Towards a practice-based approach to public innovation – Apollonian and Dionysian practice-approaches
Keywords:Public innovation, collaborative innovation, practice-based theory, bricolage, public-private collaboration
This paper discusses how a practice-based approach to public innovation can provide an alternative, critical means of looking at public innovation. It unravels two ways practices can exist in relation to public innovation: Apollonian and Dionysian practice approaches. The Apollonian practice-approach is purposeful, speaking of the actors’ plans and interests and the rules of the game. In contrast, the Dionysian is a more spontaneous, bricolage-like approach to innovation that gathers people in an open space of innovation. Given these contrasting approaches further illustrated through two case vignettes, the paper argues that public innovation transpires not only through purposeful practices and plans but also more contextual public services changes. Research needs to capture both of these approaches and explore their impact on innovation. The paper concludes by outlining a research strategy for investigating practice-approaches in public service innovation and how a practice-based approach can add to our understanding of public service innovation.
This article belongs to the Special Issue Public sector Innovation - Conceptual and Methodological Implications
Guest Editors: Ann Karin Tennås Holmen (University of Stavanger) and Maria Røhnebæk (Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences)
Ansell, C., & Trondal, J. (2018). Governing turbulence: An organizational-institutional agenda. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 1(1), 43-57. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvx013
Benedict, R. (1961). Patterns of culture. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.40
Bryson, J., Sancino, A., Benington, J., & Sørensen, E. (2017). Towards a multi-actor theory of public value co-creation. Public Management Review, 19(5), 640-654. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1192164
Carstensen, M. B. (2011). Paradigm man vs. the bricoleur: Bricolage as an alternative vision of agency in ideational change. European Political Science Review, 3(1), 147-167. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773910000342
Cass, N., & Shove, E. (2017). Changing energy demand. Concepts, metaphors and implications for policy. Lancaster University.
Echeverri, P., & Skålén, P. (2011). Co-creation and co-destruction: A practice-theory based study of interactive value formation. Marketing Theory, 11(3), 351-373. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593111408181
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363
Fuglsang, L. (Ed.) (2008). Innovation and the creative process: Towards innovation with care. Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781848440104
Fuglsang, L. (2017). The critical incident technique and everyday innovation. In F. Sørensen & F. Lapenta (Eds.), Service Innovation Research Methods (pp. 40-59). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785364860.00009
Fuglsang, L. (2018). Towards a theory of a practice-based approach to service innovation within spheres of interaction. In A. Scupola & L. Fuglsang (Eds.), Services, Experiences and Innovation: Integrating and Extending Research (pp. 147-164). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788114301.00015
Fuglsang, L., & Sørensen, F. (2011). The balance between bricolage and innovation: Management dilemmas in sustainable public innovation. Service Industries Journal, 31(4), 581-595.https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2010.504302
Fuglsang, L., & Rønning, R. (2015). On innovation patterns and value-tensions in public services. Service Industries Journal, 35(9), 467-482. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2015.1042971
Gherardi, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge: The texture of workplace learning. Blackwell.
Gherardi, S. (2009). Practice? It's a matter of taste. Management Learning, 40(5), 535-550. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507609340812
Grönroos, C. (2019). Reforming public services: Does service logic have anything to offer? Public Management Review, 21(5), 775-788. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1529879
Haraway, D. J. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press.https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822373780
Hartley, J. (2005). Innovation in governance and public services: Past and present. Public Money & Management, 25(1), 27-34.
Hartley, J. (2006). Innovation and its contribution to improvement. Department for Communities and Local Government (UK).
Maffesoli, M. (1998). Société ou communauté. Tribalisme et sentiment d'appartenance. Corps et Culture, 3. https://doi.org/10.4000/corpsetculture.520
McGillivray, D. (2005). Fitter, happier, more productive: Governing working bodies through wellness. Culture and Organization, 11(2), 125-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759550500091036
Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming in and out: Studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connection. Organization Studies, 30(2), 1391-1418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609349875
Nicolini, D., & Monteiro, P. (2017). The practice approach: For a praxeology of organisational and management studies. In A. Langley & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook on Organizational Studies (pp. 110-126). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473957954.n7
Nietzsche, F. W. (2000). The birth of tragedy. Oxford University Press.
OECD (2005). The measurement of scientific and technological activities. Oslo manual. Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data (Third edition). OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264013100-en
Osborne, S. P. (2018). From public service-dominant logic to public service logic: Are public service organizations capable of co-production and value co-creation? Public Management Review, 20(2), 225-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1350461
Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Strokosch, K. (2016). Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: A suitable case for treatment? Public Management Review, 18(5), 639-653. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1111927
Pantzar, M., & Shove, E. (2010). Understanding innovation in practice: A discussion of the production and re-production of Nordic walking. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22(4), 447-461. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537321003714402
Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243-263. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684310222225432
Schatzki, T. R. (2002). The site of the social: A philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change. Pennsylvania State University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780271023717
Schatzki, T. R. (2016). Keeping track of large phenomena. Geographische Zeitschrift, 104(1), 4-24.
Schatzki, T. R. (2019). Social change in a material world. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429032127
Skålén, P., Gummerus, J., von Koskull, C., & Magnusson, P. R. (2015). Exploring value propositions and service innovation: A service-dominant logic study. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(2), 137-158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-013-0365-2
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2012). Introduction: Collaborative innovation in the public sector. The Innovation Journal, 17(1), 1-14.
Strati, A. (1992). Aesthetic understanding of organizational life. Academy of Management Review, 17(3), 568-581. https://doi.org/10.2307/258723
Sundbo, J. (1997). Management of innovation in services. Service Industries Journal, 17(3), 432-455. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069700000028
Torfing, J. (2016). Collaborative innovation in the public sector. Georgetown University Press.
Torfing, J. (2019). Collaborative innovation in the public sector: The argument. Public Management Review, 21(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1430248
Torfing, J., & Triantafillou, P. (2013). What's in a name? Grasping new public governance as a political-administrative system. International Review of Public Administration, 18(2), 9-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2013.10805250
Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333-1357. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505
Warde, A. (2005). Consumption and theories of practice. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(2), 131-153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540505053090
Warde, A. (2015). On the sociology of eating. Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement - Review of agricultural and environmental studies, 96(1), 7-15.
Wegrich, K. (2019). The blind spots of collaborative innovation. Public Management Review, 21(1), 12-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1433311
Westwood, R. (2004). Comic relief: Subversion and catharsis in organizational comedic theatre. Organization Studies, 25(5), 775-795. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840604042414
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2021 Fuglsang Lars
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).