1. Making sense of Transformative Social Innovation dynamics; learning potentials of the Critical Turning Points online database
 TRANSIT Social Learning transversal theme workshop  
June 8th -9th 2016, A Coruña (ESP)
Bonno Pel (ULB), Tom Bauler (ULB) & Adina Dumitru (UDC)

2. Contents On Transformative Social Innovation
Making sense of TSI: relevance of changing knowledge infrastructures
Database architecture & learning potentials
Developing the knowledge infrastructure;
our design challenge

3. How are people (dis-)empowered to contribute to such processes?
1.1 On TRANSIT & TSI
Research questions:
How, to what extent and under which conditions does social innovation contribute to transformative change?
How are people (dis-)empowered to contribute to such processes?
How to stimulate trans-disciplinary production of transformative knowledge on TSI? How to stimulate social learning on TSI, i.e. ‘changes in beliefs, mindframes and strategies’?
[If my presentation in anyway gives the illusion of agreement or coherence, I would herewith like to make a clear disclaimer that we actually disagree, contest and debate on many things, especially now that we are mid-way of our project. In my presentation I will focus on the things that we more or less agree on].

4. 1.2 TSI Theory… Transformative social innovation (TSI) =
…change in social relations,
…involving new ways of doing, organising, framing and/or knowing,
…which challenge, alter and/or replace dominant institutions
…in a specific socio-material context

6. 2. Making sense of TSI: changing knowledge infrastructures
Making sense & learning:
Visualizing TSI &
Communicating TSI

7. Evolving knowledge infrastructures as material factor in transformative learning (Latour, Jasanoff)
Presenting, Showcasing, Mapping, Organizing, Classifying, Connecting, Translating, Co-producing TSI..

8. 2.3 Learning through knowledge infrastructures
Evolving communication technologies offer learning potentials…
…Including ‘perverse’ learning:
Simplified/reified ideas about individuals and systems
De-politicized views on social change
Success bias and failure taboo
‘hype’ and performative expectations
Etc…
Design challenge:
Online database for making sense of TSI

9. 3. Database architecture & learning potentials
Process view on TSI: Dynamic, evolving realities; Critical Turning Points in TSI journeys.
Envisioned learning potentials:
Larger-N study through database
Online database for ‘open’ science
Lived-through experience and researcher analysis
Multi-actor/co-produced transformations
Accounts of lessons learnt
Analysis across contexts

10. 20 TSI networks
X 4 ‘local manifestations’
= 80 TSI initiatives

11. Basic information + logo’s on SI initiatives…
(to be linked with research reports, web resources, articles etc…)

12. Timelines of social innovation initiatives and their ‘critical turning points’

13. Expanding the timelines:
Critical Turning Points
and ‘related events’

14. Critical Turning Points:
Standardized, comparable accounts of important events in TSI processes
ID/metadata
6 question categories
Quotes + analyst description

15. Entry of CTP descriptions (lay-out/style to be refined!)

16. 4.1 Developing the knowledge infrastructure
Some potentials for process learning…
Design challenge: develop potentials for diverse knowledge interests.
TRANSIT researchers’ analysis aims.
Initiatives/networks in database: Self-monitoring, Reflective comparison, Exposure/being exposed.
Other social innovation initiatives, policymakers, general public.
Other researchers: TSI meta-analysis, particular initiatives, method.

17. TRANSIT Researchers
Other researchers
CTP database:
20 SI networks/ 80 initiatives
480 CTP files
User interface/explanation
Output formats
Communication platform? …?
SI initiatives
Other SI initiatives, policy-makers & public

18. 4.3 Design challenge: 4 sets of questions

19. Group 1: Researched initiatives:
How can they learn about their timelines when deploying the database?
What contextualization of the data should be provided through the database, and through what facilitation procedures could the learning be enhanced?
How could they deploy the database in their communication strategies?
What function could the database, or parts of it, fulfill for the self-monitoring of initiatives?
Group 2: Other interested parties (initiatives, policymakers, the public):
How should the database contents be contextualized, in order to evoke reflection on and avoid misleading imageries of transformation processes?
How can the broader public be invited to join the reflection on timelines?
How can policymakers and the public be engaged in learning about innovation failures?
Group 3: Other researchers:
How to present, frame, and package the CTP files?
Which background information and disclaimers need to be provided?
Which elements of the database architecture are the most attractive to recycle in future research on transformation processes, and which elements could be added to a future upgraded version?
Group 4: TRANSIT researchers:
For what kinds of learning are the learning potentials the greatest?
Whose learning is the most important to support, about what are priorities?
What are the learning dangers to be avoided?