In the context of societal challenges increasing and worsening especially in the urban context, a new paradigm of the knowledge economy has emerged as a potential solution due to its collaborative, multisectoral, hybrid nature: innovation districts. This paper investigates these innovative models and their actual ability to generate positive inclusive impact, specifically through the lenses of (Heeks et al., 2013)’s ladder of inclusive innovation and by assessing how institutional contexts affect their development and how capable they are of mitigating negative spill-overs. This is achieved using a meta-ethnographic approach and thematic analysis as qualitative methods to analyse the secondary data from academic papers. The main findings of this study are: 1) Among several elements affecting the district such as governance and manner of foundation, external factors and structure of the district are crucial for its development and impact. However, the factors influencing the district are several and overlap, making it challenging to identify how much they each influence the district. 2) Recurring ways to involve the community and mitigate socio-segregation are structural, socioeconomical, informational and whether districts play the role of bridges or gentrifying entities entirely depends on the involvement of community, the definition given to it and the dimension of intentionality. 3) Lastly, a classification of mitigation tactics according to (Heeks et al., 2013)’s ladder of inclusive innovation was produced with potential helpful implications for practitioners.
Nel contesto dell’aumento e dell’aggravarsi delle sfide sociali, soprattutto nel tessuto urbano, è emerso un nuovo paradigma della knowledge economy, potenziale soluzione, per la sua natura collaborativa, multisettoriale e ibrida: i distretti dell’innovazione. La presente ricerca indaga tali modelli innovativi e la loro effettiva capacità di generare un impatto inclusivo, positivo, in particolare attraverso le lenti della scala dell’innovazione inclusiva di Heeks et al. (2013), valutando nel contempo come i contesti istituzionali influenzino lo sviluppo dei distretti e quanto siano in grado di mitigarne le conseguenze negative. Gli obbiettivi sopra illustrati sono stati esplorati utilizzando un approccio meta-etnografico e un'analisi tematica come metodi qualitativi per analizzare i dati secondari di articoli accademici. I principali risultati di questo articolo accademico sono: 1) Tra i diversi elementi che influenzano i distretti, come la governance e le modalità di fondazione, i fattori esterni e la struttura del distretto sono cruciali per il suo sviluppo e impatto. Tuttavia, i fattori che influenzano il distretto sono numerosi e si sovrappongono, rendendo difficile identificare quanto ciascuno di essi lo influenzi. 2) Le modalità ricorrenti per coinvolgere la comunità e mitigare la socio-segregazione sono strutturali, socioeconomiche, informative e la capacità dei distretti di svolgere il ruolo di ponti o di entità gentrificanti dipende interamente dal coinvolgimento della comunità, dalla definizione datale e dalla dimensione dell'intenzionalità. 3) Infine, una classificazione delle tattiche di mitigazione secondo la scala di innovazione inclusiva di Heeks et al. (2013) è stata prodotta con potenziali implicazioni pratiche per i professionisti.
Innovation districts: a successful paradigm for inclusive impact?
Varotti, Arianna
2023/2024
Abstract
In the context of societal challenges increasing and worsening especially in the urban context, a new paradigm of the knowledge economy has emerged as a potential solution due to its collaborative, multisectoral, hybrid nature: innovation districts. This paper investigates these innovative models and their actual ability to generate positive inclusive impact, specifically through the lenses of (Heeks et al., 2013)’s ladder of inclusive innovation and by assessing how institutional contexts affect their development and how capable they are of mitigating negative spill-overs. This is achieved using a meta-ethnographic approach and thematic analysis as qualitative methods to analyse the secondary data from academic papers. The main findings of this study are: 1) Among several elements affecting the district such as governance and manner of foundation, external factors and structure of the district are crucial for its development and impact. However, the factors influencing the district are several and overlap, making it challenging to identify how much they each influence the district. 2) Recurring ways to involve the community and mitigate socio-segregation are structural, socioeconomical, informational and whether districts play the role of bridges or gentrifying entities entirely depends on the involvement of community, the definition given to it and the dimension of intentionality. 3) Lastly, a classification of mitigation tactics according to (Heeks et al., 2013)’s ladder of inclusive innovation was produced with potential helpful implications for practitioners.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
2024_12_Varotti.pdf
accessibile in internet per tutti
Dimensione
1.85 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
1.85 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in POLITesi sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
https://hdl.handle.net/10589/230089