Achtung: hohPublica wurde am 18.11.2024 aktualisiert. Falls Sie auf Darstellungsfehler stoßen, löschen Sie bitte Ihren Browser-Cache (Strg + Umschalt + Entf). *** Attention: hohPublica was last updated on November 18, 2024. If you encounter display errors, please delete your browser cache (Ctrl + Shift + Del).

Institut für Sozialwissenschaften des Agrarbereichs

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hohpublica.uni-hohenheim.de/handle/123456789/18

Browse

Browsing Institut für Sozialwissenschaften des Agrarbereichs by Person "Chen, Hsi-Chun"

Type the first few letters and click on the Browse button
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    The potential of social innovation in rural revitalisation : a comparative case study from Taiwan
    (2022) Chen, Hsi-Chun; Knierim, Andrea
    Social innovations have been frequently discussed in the context of rural development and even viewed as a key toward rural revitalisation, promising to cope with such societal challenges. However, to what extent and how social innovation can contribute to rural development, especially under the future challenge of rural decline, still remains an ongoing concern. This research aims to explore the potential of social innovation in rural revitalisation by clarifying the actors’ roles in social innovation processes. In particular, the study made use of four cases of rural development practice in Taiwan. The special attention of these case studies draws on the four objectives, which are: (1) to explore the role of actors in community-driven social innovation; (2) to clarify the role of actors in external support-driven rural social innovation; (3) to provide recommendations for integrating the concept of social innovation into rural development policies and programmes; (4) to further theoretical and methodological insights for the study of rural social innovation. The study concludes that the internal actors may not aim to innovate society — they intend to solve practical local issues. Therefore, the outcomes of social innovation can be unintentional; tangible and material outcomes are crucial for internal actors, which may challenge the literature’s perspective that treats material outcomes as supplementary results. Furthermore, external actors could play a key role as helpers in fuelling social innovation only if they get sufficient support from rural areas and the public sector, resulting in their growth while facing upcoming challenges. The study also discussed the pros, cons, and differences between community-driven and external support-driven approaches. These two approaches―are like two sides of the same coin―while the former is more local-oriented in terms of local targeted problems and local joint actors, the latter is rather issue-oriented that can focus on the targeted problems and the joint actors without geographical boundaries. In addition, the external support-driven approach conducted by this research to a certain degree reflects the “nexogenous approach.” From the empirical experiences of this study, this approach might not guarantee the success of rural social innovation―however, it did provide a bright chance for the public sector to participate not only as a partner or sponsor in rural areas but they can actively be as a bridge to link potential partners somewhere beyond geographical boundaries. Three strategies are provided for the public sector, encompassing: (1) the public sector should actively play a bridging role to provide opportunities for connecting external actors; (2) the public sector could use programmes, such as village competitions or other innovative activities, to provide a reachable share vision for people to participate; (3) rural development related programmes should draw more attentions om educational and learning types of programmes to develop self-learning mechanism in local communities. For theoretical and methodological insights, the ANT can be better used to explore research with inequality consideration and without initial social explanation assumptions. The actor-oriented approach may be suitably used to study interactions among clear differentiation of social actors with initial social explanation assumptions. From the findings of this case study, it can be concluded that social innovation in terms of rural revitalisation is valuable in its outcomes, uncertain in its emergence, challenged by the marginalising rural reality, and promising on external connections without geographical boundaries. Since the future of rural marginalisation is considered inevitable, to survive in its effects is essential. In other words, rural social innovation may not be able to eliminate the causes of rural marginalisation; however, it provides an approach to adapt its effects, that is, to weave a future that rural areas might not have many inhabitants―however, they have more self-organisation―initiators, actors, more external partners and connections are driven by needs to solve common societal problems―without geographical boundaries.