Methodological framework for assessing impact of social innovation

  1. Français non disponible
  2. English

One of the RurAction projects (the Early Stages Researcher project) focuses on the socio-economic impact of social innovation on regional development in structurally weak rural regions. More specifically, it focuses on problems in rural regions in Europe and the impact of social entrepreneurship regarding the development of innovative solutions.

The underlying objectives for the project include to develop a transparent conceptual framework for analysing social innovation, to interlink social innovation and regional development theories and to develop a set of indicators that could allow one to assess the impacts of these social innovations on regional development.

The Early Stages Researcher (ESR) project’s research questions are:

  • How do social innovations influence regional development?
  • How can the impact of social innovations in regional development be assessed?

The methodological framework for answering these research questions combines qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis, including:

  • Qualitative Data Collection: semi-structured expert interviews with regional development experts and members of social enterprises in Muehlviertel, Austria (Secondment 1) and Baixo Alentejo, Portugal (Secondment 2)
  • Qualitative Data Analysis: analysis of interviews (e.g. MAXQDA software tool and Atlas.ti)
  • Quantitative Data Collection: online survey with experts in 2      RurAction regions
  • Quantitative Data Analysis: inferential statistics (e.g. SPSS)

The application of this framework was carried out in cooperation between social enterprises and academics and was completed in both case study regions (Mühlviertel (Austria) and Baixo Alentejo (Portugal) NUTS 3 regions) for assessing the impacts of social innovation activities. The main conclusions from these applications are related to:

Relevance for monitoring and evaluation of the CAP

A framework for assessing the impacts of social innovation. Social innovation is becoming increasingly recognised as an important component of innovations in rural areas with a strong potential to contribute to local development in these areas. However, there are no commonly agreed indicators or metrics that may capture social innovation impacts. In addition, the often intangible character of social innovations consisting of new ideas, changes in attitudes or re-establishing practices makes it difficult to measure. For these reasons, the conceptual and methodological framework offered by this RurAction project can be a useful  when designing evaluations of innovation in the context of the CAP, in particular social innovations.

Local action groups struggle with the impact assessment of social innovation activities and projects. The empirical evidence suggests that the ambiguity of the social innovation concept plays a role in identifying the activities as a social innovation in the first place. Furthermore, assessing causality (i.e. whether the change resulted from the implementation of a specific social innovation project or from other aspects) imposes difficulties in assessing impact.

While conventional methods of impact measurement tend to rely on numerical (‘quantitative’) data, evidence from RurAction points out the need for a different approach to impact assessment that would pay greater attention to ‘qualitative’ developments such as network building, community engagement, increased participation, etc. By its own nature, social innovation cannot be assessed only using metrics and quantitative approaches. Therefore, it is important to combine both qualitative and quantitative approaches to assess impact and inform policy and practice.

This is a theoretical framework for assessing the impacts of social innovations that has only been tested in two Member States. Therefore, it can be used by other Member States for assessing social innovations as is or adapted to suit their own contexts. For instance, the qualitative component could be expanded or diversified in terms of the typology of interviewees or of survey participants.

Last modification date: 
09/12/2021