree of diversity

of the actions aimed at identifying social problems as sources of

potential innovations (local and global); degree of diversity

competencies to adopt/adapt social innovations already developed

(social innovations’ bank) (local and global).

Q2: Experimentation capabilities

Experimentation capabilities refer to the set of organisational

capabilities that help resolve problems based on experimental designs

(real and simulated ones). These capabilities are operationalised in two

dimensions:

2.1. Level of development of a testing strategy (capacity of trial-

error learning) made up of two factors: degree of development of

parallel testing; degree of development of serial testing.

2.2. Level of innovative connectivity (users and partners’

capacity of learning) composed of two factors: degree of integration

of vulnerable groups in the social innovation process (participation

intensity); degree of diversity of cooperation partners (open

innovation).

Q3: Exploitation capabilities

Exploitation capabilities refer to the set of organisational

capabilities to develop sustainable business models and learning from

Social Creative Economy: A prototype for Social Innovatio 32

Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. FEC-LUZ

the implementation of social innovations. These capabilities are

operationalised in three dimensions:

3.1. Level of sustainability of the business model for social

innovation explored as a degree of diversity of sources of funding to

support social innovation activities (public/private).

3.2. Level of organisational learning as a result of having

implemented a social innovation (expressed in degrees of learning

chain: diagnose, implement, include and evaluate ideas, products or

services).

3.3. Level of social impact that evaluates the degree of inclusion

of social innovation’s target vulnerable groups (expressed in a

diversity of kinds of inclusion: social, economic, institutional or

environmental one).

Q4: Expansion capabilities

Exploitation capabilities refer to the set of organisational

capabilities that help implement and scale social innovations. These

capabilities are operationalised in three dimensions:

4.1. Level of efficiency of the social innovation explored as a

degree of efficiency that relates cost, time and impact achieved.

4.2. Level of local transfer of social innovations expressed as a

degree of diversity of local (regional) agents that adopt totally or

partially the developed social innovation (scaling-deep) thanks to a

direct transfer process (such us transfer workshops, consulting or

learning / training programs).

4.3. Level of global transfer of social innovations expressed as a

degree of diversity of global (non-regional) agents that adopt totally or

partially a social innovation developed (scaling-up) thanks to a direct

transfer process (such us transfer workshops, consulting or learning /

training programs).

The capacities to develop social innovations are reflected in the

figure 3. The social innovation cone shows the different capacities of

the social enterprises to manage social innovations. The cone suggests

a continuous and incremental learning process (from the social to the

33

Javier Castro Spila et al.

Opción, Año 38, Regular No.97 (2022): 19-46

Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. FEC-LUZ

market and from the market to the social), that increases the

organizational capacities to enhance the social impact of social

innovations. On the other hand, not all the social enterprises have

developed these capabilities. Obviously, Q3 and Q4 are the least

advanced competences, while many social enterprises have well

developed capacities Q1 to Q2. Finally, the model allows to map and

classify social enterprises according to their level of capacity

development of social innovations.

4. Framing the practices

Social laboratories have been developing for at least two

decades as a platform to design and experiment solutions to social

problems. The social labs are characterized by being systemic,

Social Creative Economy: A prototype for Social Innovatio 34

Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. FEC-LUZ

experimental and collective and aim to create platforms for solving

complex problems (HASSAN, 2014; ZIVKOVIC, 2018) .

There are several modalities of social labs (ZIVKOVIC, 2018).

In this article the notion of Agile Lab is presented. The Agile labs is

understood as an infrastructure of experimentation (design, test, and

scale Pilot Actions), and co-creation (creative platform) among social

enterprises, organizations from creative economy, and groups at risk

of exclusion. The Agile Labs are empirical infrastructures that allow to

boost the social creative economy.

The Agile Lab is inspired by agile methodologies (CONBOY &

FITZGERALD, 2004; TAKEUCHI et al., 2016) to develop the

collaborative experimentations. The collaborative experimentation has

been conceptualized in the framework of collaborative research which

refers to the process of involving multidisciplinary collaboration

across multiple organizations (CUMMINGS & KIESLER, 2005). In

this vein, the collaborative experimentation is structured in the labs

development that connects organizations combining their

experimental facilities and collaboration capabilities. The experimental

facilities refer to organizational capabilities to design, test, exploit and

transfer knowledge from experiments. The collaboration capabilities

are a relational capacity the co-produce knowledge with asymmetric

actors in conditions of uncertainty. In this context, fast trust and

commitment are the focus of the collaboration capabilities

(BLOMQVIST & LEVY, 2006).

In this paper, collaborative experimentation is understood as an

interactive process of co-designing a cultural experience with

asymmetric actors (experimenters) in conditions of uncertainty (trial,

error and learning). In this way, the cultural experiences are co-

designed between CCI organizations, social enterprises and groups at

risk of exclusion to develop a new experiential path (new set of

cultural activities) embedded in a Pilot Actions to promote social

innovation in the creative economy (social creative economy).

The figure 4 shows the Agile Lab steps to boost social

innovation in the cultural economy.

35

Javier Castro Spila et al.

Opción, Año 38, Regular No.97 (2022): 19-46

Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. FEC-LUZ

Pilot Action (testing transferability)

Planning, experimental

implementation in other context with

other organizations, re-define,

validate

Pilot Action (testing business

plan)

Planning, experimental

implementation, re-define,

Pilot Action (testing

inclusiveness)

Planning, testing (parallel

testing), new

Pilot Action (testing feasibility)

First iteration: Planning, design

(cultural experience path), testing,

validate

Second iteration: Plan, re-design,

testing, validate

SCALING

MODELLI

NG

PROTOTYPIN

G

CO-

DESIGN

INCLUS

ION

AGILE

LAB

IMPA

CT

FIGURE 4. AGILE LAB: Prototyping Pilot Actions

SCE

Organiz

Vulner

able

Group

Social

Enterprise

PILOT

ACTION

PLANNI

NG

Understanding requirements

Defining requisites (Pilot Action)

Planning the process

Engaging the groups at risk of

exclusion

AGILE AGENTS

AND ROLES

Catalyst

Organization

Social enterprises

Experimental

Organization

Organizations from

creative and cultural

industries

Experimenters

Groups at risk of

exclusion

Testers

Groups at risk of

exclusion

Organizations from

creative and cultural

industries

Scalers

Social

enterprises

Source: Author’s elaboration

PLANNING

Step 1: Involve an experimental organization: An experimental

organization is an organization related to creative economy field

(museum, heritage site, cultural tourism agency, etc.) that is involved in

the implementation of a Pilot Action. That means an organization which

Social Creative Economy: A prototype for Social Innovatio 36

Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. FEC-LUZ

develops a social innovation, creating a new cultural experience,

integrating a new social group to its audience.

Step 2: Defining together: The experimental organization, define

the new target (groups at risk of exclusion). This definition is focused

on type of exclusion (technological, cultural, etc.) and define requisites

about the Pilot Action that will be developed. Requisites like

sustainability, inclusiveness, feasibility and transferability of the Pilot

Action. Additionally, in this step are defined the target groups

(number of experimenters, age, and other characteristics of the target

groups).

Step 3: Engagement campaign: Launching a local engagement

campaign focused on the target groups. This campaign involves the

catalyst organization (social enterprises) that work with the social

group defined by the experimental organization.

DESIGN

Step 4: Testing feasibility: Launching a collaborative

experimentation. This step is developed in two o three iterations

(understanding, designing, testing, and validating based on agile

methodologies). The Pilot Action (cultural experience) is related to

the activities carried out by the experimental organization. The

experimenters (target groups), experimental organizations and catalyst

organization working together to designing a new cultural experience.

Focused on feasibility of the Pilot Action.

PROTOTYPING

Step 5: Testing inclusiveness: Launching a second round on

collaborative experimentation. This step is developed in a parallel

testing (two target groups working in parallel testing sessions). Two or

three iterations are developed. In this step the inclusiveness of the

Pilot Action is tested, and different adjustments, modifications and

redesigns are proposed. The testers (target groups), experimental

organization and catalyst organization testing the degree of

inclusiveness of the Pilot Action designed.

37

Javier Castro Spila et al.

Opción, Año 38, Regular No.97 (2022): 19-46

Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. FEC-LUZ

MODELLING

Step 6: Modelling Pilot Actions: Designing the social business

model and launch the experimental implementation. The experimental

and catalyst organization evaluate the social impact of the Pilot Action

(sustainability, inclusiveness, and feasibility).

SCALING

Step 7: Transferring Pilot Actions: This step is related to the

capitalization process. In this phase other organizations from creative

economy are invited to participate in the transfer process to promotes

social creative economy. The scalers are social enterprises and creative

companies that drive the expansion of successful Pilot Actions.

5. Final remarks: Social Creative Economy

This article presents the notion of social creative economy in

an exploratory way. The Conceptual and empirical development of

the concept still needs a lot of research; however, the paper offers

new ways of reflection to promote the social economy within the

creative economy.

The first reflection is related to the concept of social creative

economy. This concept suggests that creativity has a double

orientation. The double helix of creativity indicates that creativity does

not only reside in the creative class, but that vulnerable groups and

social enterprises can also be found to promote the social creative

economy. The suggested argument is that creativity is socially

distributed and that it is possible to capture it thanks to experimental

infrastructures (Agile Lab) based on experimental collaboration. The

experimental collaboration suggests that there is not only

experimentation in the prototyping of a Pilot Action, but also the

collaboration itself (between groups at risk of exclusion, social

enterprises and organizations of the creative economy). In Figure 5

this process is defined as a learning curve thanks to the interactions

between the companies of the creative economy and the groups at

risk of exclusion.

Social Creative Economy: A prototype for Social Innovatio 38

Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. FEC-LUZ

The second reflection refers to the model of social innovation and

the competences to promote social innovations. Social innovation is

understood as a process of solving an anomaly that produces specific

vulnerabilities in specific social groups. During the process of social

innovation, these groups are empowered, gaining new skills to improve

their social inclusion capacities. Social innovation aims to institutionalize

a solution within a given mainstream and not systemic change.

The third reflection refers to the proposed experimental model

(Figure 5). The Agile Lab and the experimental collaboration promote

Pilot Actions, understood as new cultural experiences co-designed with

vulnerable groups, driven by the organizations of the creative economy

and catalyzed by social enterprises. The Agile Labs offer a pragmatic

perspective on how social enterprises can foster social innovations within

the creative economy. We have called this process: social creative

economy.

39

Javier Castro Spila et al.

Opción, Año 38, Regular No.97 (2022): 19-46

Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. FEC-LUZ

Some impacts of the model can be highlighted:

(a) Social Innovation Competencies

(i) Enhancing social innovation competencies: Working with social

enterprises and groups at risk of exclusion, supported conceptually and

methodologically by the collaborative experimentation model allows

creative economy organisations to develop social innovation

competencies.

(ii) Bridging cross-innovations: Thanks to the Pilot Actions, the

creative economy organisations using participatory and collaborative

toolboxes learn to encourage cross-pollination of ideas and actions to

develop new social innovations.

(iii) Developing Corporate Social Responsibility: By participating in the

prototyping process of Pilot Actions, the creative economy organisations

become more aware of their ability to produce social impact and get to

learn how to strengthen it.

(iv)Enhancing the mission of higher education through social innovation: By

developing a Learning Program in collaboration with creative economy

organisations and social enterprises, and engaging groups at risk of

exclusion, social enterprises and creative economy organisations develop

their social corporate responsibility.

(b) Triplex Learning process

(i) Learning from collaboration: By participating in the Pilot Action

process, the creative economy organisations, in cooperation with

universities and social enterprises, learn from other organisational

cultures and acquire new knowledge. This is an opportunity to explore

new possibilities of collaboration in other projects and innovations

(networking effect).

(ii) Learning from transfer: Collaborative experimentation promotes

the transfer of Pilot Actions to other organisations in the cultural and

social sector at European level. In this case, the participants in the Pilot

Actions are involved in the transferring process and they learn by

teaching.

(iii) Learning from experimentation: Within the framework of

collaborative experimentation, the creative economy organisations, social

enterprises and groups at risk of exclusion learn from experimentation

Social Creative Economy: A prototype for Social Innovatio 40

Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. FEC-LUZ

(prototyping process). This implies learning in contexts of uncertainty, on

a trial-and-error basis, thus resignifying their learning experience.

(c) Empowering people

Changing minds: This participatory process, oriented to design a

new cultural experience, gives rise to a new perception about agency

potential and the access to state services and resources by groups at risk

of exclusion. The model aims at increasing the ability for collective action

and the acquisition of technical knowledge about the social innovation

process and its results.

6. References

ADORNO, Theodor and RABINBACH, Anson .1975. “Culture

Industry Reconsidered”. New German Critique. No.: 6: 12–19.

Duke University Press, Durham (Estados Unidos de America)

AHMAD, Yahaya. 2006. “The scope and definitions of heritage: From

tangible to intangible”, International Journal of Heritage

Studies. No.: 12-3: 292–300.

ALONSO, David. 2021. Crossroads Times for Social Work and Social

Innovation. In Alonso, D., Arias, A y Alonso, A. (eds): Social

Work in Digital Socities. Editorial McGraw-Hill, Madrid

(España)

AMABILE, Teresa. 1998. “How to kill creativity”. Harvard Business

Review. Vol. 75 No. 6: 76–87.

BAGWELL, Susan. 2009. “Creative clusters and city growth”. Creative

Industries Journal. Vol. 1, No. 1: 31–46.

BALDWIN, Carliss and VON HIPPEL, Eric. 2011. “Modeling a

Paradigm Shift: From Producer Innovation to User and Open

Collaborative Innovation”. Organization Science. Vol. 22, No.

6: 1399–1417.

BLOMQVIST, Kirsimarja and LEVY, Juha. 2006. “Collaboration

capability–a focal concept in knowledge creation and collaborative

innovation in networks”. International Journal Management

Concepts and Philosophy, Vol. 2, No. 1: 31–48.

BONIFACIO, Matteo. 2014. “Social innovation: A novel policy stream

or a policy compromise? An EU perspective”. European Review.

Vol. 22, No. 1: 145–169.

41

Javier Castro Spila et al.

Opción, Año 38, Regular No.97 (2022): 19-46

Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. FEC-LUZ

British Council. 2010. Mapping the Creative Industries: A Toolkit.

British Council. London (United Kingdom).

CAJAIBA-SANTANA, Giovany. 2014. “Social innovation: Moving the

field forward. A conceptual framework”. Technological

Forecasting and Social Change. Vol. 82, No. Supplement C:

42–51.

CASTRO-SPILA, Javier, HERRERA, Pablo and UNCETA, Alfonso.

2016. “Social innovation as a case of hidden innovation”, in

Castro-Spila, J, Echeverria, J. and Unceta, A. (Ed.) Hidden

Innovation. Concepts, Sectors and Case Studies. Sinnergiak

Social Innovation-University of the Basque Country, Bilbao

(Spain).

CASTRO SPILA, Javier, LUNA, Alvaro and UNCETA, Alfonso. 2016.

“Social Innovation Regimes: An exploratory framework to

measure Social Innovation”, SIMPACT Working Paper No 1.

Gelsenkirchen: Institute for Work and Technology: 1–24.

CHESBROUGH, Henry and APPLEYARD, Melissa. 2007. “Open

Innovation and Strategy”. California Management Review. Vol.

50, No. 1: 57–76.

COHEN, Wesley and LEVINTHAL, Daniel. 1990. “Absorptive

capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation”.

Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 35, No. 1: 128–152.

CONBOY, Kieran and FITZGERALD, Brian. 2004. “Toward a

conceptual framework of agile methods: A Study of Agility in

Different disciplines”. Proceedings of the 2004 ACM

Workshop on Interdisciplinary Software Engineering

Research - WISER ’04. ACM Press, New York (USA).

CUMMINGS, Anne and OLDHAM, Greg. 1997. “Enhancing Creativity:

Managing Work Contexts for the High Potential Employee”.

California Management Review. Vol. 40, No. 1: 22–38. SAGE

Publications. Los Angeles (USA).

CUMMINGS, Jonathan and KIESLER, Sara. 2005. “Collaborative

Research Across Disciplinary and Organizational Boundaries”.

Social Studies of Science. Vol. 35, No. 5: 703–722.

CUNNINGHAM, Stuart. 2018. “From Cultural to Creative Industries:

Theory, Industry and Policy Implications”. Media International

Australia Incorporating Culture and Policy.Vol. 102, No. 1:

54–65.

Social Creative Economy: A prototype for Social Innovatio 42

Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. FEC-LUZ

DART, Raymond. 2004. “The legitimacy of social enterprise”,

Nonprofit Management and Leadership.Vol. 14, No. 4: 411–

424.

DCMS. 2001. Creative Industries Mapping Document. DCMS.

London (United Kingdom)

DEFOURNY, Jacques and NYSSENS, Marthe. 2008. “Social enterprise

in Europe: recent trends and developments”. Social Enterprise

Journal. Vol. 4, No. 3: 202–228.

FLORIDA, Richard. 2002. “The Economic Geography of Talent”.

Annals of the Association of American Geographers. Vol. 92:

743–755.

FlORIDA, Richard. 2011. “Cities and the Creative Class”. City and

Community. Vol. 2, No. 1: 1–2.

FLORIDA, Richard. 2014. “The Creative Class and Economic

Development”. Economic Quaterly Journal. Vol. 28, No. 3:

196–205.

GALLOWAY, Susan and DUNLOP, Stewart. 2007. “A critique of

definitions of the cultural and creative industries in public policy”.

International Journal of Cultural Policy. Vol. 13, No. 1: 17–31.

GARNHAM, Nicholas. 2005. “From Cultural to Creative Industries. An

Analysis of the Implications of the ‘Creative Industries’ Approach

to Arts and Media Policy Making in the United Kingdom”.

International Journal of Cultural Policy. Vol. 11, No. 1: 15–29.

HARDING, Rebecca. 2004. “Social Enterprise: The New Economic

Engine?”. Business Strategy Review. Vol. 15, No. 4: 39–43.

HARVEY, David, HAWKINS, Harriet and THOMAS, Nicola. 2012.

“Thinking creative clusters beyond the city: People, places and

networks”. Geoforum.Vol. 43, No3:529-539.

HASSAN, Zaid. 2014. The Social Labs Revolution: A New Approach

to Solving Our Most Complex Challenges. Ed. Berrett-

Koehler. San Francisco (USA).

VAN DER HAVE, Robert and RUBALCABA, Luis. 2016. “Social

innovation research: An emerging area of innovation studies?”.

Research Policy. Vol. 45, No. 9: 1923–1935.

HELGADOTTIR, Gudrun. 2011. “Issues in cultural tourism studies”.

Journal of Tourism History. Vol. 3, No. 3: 339–340.

VON HIPPEL, Eric. 2009. “Democratizing Innovation: The Evolving

Phenomenon of User Innovation”. International Journal of

43

Javier Castro Spila et al.

Opción, Año 38, Regular No.97 (2022): 19-46

Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. FEC-LUZ

Innovation Science. Vol. 1, No. 1: 29–40.

HOSAGRAHAR, Jyoti, SOULE, Jeffrey, GIRARD, Luigi Fusco and

POTTS, Andrew. 2016. “Cultural heritage, the UN sustainable

development goals, and the new urban agenda”. Bollettino Del

Centro Calza Bini. Vol. 16, No. 1: 37–54.

HOWKINS, John. 2001. The Creative Economy. The Penguin Press.

London (United Kingdom)

KOKKO, Suvi. 2018. “Social entrepreneurship: creating social value

when bridging holes”. Social Enterprise Journal.. Vol. 14, No. 4:

410–428.

KUHN, Thomas. 2012. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

University of Chicago press. Chicago (USA)

LAVE, Jane and WENGER, Etienne. 2001. “Legitimate peripheral

participation in communities of practice”, in Clarki, J., Hanson, A.,

Harrison, R. and Reeve, F. (Eds.). Supporting Lifelong

Learning. pp. 121–136. Routledge, London (United Kingdom)

MARCY, Richard and MUMFORD, Michael. 2007. “Social Innovation:

Enhancing Creative Performance Through Causal Analysis”.

Creativity Research Journal. Vol. 19, No. 2–3: 123–140.

Routledge, London (United Kingdom)

MARKUSEN, Ann. 2006. “Urban Developmetn and the Politics of a

Creative Class: Evidence form the Study of Artists”.

Environment and Planning A. Vol. 38, No. 10: 1921–1940.

MUMFORD, Michael. 2002. “Social Innovation: Ten Cases From

Benjamin Franklin”, Creativity Research Journal. Vol. 14, No.

2: 253–266. Routledge. London (United Kingdom)

MUNJERI, Dawson 2004. “Tangible and intangible heritage: From

difference to convergence”. Museum International. Vol. 56, No.

1–2: 12–20.

NONAKA, Ikujiro, VON KROGH, George and VOELPEL, Sven.

2006. “Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory: Evolutionary

Paths and Future Advances”, Organization Studies. Vol. 27, No.

8: 1179–1208.

O’CONNOR, Justin. 2000. “The definition of the ‘cultural industries’”,

The European Journal of Arts Education, Vol. 2, No. 3: 15–27.

OLIVEIRA, Carlos. and BREDA-VÁZQUEZ, Isabel. 2012. “Creativity

and Social Innovation: What Can Urban Policies Learn from

Sectoral Experiences?”. International Journal of Urban and

Social Creative Economy: A prototype for Social Innovatio 44

Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. FEC-LUZ

Regional Research. Vol. 36, No. 3: 522–538. Blackwell

Publishing Ltd. New Jersey (USA)

PRATT, Andy. 2008. “Creative cities : the cultural industries and the

creative class”. Geografiska Annaler, Series B: Human

Geography. Vol. 90 No. 2, pp. 107–117.

PRATT, Andy. 2018. “Creative Clusters: Towards the Governance of the

Creative Industries Production System?”. Media International

Australia Incorporating Culture and Policy. Vol. 112, No. 1:

50–66.

STERN, Mark and SEIFERT, Susan. 2008. “From creative economy to

creative society”. Progressive Planning. Vol. January: 1–15.

TAKEUCHI, Hirakata, RIGBY, Darrell and SUTHERLAND, Jeff.

2016. “Embracing Agile”. Harvard Business Review. No. May:

.40–48.

TSAI, Wenpin. 2001. “Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational

networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on

business unit innovation and performance”. The Academy of

Management Journal. Vol. 44, No. 5: 996–1004.

UNCETA, Alfonso, CASTRO-SPILA, Javier and GARCÍA FRONTI,

Javier. 2016. “Social innovation indicators”. Innovation: The

European Journal of Social Science Research. Vol. 29, No. 2:

192–204.

UNTACD. (2008), Creative Economy Report 2008: The Challenge of

Assessing the Creative Economy towards Informed Policy-

Making.UNTACD. New York (United States).

UZZI, Brian and SPIRO, Jarrett. 2005. “Collaboration and creativity: The

small world problem”. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 111,

No. 2: 447–504.

VANHAVERBEKE, Wim. 2006. “The inter-organizational context of

Open Innovation”, in Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. and

West, J. (Eds.). Open Innovation: Researching a New

Paradigm. pp. 205–219. Oxford University Press. London

(United Kingdom).

VECCO, Marilena. 2010. “A definition of cultural heritage: From the

tangible to the intangible”. Journal of Cultural Heritage. Vol.

11, No. 3: 321–324.

WAITT, Gordon and GIBBONS, Chris. 2009. “Creative Small Cities:

Rethinking the Creative Economy in Place”. Urban Studies. Vol.

45

Javier Castro Spila et al.

Opción, Año 38, Regular No.97 (2022): 19-46

Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. FEC-LUZ

46, No. 5–6: 1223–1246.

WESTLEY, Frances and ANTANDZE, Nino. 2010. “Making a

difference: Strategies for Scaling Social Innovation for Greater

Impact”. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector

Innovation Journal. Vol. 15, No. 2: 1–19.

WILSON, Nick. (2010), “Social creativity: re‐qualifying the creative

economy”. International Journal of Cultural Policy. Vol. 16,

No. 3: 367–381. Routledge. London (United Kingdom)

ZIEGLER, Rafael. 2017. “Social innovation as a collaborative concept”.

Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science

Research. Vol. 30, No. 4: 388–405.

ZIVKOVIC, Sharon. 2018. “Systemic innovation labs: a lab for wicked

problems”, Social Enterprise Journal. . Vol. 14, No. 3: 348–366.

Emerald Publishing Limited. Bingley (United Kingdom)

Social Creative Economy: A prototype for Social Innovatio 46

Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. FEC-LUZ

BIODATA DE AUTORES

Javier Castro Spila

Sociólogo. Obtuvo el título de Doctor en Filosofía, Ciencia, Tecnología y

Sociedad y el de Máster en Educación Superior. Es Investigador Senior y

Director Ejecutivo en SOCINNOVA (España), e Investigador Asociado

en Ecole Supérieure des Technologies Industrielles Avancées (ESTIA)

(Francia). Entre 2012 y 2017, fue Coordinador de Investigación en

Sinnergiak Social Innovation (Universidad del País Vasco), Coordinador

de Investigación en el Grupo Praxis (Universidad del País Vasco), e

Investigador en el PROGRAMA GAZE - Fomento de la Cultura

Emprendedora en la Educación Superior (Universidad del País Vasco).

Sus temas de investigación incluyen la innovación social y las

innovaciones híbridas; las industrias culturales y creativas; el desarrollo

regional y las políticas de innovación, el talento de la innovación social y

la creatividad. jcastro@socinnova.net

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1433-7734

David Alonso González

Diplomado en Trabajo Social, Licenciado en Antropología Social y

Cultural, DEA en Sociología y Doctor en Trabajo Social (Premio

Extraordinario). Profesor Contratado Doctor del Departamento de

Trabajo Social y Servicios Sociales de la Universidad Complutense de

Madrid. Profesor de Trabajo Social desde 1999 (1999-2007: Universidad

de Castilla La Mancha) (2007-actualidad: UCM). Miembro de los Grupos

de Investigación: GESED (Gerontología Social y Educativa de la

Universidad de Castilla La Mancha) y del Grupo de Investigación

Factores Psicosociales e Intervención Social de la Universidad

Complutense. Miembro del Instituto de Tecnologías del Conocimiento

(UCM-ITC). Líneas de Investigación: Innovación Social y Trabajo Social;

Tecnología y Trabajo Social; Trabajo Social con Grupos; Trabajo Social

Internacional; Pedagogía Online; Envejecimiento Activo y Gerontología

Social y Educativa. dalonso@ucm.es

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8876-8916

UNIVERSIDAD

DEL ZULIA

Revista de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales

Año 38, N° 97 (2022)

Esta revista fue editada en formato digital por el personal de la Oficina de

Publicaciones Científicas de la Facultad Experimental de Ciencias, Universidad del

Zulia. Maracaibo - Venezuela

www.luz.edu.ve

www.serbi.luz.edu.ve

produccioncientifica.luz.edu.ve