Introduction
Co-creation in the context of public services refers to citizens’ contribution to implementing and shaping the services that affect them. It has become an orthodoxy in public policy that is widely accepted as humane and inclusive (Osborne et al, 2016; Bevir et al, 2019). Co-creation has many passionate, committed advocates and appears to be in tune with the times (Brandsen et al, 2018). Despite widespread enthusiasm and support there are also sceptical voices that warn of tokenism and failure to fully recognise imbalances of status and power (Dudau et al, 2019). In this book we present co-creation in a way grounded in practical service dilemmas and lived experience, with a wealth of original evidence from a diverse range of settings and policy domains across Europe. Our primary focus is on human and relational dimensions, at the same time taking an appreciative but critical view of new ways to use digital tools and resources to enable co-creation in public services.
The book is inspired and informed by practical action and original research across Europe. The editors and authors were part of a consortium that delivered a collaborative innovation project, Co-creation of Service Innovation in Europe (CoSIE). CoSIE was one of several projects funded by the European Commission on the co-creation of public services. It was distinctive in its ambition to advance co-creation with citizens who are typically excluded or overlooked. The consortium did this through ten real-life pilots, each working with a different public service and responding with innovations in co-creation to locally determined needs and priorities. Project teams consisting of municipalities, civil society organisations, companies and
Despite notable achievements of the CoSIE pilots at local and sometimes national levels, we recognise that pilots, experiments, demonstrators and the like rarely appear to sustain or expand their promised outcomes (Brandsen et al, 2016). This is why we have come to characterise this approach to policy making as ‘sandcastles’ washed away by the next tide or kicked over by an incoming political administration or new minister to build their own, leaving little trace. It also allows us to see the problems caused by a ‘sandcastle bucket’ approach to the adoption of pre-existing interventions from another context which can often struggle in the local conditions and fail to literally take shape in the way they were envisaged.
Co-creation
We take as a starting point the much-cited characterisation of co-creation by Voorberg et al (2015: 1335) as ‘active involvement of end-users in various stages of the production process’. This is more a description than a definition and quite broad. Interpretations vary in detail and emphasis but there is common attention to the rights, responsibilities and contributions of people directly affected by services (Brandsen and Honingh, 2018; Bevir et al, 2019). Co-creation echoes the term ‘co-production’, which has a longer history. Co-production has been described as a practice of reciprocity and mutuality (Boyle and Harris, 2009). It goes to the heart of both effective public services delivery and the role of public services in achieving societal ends such as social inclusion and citizen engagement (Pestoff and Hulgård, 2016). Many practitioners and some commentators use the terms co-production and co-creation interchangeably. In this volume we follow Torfing et al (2019) in making an analytic distinction for the sake of precision. Co-production refers to citizen contributions to the implementation of their services (Osborne, 2018). Co-creation implies that citizens exercise agency to define their goals in order to meet needs they themselves judge to be important. CoSIE adopted a formal definition of co-creation as ‘a collaborative activity that reduces power imbalances and aims to enrich and enhance the value in public service offerings’ (Fox et al, 2021: 8).
Co-creation necessitates interactions involving a wide range of stakeholders, including citizens, public administrators, community organisations, businesses and educators. Civil society organisations (CSOs) usually have a prominent role. CSOs have tended to be much more aware of co-creation than other
Social justice, assets and capability
Co-creation is not only about making public services better and more responsive, important as that is. Implicit within it are new roles and responsibilities and, at least potentially, changes in the balance of control. An influential body of work on co-creation from a public administration perspective stresses the interactional logic of public services as services, in contrast to the more linear logic of industrial production (Osborne et al, 2016; Osborne, 2018; Peng et al, 2022). We recognise this perspective but our emphasis is different. Rationales for the individual CoSIE pilots overwhelmingly emphasised issues of social justice for people who are marginalised and lack power (although this was not demanded in the funding call). For the editors and authors of this collection, co-creation is essentially a moral endeavour that recognises the legitimate knowledge and lived experience of people who typically have services ‘done to’ them. This line of thinking is grounded in ideas that emanate from advocacy, capability, human rights and social justice, inspired at least in part by struggles of disabled people for control over the support they need to live independently (Fox et al, 2021). Its moral framework recognises the anthropological dimensions of human beings as ‘receivers’ (in need of support), ‘doers’ (capable of action) and ‘judges’, referring to the idea that citizens are able to say what has value in their eyes, and that this should inform policies and programmes that target them (Sen, 1985; Bonvin and Laruffa, 2018).
Welfare states were founded to combat pervasive evils that beset 20th-century society and to mitigate damage from individual or economic crises (Esping-Andersen et al, 2002; Hemerijck, 2013). Today, many public services are still designed around seeking to fix things for people in the short term (Wilson et al, 2018) and encouraging them to take action that fits the service’s priorities, not their own (Fox, 2018). Co-creating public services implies a fundamental rethinking of the role of the welfare state and hence the relationship between individuals and the state (Cottam, 2018). It aligns with asset-based approaches that focus upon people’s strengths rather than what is wrong with them (Cottam, 2018; Wilson et al, 2018). All this resonates with an ‘investive’ turn in social welfare intended to strengthen people’s skills and capacities over the course of their lives (Hemerijck, 2015; 2017; Baines et al, 2019). ‘Social investment’ welfare has been criticised for
Social innovation
We see co-creation and social justice as intimately linked to another idea that has become firmly ensconced in policy agenda: social innovation. Social innovation mobilises citizens to become an active part of the innovation process (Voorberg et al, 2015). It denotes novel, effective and just solutions that benefit society as a whole (Phills et al, 2008; BEPA, 2010; Marques et al, 2017). Characteristic of social innovations across many contexts is that they ‘raise the hope and expectations of progress towards something better (a more socially sustainable / democratic / effective society)’ (Brandsen et al, 2016: 6–7).
The idea of social innovation has roots in various traditions and has been described as ‘fluid and diverse’ (Nicholls et al, 2015: 1). Yet there is some agreement that social innovation coheres around new forms of institutional relationships and collective empowerment, especially of the most marginalised (Moulaert et al, 2013). Social innovations, as much writing on the topic attests, are inherently co-creative in harnessing ideation from diverse communities and fostering new relationships and interactions (Mumford, 2002; Murray et al, 2010; Grimm et al, 2013). New ideas, in short, come from people and relationships (Cottam, 2018). All this is borne out in empirical studies of social innovations across Europe and beyond that highlight co-creative aspects (Evers and Brandsen, 2016; Moulaert and MacCallum, 2019; Oosterlynck et al, 2019).
Social innovation almost invariably has positive and optimistic connotations but real-life examples are not always successful or beneficial (Brandsen et al, 2016; Meijer and Thaens, 2020). Even when they are successful, effective approaches may not be sustained (Brandsen et al, 2016). As with all social innovations, a key challenge for co-creation is how individual examples can go beyond silos and discrete projects, share learning, and evolve into the ‘modus operandi’ of institutions and societies. As we shall see, social innovation, even with (or perhaps because of) co-creation is harder than we think.
Digital technologies and digital social innovation
Digital technologies are sometime claimed to narrow the gap between service providers and citizens. Social media has the potential to reach groups who do
The starting point of DSI is one of foregrounding social issues as opposed to technological artifice, which a recent review (Qureshi et al, 2021) labels as a ‘social first’ approach where the creation of societal platforms should have primacy over commercial platforms in order to meet collaborative social aims. The second aim of DSI is to maximise the social impact of the application of technology. Key here is the notion of ‘techno-ficing’, meaning that the utility and affordances of the technical artifacts for the societal or community issues at hand should be geared to the social purpose and not to technological aspirations, which some in the wider community refer to as ‘TechforGood’ or ‘DataforGood’. The final construct from the review is the role of bricolage is defined as the sustainable engagement of local assets to facilitate challenging resource scarcity and social norms to foster innovation (Qureshi et al, 2021).
Optimism regarding DSI potentially addresses the challenge for co-creation in how individual activities can move beyond the ‘concreteness’ and ‘overspecification’ tendency of technologies and technologists to enable the scalable and sustainable achievement of social aims of individuals, societies and communities by emphasising the ability to build social platforms and apply technology in its most appropriate form. However, perhaps like the life-cycle of our ‘sandcastles’, both social innovation and DSI require access to the beach, with lots of space, a relatively predictable tide and local readily available equipment and materials rather than the reality of construction in the middle of a busy street already full of structures and unpredictable movement.
The Co-creation of Service Innovation in Europe project and pilots
The CoSIE consortium was awarded funding from the European Commission Horizon 2020 under a call entitled ‘Applied co-creation to deliver public services’. The use of digital technologies in co-creation in the public sector, in particular open data and social media, was one of the key objectives of the programme. All the editors and authors were
One of the assumptions of the Horizon Programme call reflected in the innovative aspects explored and experimented within the CoSIE proposal and the subsequent project was the unproblematic utility of open data and social media tools as means of supporting co-creation processes with citizens and shaping the design of innovative interventions (Jamieson et al, 2019; Jalonen and Helo, 2020). A number of issues emerged around the problems of these sorts of technologies as a recipe for improving social justice for socially excluded/disadvantaged groups. The possibilities of digital resources in the forms of open data and especially social media proved more limited than originally anticipated. Evidence in specific contexts appears in the second part of this volume. The project level work explored the blending of various stakeholder engagement and interpretative methods (including Community Reporting and Living Labs) as ways of ‘assemblaging’ or ‘bricoluering’ elements together to co-create both the practices and the platform infrastructures for implementation of the pilots. Through a DSI lens we saw the majority of pilots adopting a social-first stance with some adopting techno-ficing elements and many moving to bricoleuring processes over the course of the project.
Two cross-cutting approaches were proposed by the project to support the pilots through the process of local deliberations of co-creations and to provide the basis for generating generic reflections on the co-creation for the production of project level outputs, such as the massive open online course and Roadmap. First, Living Labs (living laboratories) are environments that can support public open innovation processes. Originally developed in the 1990s for technological innovation, Living Labs have emerged in the 21st century to foster experimentation and testing of new solutions in public services (Dekker et al, 2020). CoSIE made use of visualisation and animation tools that the Living Labs team based in Newcastle, UK had developed over many years of supporting service innovation and co-creation in complex, multi-agency, cross-sector service environments. As CoSIE progressed, the Living Labs approach evolved into deployment in an online tool, CoSMoS (Jamieson et al, 2020). This digital environment fostered reflective discussions/deliberation about intentions and intervention (strategising); resources and ethics needed to support co-creation (resourcing); value
Community Reporting is a storytelling methodology that trains and supports citizens to use digital tools to articulate and share their own lived experience stories for research, service development and policy development. It is characterised by: scope for citizens to ‘set the agenda’; creating spaces for deliberation to occur between different stakeholders; and providing tools through which effective ‘institutional listening’ can occur. As part of the CoSIE project, Community Reporting was applied in each of the CoSIE pilots as a tool for co-creation, supporting the innovations being made in the different public services. Community Reporting also enables stories to be mobilised for change as ‘a mechanism through which public services can truly reconnect with citizens’ (Trowbridge and Willoughby, 2022: 299).
At the heart of the project were the ten pilots. Each CoSIE pilot had different target groups, service needs and local settings. They worked with marginalised, sometimes stigmatised people beset by multiple disadvantages (for example, disability, residence in depleted or remote locations, low income, refugee status). Pilots took place in ‘brown field’ sites with many other competing or cooperating interests and initiatives. CoSIE did not presuppose a single pathway to co-creation. On the contrary, partners tested and developed diverse platforms and interventions.
The pilot partners had already clearly identified a social need and target groups before the project started. They were at different stages of readiness to act so their inception was arranged in ‘waves’ which commenced in sequence as follows:
Wave A: ‘Leading’ pilots were the readiest to implement co-creation. Each of them had the benefit of learning from earlier co-creative actions in their respective regions or services. They commenced first, in spring 2018.
Wave B: ‘Following’ pilots lacked the history of established co-creation that informed their wave A counterparts and were expected to benefit from the leading pilots’ experience.
Wave C: The final group were dubbed ‘promising’ pilots. Each had identified a significant need and a strong local will to co-create. Wave C pilots were intended to learn from the first two waves.
Finally, methods and tools produced from work done during waves A, B and C were applied in in a test site in the context of inner-city community gardens for citizens and other stakeholder groups in a municipality near Athens, Greece.
There were 24 partners in the CoSIE consortium. Pilots were initiated variously by municipalities, public service agencies, CSOs and companies. Evaluation was undertaken by university partners in each country. The
The CoSIE project was carried out from 2018 to 2021. The ten pilots (and one test site) are listed in Table 1.1 with their partners, and a brief indication of their target groups, overall aims and digital social innovation journey. Despite their many differences, there was a common logic across all of them in commitment to re-envisage and reposition those who are typically the targets of services (that is, have services done to them) as asset holders with legitimate knowledge that has value for shaping service innovations.
Table 1.1:CoSIE sites, target populations and aims
Country | Pilot name and partners | Target population | Main aim | Digital social Innovation process |
---|---|---|---|---|
Italy | Reducing childhood obesity. Health Authority of Reggio Emilia; Lepida; University of Bologna | Families of children in Reggio Emilia diagnosed as overweight or obese | Make a trusted app available as a bidirectional communication channel between families and institutions | Techno-ficing with social-first elements |
Sweden | Strengthening social services with co-creation dialogue. Municipality of Jönköping; Karlstad University | Residents of Jönköping with various needs using municipality Personal Assistance (PA) services | Embed co-creation in the PA service (where it lagged behind other disability services in the municipality) | Social-first with minor techno-ficing elements |
UK | Personalised services for people with convictions. Interserve Ltd; Manchester Met University | Individuals serving community sentences or released from prison on license | A new more person-centred model of practice in rehabilitative processes | Initially techno-ficing transitioning to social-first during the project |
Estonia | Co-designing innovative community-based services. Association of Municipalities of Võru County; Helpific; Tallinn University | People with disabilities in a remote rural area of Eastern Estonia | Increase citizens’ involvement in service design, and challenge the traditional format of social and health care services | Initially techno-ficing transitioning to social-first during the project |
Hungary | Self-sustaining villages. Jasz-Nagykun-Szolnok county; University of Debrecen | Households in small, remote settlements beset by social and economic disadvantage | Enable households and communities to build upon their assets and utilise their own resources | Social-first with techno-ficing elements moving to bricoleuring processes |
Spain | Empowering Valencian entrepreneurial skills. València Activa; Polytechnic University of Valencia | Citizens of Valencia who have been left behind by the world of work | Co-create a community that inspires and enables people to reduce the risk of entering into a business venture | Social-first with techno-ficing elements |
Finland | Youth co-empowerment for health and wellbeing through social media. Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities; Turku University of Applied Sciences | Young people not in employment, education or training (NEET) | Find new ways to involve NEET young people to increase their participation in society and decrease exclusion | Techno-ficing with social-first elements |
Poland | Neighbourhood meeting place for seniors. ‘ProPo’ Active Senior Foundation; University of Wroclaw | Older residents of a housing estate in the city of Wroclaw | Develop the concept of a common shared space for incubation of ideas and actions on local issues | Social-first with techno-ficing and bricoleuring elements |
The Netherlands | No time to waste. Nieuwegein municipality; University of Applied Sciences Utrecht (HU) | Residents of a socially and economically deprived neighbourhood in Nieuwegein | Reinstate lost trust in the relationship between residents and municipal government | Social-first with bricoleuring elements |
The Netherlands | Improving services for unemployed people. Houten municipality; HU | Refugees at a long distance from the labour market in the municipality of Houten | Work with job seekers and employers in new ways to improve the job-seeker employer match | Social-first with bricoleuring elements |
Greece (test site) | Inner city community gardens. University of Penteion, Athens with the municipality of Aghios Dimitrios | Residents of a suburb with high population density and lack of green space | Access to fruit and vegetables | Social-first and techno-ficing with bricoleuring elements |
Book structure
Following this introduction the book is divided into three parts. The first part takes stock of recent developments in theory and policy. In the second part we draw on our original research to document differences and commonalties of co-creation practice across diverse services and national contexts, highlighting implementation challenges and strategies to overcome them. The final part returns to the metaphor of the ‘sandcastle’ with reflections on sustainability.
The first part comprises two chapters. In Chapter 2, ‘Understanding co-creation: strengths and capabilities’, Chris Fox sets out the principles of co-creation in conceptual terms. He presents co-creation as more a moral than a technical or administrative change to business as usual. Taking a stance grounded in lived experience of people who deliver and receive services, Fox argues that human flourishing and the ‘good life’ must lie at the heart of our understanding of co-creation. He sets the scene for the empirical content (the second part of the book) with a counter to criticism that co-creation (and the so-called ‘co-paradigm’ more generally) is a fad with little substance. The substance in social justice and legitimate knowledge of people who typically have services ‘done to’ them, he argues, is real and urgent.
The second part of the book comprises five chapters about putting co-creation into practice. Each chapter draws on original research evidence based on evaluations of one or more CoSIE pilots. Chapter 4, entitled ‘Co-creating capacity? Empowerment and learning for front-line workers and organisations’, is by Inga Narbutaité Aflaki and Andrea Bassi. They offer new perspectives on front-line managers and workers as potential social innovators, detailing how co-creation transforms their identities, roles and relationships. Reporting from a Swedish municipality in which the CoSIE pilot moved Personal Assistance services for people with functional and cognitive impairments towards co-creation culture, it illustrates co-creative approaches and strategies harnessed to transform disabling narratives. Emphasis is placed on the importance of change conversations and learning dialogues, where collective sense-making about change takes place, and on the role of a facilitator to lead the transformative change. Contrasts and comparisons are drawn with a different service (children’s health) in another national context (Italy) to underline key learning regarding approaches and strategies that can help to empower front-line workers as change leaders in asset-based working.
In Chapter 5, ‘Co-creating with marginalised young people: social media and social hackathons’, Heli Aramo-Immonen and Hanna Kirjavainen focus on young people whose voices are rarely heard. This chapter reports some positive advances in innovation with digital technologies. The aim of the pilot in Finland was to find new practical ways to involve NEET (not in education, employment, or training) young people in co-creation processes to increase their participation in society and decrease exclusion. It did this in a set of short, intensive, activities called hackathons (a name derived from the IT industry), fostering interactions that co-created new, practical ideas. One idea that originated in a hackathon won a nation-wide innovation award and has been adopted and extended across the country. The Finnish pilot also had a specific objective to increase use of social media as a way to uncover unmet service needs of marginalised young people. It extended its reach with a dedicated tool that yielded valuable information about the lives of young people not accessible any other way. This pilot was able to deliver on promises of social media for co-creation when others were not.
Chapter 6, ‘Digital technology, stigmatised citizens and unfulfilled promises’, by Sue Baines, Jordan Harrison and Natalie Rutter, reports a CoSIE pilot situated within the criminal justice system in England. Building on an earlier proof of concept, this pilot demonstrated that tools originally developed in a social care context can be adapted for people on probation,
Chapter 7 is ‘Connecting citizens and services through the power of storytelling’ by Hayley Trowbridge. This chapter explores digital storytelling – specifically the Community Reporting methodology – as a tool to connect citizens with services. It reports various ways in which Community Reporting was utilised for co-creation in the CoSIE pilots, focusing on Spain, the Netherlands and Poland. There were challenges of working with digital stories, notably digital exclusion, heavy demands on time and resistance from some powerful stakeholders. Nevertheless, these pilots demonstrate the power of Community Reporting to help develop services in a way that draws upon the existing assets of the people and communities. Recommendations are proposed for practitioners to progress the agenda of storytelling within service design.
This section concludes with Chapter 8, ‘Co-governance and co-management as preliminary conditions for social justice in co-creation’ by Riccardo Prandini and Giulia Ganugi. Taking a social justice perspective, this chapter proposes a framework for observing which actors are included (or not), and ways they can participate in decision-making. The framework is applied to explore the formation of the stakeholders’ community of the pilot in Reggio, Italy. Led by a public health body, the pilot included an exceptionally large and diverse group of internal and external stakeholders but fell short of full participation and empowerment for the most marginalised. This points to a need to develop more ‘constitutional imagination’.
The final part of the book (Chapters 9, 10, 11 and 12) looks outwards from individual pilots to develop the theme of navigating towards innovative and more just services across Europe. The authors examine various reusable resources for enhancing and building co-creation to move beyond the tendency for increasingly unsustainable sandcastle building, and seek to cultivate parallel infrastructural approaches which allow us to continue to experiment but also to put that in the context of mutual stakeholder co-creation and learning. We will also explore this in the context of making investments which persist beyond the current political and policy cycle.
In Chapter 9, ‘Evaluation and the evidence base for co-creation’, Chris Fox, Andrea Bassi and Sue Baines reflect on diverse views of what counts as good information and reliable evidence within the CoSIE project
Chapter 10 is ‘Living Labs for innovating relationships: the CoSMoS tool’, by David Jamieson, Mike Martin, Rob Wilson, Florian Sipos, Judit Csoba and Alex Sakellariou. The CoSIE project applied Living Labs to support pilots with meeting their goals of service innovation and co-creation through the innovation of relationships. The web-based CoSMoS tool was designed with and for the CoSIE pilots so that stakeholders can be engaged interactively or offline, individually or within a workshop environment. During and after facilitated workshops, pilot team members and stakeholders populated CoSMoS with evidence using input questions and prompts. The chapter shows how the tool was applied in Hungary and Greece. It concludes with reflection on how it served to scaffold reflections and learning on the wide range of social, ethical, moral, organisational and technical challenges of co-creation across different service environments.
Chapter 11 is ‘Moving towards relational services: the role of digital service environments and platforms?’ by Mike Martin, Rob Wilson and David Jamieson. There is widespread recognition that information and communications systems that support service innovation and delivery should be joined up. Yet it has become clear that ‘integrationist’ approaches have failed because they are unable to cope with dynamic complexity. Drawing on the applied learning from the CoSIE project, this chapter sets out a third, architectural approach to the creation, operation and governance of collaborative sociotechnical information infrastructures and platforms for service innovation. This ‘relational’ approach supports mixed economies of provision in which public, private and third sector agencies coordinate to meet multiple and evolving objectives and interests in the delivery of services for people and communities.
In Chapter 12, ‘Conclusions: Moving beyond building sandcastles … long-term sociotechnical infrastructure for social justice’, the editors, led by Rob Wilson, summarise the book’s central premise. They consider what the future holds for the challenges of co-creation in social service innovation and asset-based working, and what is required to take the approaches described to the next level. This provides a foundation for understanding, analysing, designing, and accounting for services and the environment or ecology they operate in. The chapter explores the paradox of ‘concrete elasticity’. This apparent oxymoron denotes ‘concrete-ness’ in policy and programme planning, delivery and design against the ‘elasticity’ required for an authentic, sustainable co-creation where real lives and complex public
References
Baines, S., Bassi, A., Csoba, J. and Sipos, F. (eds) (2019) Implementing Innovative Social Investment: Strategic Lessons from Europe, Bristol: Policy Press.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
BEPA (2010) Empowering People, Driving Change: Social Innovation in the European Union, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Bonvin, J.-M. and Laruffa, F. (2018) ‘Human beings as receivers, doers and judges: the anthropological foundations of sustainable public action in the capability approach’, Community, Work and Family, 21(5): 502–518.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Boyle, D. and Harris, M. (2009) The Challenge of Co-Production: How Equal Partnerships between Professionals and the Public are Crucial to Improving Public Services, London: NEF.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Bevir, M., Needham, C. and Waring, J. (2019) ‘Inside co-production: ruling, resistance, and practice’, Social Policy and Administration, 53(2): 197–202.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Brandsen, T. and Honingh, M. (2018) ‘Definitions of co-production and co-creation’, in Brandsen, T., Steen, T. and Verschuere, B. (eds) Co-Production and Co-Creation: Definitions and Theoretical Perspectives, New York: Routledge, pp 9–17.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Brandsen, T., Evers, A., Cattacin, S. and Zimmer, A. (2016) ‘Social innovation: a sympathetic and critical interpretation’, in Brandsen, T., Cattacin, S., Evers, A. and Zimmer, A. (eds) Social Innovations in the Urban Context, Cham: Springer International, pp 3–20.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Brandsen, T., Steen, T. and Verschuere, B. (2018) ‘Co-creation and co-production in public services: urgent issues in practice and research’, in Brandsen, T., Steen, T. and Verschuere, B. (eds) Co-Production and Co-Creation: Definitions and Theoretical Perspectives, New York: Routledge, pp 3–8.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Cantillon, B. and Van Lancker, W. (2013) ‘Three shortcomings of the social investment perspective’, Social Policy and Society, 12(4): 553–564.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Cottam, H. (2018) Radical Help: How We Can Remake the Relationships between Us and Revolutionise the Welfare State, London: Hachette UK .
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Dekker, R., Franco Contreras, J. and Meijer, A. (2020) ‘The living lab as a methodology for public administration research: a systematic literature review of its applications in the social sciences’, International Journal of Public Administration, 43(4): 1207–1217.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Dudau, A., Glennon, R. and Verschuere, B. (2019) ‘Following the yellow brick road? (Dis)enchantment with co-design, co-production and value co-creation in public services’, Public Management Review, 21(11): 1577–1594.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Esping-Andersen, G., Gallie, D., Hemerijck, A. and Myles, J. (eds) (2002) Why We Need a New Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Evers, A. and Brandsen, T. (2016) ‘Social innovations as messages: democratic experimentation in local welfare systems’, in Brandsen, T., Cattacin, S., Evers, A. and Zimmer, A. (eds) Social Innovations in the Urban Context, Cham: Springer International, pp 161–180.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Fox, A. (2018) A New Health and Care System: Escaping the Invisible Asylum, Bristol: Policy Press.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Fox, C., Baines, S., Wilson, R., Martin, M., Jalonen, H., Aflaki, I., Prandini, R., Bassi, A. and Ganugi, G. (2021) A New Agenda for Co-Creating Public Services, Turku University of Applied Sciences, http://julkaisut.turkuamk.fi/isbn9789522167842.pdf
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Grimm, R., Fox, C., Baines, S. and Albertson, K. (2013) ‘Social innovation, an answer to contemporary societal challenges? Locating the concept in theory and practice’, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 26(4): 436–455.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Hemerijck, A. (2013) Changing Welfare States, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Hemerijck, A. (2015) ‘The quiet paradigm revolution of social investment’, Social Politics, 22(2): 242–256.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Hemerijck, A. (2017) ‘Social investment and its critics’, in Hemerijck, A. (ed) The Uses of Social Investment, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 3–40.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Jalonen, H. and Helo, T. (2020) ‘Co-creation of public service innovation using open data and social media: rhetoric, reality, or something in between?’, International Journal of Innovation in the Digital Economy, 11(3): 64–77.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Jamieson, D., Wilson, R. and Martin, M. (2019) ‘The (im)possibilities of open data?’, Public Money and Management, 39(5): 364–368, https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2019.1611240
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Jamieson, D., Martin, M. and Wilson, R. (2020) COSMOS – The Co-creation Service Modelling System [Software], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4058570
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Jarke, J. (2020) Co-Creating Digital Public Services for an Ageing Society: Evidence for User-Centric Design, Cham: Springer International.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Lember, V., Brandsen, T. and Tõnurist, P. (2019) ‘The potential impacts of digital technologies on co-production and co-creation’, Public Management Review, 21(11): 1665–1686. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2019.1619807
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Marques, P., Morgan, K. and Richardson, R. (2017) ‘Social innovation in question: the theoretical and practical implications of a contested concept’, Environment and Planning C, 36(3): 496–512.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Meijer, A. and Thaens, M. (2020) ‘The dark side of public innovation’, Public Performance & Management Review, 44(1): 136–154.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Morel, N. and Palme, J. (2017) The Capabilities Approach: A Normative Foundation for Social Investment? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Moulaert, F. and MacCallum, D. (2019) Advanced Introduction to Social Innovation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D., Mehmood, A. and Hamdouch, A. (eds) (2013) The International Handbook on Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Mumford, M.D. (2002) ‘Social innovation: ten cases from Benjamin Franklin’, Creativity Research Journal, 14(2): 253–266.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J. and Mulgan, G. (2010) The Open Book of Social Innovation, London: NESTA.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Nicholls, A., Simon, J. and Gabriel, M. (2015) ‘Introduction: dimensions of social innovation’, in Nicholls, A., Simon, J. and Gabriel, M. (eds) New Frontiers in Social Innovation Research, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 1–28.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Oosterlynck, S., Novy, A. and Kazepov, Y. (eds) (2019) Local Social Innovation to Combat Poverty and Exclusion, Bristol: Policy Press.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Osborne, S.P. (2018) ‘From public service-dominant logic to public service logic: are public service organizations capable of co-production and value co-creation?’, Public Management Review, 20(2): 225–231. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2017.1350461
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Osborne, S.P., Radnor, Z. and Strokosch, K. (2016) ‘Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: a suitable case for treatment?’, Public Management Review, 18(5): 639–653.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Peng, Y., Wu, T., Chen, Z. and Deng, Z. (2022) ‘Value cocreation in health care: systematic review’, Journal of Medical Internet Research, 24(3): e33061.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Pestoff, V. and Hulgård, L. (2016) ‘Participatory governance in social enterprise’, International Journal of Voluntary and Non-profit Organizations, 27(4): 1742–1759.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Phills, J.A., Deiglmeier, K. and Miller, D.T. (2008) ‘Rediscovering social innovation’, Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(4): 34–43.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Qureshi, I., Pan, S.L. and Zheng, Y. (2021) ‘Digital social innovation: an overview and research framework’, Information Systems Journal, 31(5): 647–671.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Sen, A. (1985) ‘Well-being, agency, and freedom’, The Journal of Philosophy, 82(4): 169–221.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Sen, A. (2001) Development as Freedom, Oxford: Oxford Paperbacks.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Stokes, M., Baeck, P. and Baker, T. (2017) What Next for Digital Social Innovation, DSI4Europe report. Technical report DSI4EU Project, EU Commission.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Torfing, J., Sørensen, E. and Røiseland, A. (2019) ‘Transforming the public sector into an arena for co-creation: barriers, drivers, benefits, and ways forward’, Administration & Society, 51(5): 795–825.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Trowbridge, H. and Willoughby, M. (2022) ‘Debate: re-humanising the system or: how storytelling can be used to bridge the divide between services and citizens’, Public Money & Management, 42(5): 298–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2021.1981014
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Voorberg, W.H., Bekkers, V. and Tummers, L.G. (2015) ‘A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: embarking on the social innovation journey’, Public Management Review, 17(9): 1333–1357.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
Wilson, R., Cornwell, C., Flanagan, E., Nielsen, N. and Khan, H. (2018) Good and Bad Help: How Purpose and Confidence Transform Lives, London: NESTA.
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation