Have we agreed on that? : Collective values in Community Grassroots Innovations
(2021) Society for the Advancement of Socio-Economics- Abstract
- Grassroots Innovations (GI) have became a successful mechanism developed by the associative capacity of people that seek to provide solutions to their own problems relying on the values of solidarity and reciprocity while striving for social transformation (Smith and Seyfang, 2007; Seyfang and Haxeltine, 2012). However, GI still endure three challenges, namely: adaptation vs. transformation, local vs. scale, and temporary vs. permanent (Smith et al., 2014), which correspond with contradictory values. Although with a few exceptions (Chen et al., 2013; Daskalaki et al., 2019), the study of how GI organise their practices and values and the tension that might arise from the challenges they face remains still unexplored.
We rely on the... (More) - Grassroots Innovations (GI) have became a successful mechanism developed by the associative capacity of people that seek to provide solutions to their own problems relying on the values of solidarity and reciprocity while striving for social transformation (Smith and Seyfang, 2007; Seyfang and Haxeltine, 2012). However, GI still endure three challenges, namely: adaptation vs. transformation, local vs. scale, and temporary vs. permanent (Smith et al., 2014), which correspond with contradictory values. Although with a few exceptions (Chen et al., 2013; Daskalaki et al., 2019), the study of how GI organise their practices and values and the tension that might arise from the challenges they face remains still unexplored.
We rely on the case of a Community Grassroots Innovation (CGIs) in Buenos Aires, Argentina, to explore the role of values in mediating, negotiating and co-producing responses to these three tensions in GI in a context of vulnerability and impoverishment. Contradicting studies that suggest value practices are an end in themselves (Gehman et al., 2013), we argue that values in CGIs are dynamic as result of multiple and constant negotiations, which become evident in their practices and their outcomes (Chen et al., 2013).
Relying on participatory action research and other forms of engaged scholarship, the paper uses an auto-ethnographic approach (King 2015) as I provide reflections grounded on my own experience as volunteer in a CGIs. Our case illustrates that placing the focus on the collective dimension of GI reveals a different understanding. CGIs initiates are able to provide present solutions while prefiguring social transformation since the beginning and for this very same reason, they can both internalise alternative values while attending the causes of injustice. Having said this, our research also states the undermining effects in CGIs that the lack of negotiation have in collective endeavours and the necessity to (re-) discuss and (re-) negotiate the values for each new innovative practice push forward. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/b5f4b51e-2fc5-437b-80bb-f31fd25ed109
- author
- Raffaelli, Paola LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2021
- type
- Contribution to conference
- publication status
- unpublished
- subject
- keywords
- Grassroots Innovations, Values, Engaged Scholarship
- conference name
- Society for the Advancement of Socio-Economics
- conference dates
- 2021-07-02 - 2021-07-05
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- b5f4b51e-2fc5-437b-80bb-f31fd25ed109
- date added to LUP
- 2021-08-30 09:01:55
- date last changed
- 2021-08-30 14:10:50
@misc{b5f4b51e-2fc5-437b-80bb-f31fd25ed109,
abstract = {{Grassroots Innovations (GI) have became a successful mechanism developed by the associative capacity of people that seek to provide solutions to their own problems relying on the values of solidarity and reciprocity while striving for social transformation (Smith and Seyfang, 2007; Seyfang and Haxeltine, 2012). However, GI still endure three challenges, namely: adaptation vs. transformation, local vs. scale, and temporary vs. permanent (Smith et al., 2014), which correspond with contradictory values. Although with a few exceptions (Chen et al., 2013; Daskalaki et al., 2019), the study of how GI organise their practices and values and the tension that might arise from the challenges they face remains still unexplored. <br/>We rely on the case of a Community Grassroots Innovation (CGIs) in Buenos Aires, Argentina, to explore the role of values in mediating, negotiating and co-producing responses to these three tensions in GI in a context of vulnerability and impoverishment. Contradicting studies that suggest value practices are an end in themselves (Gehman et al., 2013), we argue that values in CGIs are dynamic as result of multiple and constant negotiations, which become evident in their practices and their outcomes (Chen et al., 2013). <br/>Relying on participatory action research and other forms of engaged scholarship, the paper uses an auto-ethnographic approach (King 2015) as I provide reflections grounded on my own experience as volunteer in a CGIs. Our case illustrates that placing the focus on the collective dimension of GI reveals a different understanding. CGIs initiates are able to provide present solutions while prefiguring social transformation since the beginning and for this very same reason, they can both internalise alternative values while attending the causes of injustice. Having said this, our research also states the undermining effects in CGIs that the lack of negotiation have in collective endeavours and the necessity to (re-) discuss and (re-) negotiate the values for each new innovative practice push forward.}},
author = {{Raffaelli, Paola}},
keywords = {{Grassroots Innovations; Values; Engaged Scholarship}},
language = {{eng}},
title = {{Have we agreed on that? : Collective values in Community Grassroots Innovations}},
year = {{2021}},
}