Laboratórios de inovação social para a construção social do conhecimento
revisão sistemática da literatura
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35699/1983-3652.2021.33750Palavras-chave:
Laboratórios de inovação social, Construção social do conhecimento, Inovação aberta, Objetivos de desenvolvimento sustentável, SustentabilidadeResumo
Os Laboratórios de Inovação Social (LIS) são espaços para a construção do conhecimento onde os Objectivos de Desenvolvimento Sustentável da UNESCO podem ser atingidos. O objetivo da investigação é identificar os estudos mais relevantes sobre a construção social do conhecimento, no âmbito do SIL, relacionados com problemas ambientais e analisá-los a fim de propor soluções para a sustentabilidade. O método utilizado para localizar os artigos publicados em acesso aberto, de 2010 a 2020, em Scopus, Web of Science e Google Academic, foi o Revisão Sistemática da Literatura. Os resultados mostram que os grupos de trabalho são multidisciplinares e dão origem a propostas de diferentes áreas da ciência. Os produtos são construídos com uma abordagem aberta. As universidades são os espaços que mais promovem a participação nos laboratórios para gerar ações de sustentabilidade aplicáveis na vida real e o trabalho é feito para ampliar os protótipos aos níveis local, nacional e internacional.
Referências
ALONSO, Angel Vazquez; MANASSERO-MAS, María Antonia. Un modelo conceptual y taxonómico para estructurar el campo ciencia-tecnología-sociedad (o naturaleza de la ciencia y tecnología, o como se llame). Indagatio Didactica, v. 11, n. 2, p. 121–139, Mar. 2020. Available from: http://dspace.uib.es/xmlui/handle/11201/151019. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
BARAN, Grzegorz. Social Innovation Living Labs as Platforms to Co-design Social Innovations. Journal of Intercultural Management, v. 12, n. 1, p. 36–57, Mar. 2020. DOI: 10.2478/joim 2019-0031. Available from: https://www.sciendo.com/article/10.2478/joim-2019-0031. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
BARBANCHO, Beatriz et al. New Environments for the Evaluation of Smart Living Solutions. In: CHEN, Feng et al. (Eds.). Smart Assisted Living. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020. p. 269–285. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-25590-9_13. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-25590-9_13. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
BARTH, Matthias; LANG, Daniel J.; MICHELSEN, Gerd. Transdisciplinary learning to foster sustainable development: Institutionalizing co-engaged South-North collaboration. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, v. 28, n. 4, p. 382–385, Dec. 2019. DOI: 10.14512/gaia.28.4.11. Available from: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/10.14512/gaia.28.4.11. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
BLÄTTEL-MINK, B. Report of DFG round table discussion on co-design, co-production and co-dissemination. [S.l.], 2016.
BLIKSTEIN, Paulo. Maker movement in education: History and prospects. Handbook of Technology Education, p. 419–437, 2018.
BLIKSTEIN, Paulo; KRANNICH, Dennis. The makers’ movement and FabLabs in education: experiences, technologies, and research. In: PROCEEDINGS of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. New York, NY: ACM, June 2013. p. 613–616. DOI: 10.1145/2485760.2485884. Available from: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2485760.2485884. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
CASTRO-BUITRAGO, E. Chapter 6: Principle of participation in environmental matters. The Principle 10. In: ENVIRONMENTAL Law School: Homage to Gloria Amparo Rodríguez. Colombia: Editorial Universidad del Rosario, 2020.
CENTRE FOR REVIEWS AND DISSEMINATION. CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. [S.l.: s.n.], 2020. publisher: University of York. Available from: https://www.york.ac.uk/crd/guidance/. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
COUIX, Nathalie; HAZARD, Laurent. When the future of biodiversity depends on researchers’ and stakeholders’ thought-styles. Futures, v. 53, p. 13–21, Sept. 2013. DOI: 10.1016/j.futures.2013.09.005. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0016328713001183. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
DEFILA, Rico; DI GIULIO, Antonietta. Science policy recommendations for funding real-world laboratories and comparable formats. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, v. 29, n. 1, p. 63–65, Mar. 2020. DOI: 10.14512/gaia.29.1.14. Available from: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/10.14512/gaia.29.1.14. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
DELL’ERA, Claudio; LANDONI, Paolo. Living Lab: A Methodology between User-Centred Design and Participatory Design: Living Lab. Creativity and Innovation Management, v. 23, n. 2, p. 137–154, June 2014. DOI: 10.1111/caim.12061. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/caim.12061. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
EJDERYAN, Olivier et al. How social sciences and humanities can contribute to transformative science. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, v. 28, n. 2, p. 160–162, Jan. 2019. DOI: 10.14512/gaia.28.2.15. Available from: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/10.14512/gaia.28.2.15. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
ENOLL. About us. [S.l.: s.n.], 2020. Available from: http://enoll.org/about-us/. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
ESTEVEZ-ALVAREZ, Lurima. he aesthetic sustainability of the human condition: challenges of contemporary education. Revista Gestão & Sustentabilidade Ambiental, v. 8, n. 4, p. 368–385, Jan. 2020. DOI: 10.19177/rgsa.v8e42019368-385. Available from: http://www.portaldeperiodicos.unisul.br/index.php/gestao_ambiental/article/view/7008. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
EVANS, James et al. Living labs and co-production: university campuses as platforms for sustainability science. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, v. 16, p. 1–6, Oct. 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.005. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1877343515000573. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
FASNACHT, D. Open Innovation in the Financial Services. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-88231-2. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-540-88231-2. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
GARCÍA, Leonardo Jimenez; LÓPEZ, A. A. Desafíos en la coproducción de conocimientos desde el diálogo de saberes y la sistematización de experiencias: una perspectiva política. Pluralismos epistemológicos: Nuevos desafíos de la investigación y la sistematización de experiencias, 2020. Available from: https://bit.ly/3gdd0Pd. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
HALVERSON, Erica Rosenfeld; SHERIDAN, Kimberly. The Maker Movement in Education. Harvard Educational Review, v. 84, n. 4, p. 495–504, Dec. 2014. DOI: 10.17763/haer.84.4.34j1g68140382063. Available from: https://meridian.allenpress.com/her/article/84/4/495/32157/The-Maker-Movement-in-Education. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
JAEGER-ERBEN, Melanie et al. Building Capacities for Transdisciplinary Research: Challenges and Recommendations for Early-Career Researchers. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, v. 27, n. 4, p. 379–386, Jan. 2018. DOI: 10.14512/gaia.27.4.10. Available from: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/10.14512/gaia.27.4.10. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
KITCHENHAM, B.; CHARTERS, S. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. UK: Keele University & University of Durham, 2007.
KITCHENHAM, Barbara; PRETORIUS, Rialette, et al. Systematic literature reviews in software engineering – A tertiary study. Information and Software Technology, v. 52, n. 8, p. 792–805, Aug. 2010. DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2010.03.006. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0950584910000467. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
KOMATSU, Tamami et al. Policy labs challenges in the public sector: the value of design for more responsive organizations. Policy Design and Practice, v. 4, n. 2, p. 271–291, Apr. 2021. DOI: 10.1080/25741292.2021.1917173. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25741292.2021.1917173. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
KRAUSE, Gesche; SCHUPP, Maximilian Felix. Evaluating knowledge transfer at the interface between science and society. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, v. 28, n. 3, p. 284–293, Oct. 2019. DOI: 10.14512/gaia.28.3.9. Available from: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/10.14512/gaia.28.3.9. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
MEDIALAB-PRADO. What is Medialab-Prado. [S.l.: s.n.], 2020. publisher: Dirección General de Proyectos Culturales, Área de Gobierno de las Artes, Ayuntamiento de Madrid. Available from: https://www.medialab-prado.es/. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
MIKHAK, B. et al. Fab Lab: an alternate model of ICT for development. In: 2ND international conference on open collaborative design for sustainable innovation. [S.l.: s.n.], 2002. v. 17.
MIT. About the lab. [S.l.: s.n.], 2020. Available from: https://www.media.mit.edu/about/overview/. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
MÜLLER, Felix C.; IBERT, Oliver. (Re-)sources of innovation: Understanding and comparing time-spatial innovation dynamics through the lens of communities of practice. Geoforum, v. 65, p. 338–350, Oct. 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.10.007. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0016718514002231. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
OBERLACK, Christoph et al. Theories of change in sustainability science: Understanding how change happens. en. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, v. 28, n. 2, p. 106–111, Jan. 2019. DOI: 10.14512/gaia.28.2.8. Available from: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/10.14512/gaia.28.2.8. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
PASCHKE, Melanie; ZURGILGEN, Karina. Science-policy boundary work by early-stage researchers: Recommendations for teaching, internships and knowledge transfer. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, v. 28, n. 3, p. 310–315, Oct. 2019. DOI: 10.14512/gaia.28.3.13. Available from: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/10.14512/gaia.28.3.13. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
PEDUZZI, Marina et al. Teamwork: revisiting the concept and its consequences for interprofessional work. Trabalho, Educação e Saúde, v. 18, suppl 1, e0024678, 2020. DOI: 10.1590/1981-7746-sol00246. Available from: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1981-77462020000400401&tlng=pt. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
PETTIBONE, Lisa et al. Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research and Citizen Science: Options for Mutual Learning. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, v. 27, n. 2, p. 222–225, Jan. 2018. DOI: 10.14512/gaia.27.2.9. Available from: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/10.14512/gaia.27.2.9. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
PFIRMAN, Stephanie; MARTIN, Paula J. S. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Scholars. In: FRODEMAN, Robert; THOMPSON-KLEIN, J.; PACHECO, R. C. (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. 2nd edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, Mar. 2017. p. 387–403. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198733522.013.47. Available from: http://oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198733522.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780198733522-e-47. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
POHL, Christian; KRÜTLI, Pius; STAUFFACHER, Michael. Ten Reflective Steps for Rendering Research Societally Relevant. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, v. 26, n. 1, p. 43–51, Jan. 2017. DOI: 10.14512/gaia.26.1.10. Available from: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/10.14512/gaia.26.1.10. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
RAASCH, Christina; HERSTATT, Cornelius; BALKA, Kerstin. On the open design of tangible goods. R&D Management, v. 39, n. 4, p. 382–393, Sept. 2009. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00567.x. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00567.x. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
RAMÍREZ-MONTOYA, María-Soledad; GARCÍA-PEÑALVO, Francisco-José. Co-creation and open innovation: Systematic literature review. Comunicar, v. 26, n. 54, p. 09–18, Jan. 2018. DOI: 10.3916/C54-2018-01. Available from: https://www.revistacomunicar.com/index.php?contenido=detalles&numero=54&articulo=54-2018-01. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
STACEY, Michael. The FAB LAB Network: A Global Platform for Digital Invention, Education and Entrepreneurship. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, v. 9, n. 1-2, p. 221–238, Jan. 2014. DOI: 10.1162/inov_a_00211. Available from: https://direct.mit.edu/itgg/article/9/1-2/221-238/9785. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
WALZ, Rainer et al. Wider economic and social implications of sustainable economy approaches: Some insights from a scenario exercise. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, v. 28, n. 1, p. 190–197, Jan. 2019. DOI: 10.14512/gaia.28.S1.4. Available from: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/10.14512/gaia.28.S1.4. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
WANG, Peng. Sustainability and Resilience of Alternative Lifestyles: An Ethnography of Self-organizing Communities in South China. Sustainability, v. 12, n. 4, p. 1454, Feb. 2020. DOI: 10.3390/su12041454. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/4/1454. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
WIGBOLDUS, Seerp et al. Systemic perspectives on scaling agricultural innovations. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, v. 36, n. 3, p. 46, Sept. 2016. DOI: 10.1007/s13593-016-0380-z. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13593-016-0380-z. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
WILLIAMSON, Ben. Governing methods: policy innovation labs, design and data science in the digital governance of education. Journal of Educational Administration and History, v. 47, n. 3, p. 251–271, July 2015. DOI: 10.1080/00220620.2015.1038693. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00220620.2015.1038693. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
WOLF-POWERS, Laura et al. The Maker Movement and Urban Economic Development. Journal of the American Planning Association, v. 83, n. 4, p. 365–376, Oct. 2017. DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2017.1360787. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01944363.2017.1360787. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
YAÑEZ-FIGUEROA, José Antonio; RAMÍREZ-MONTOYA, María Soledad; GARCÍA-PEÑALVO, Francisco J. Systematic mapping of the literature: social innovation laboratories for the collaborative construction of knowledge from the perspective of open innovation. In: PROCEEDINGS of the Fourth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality. Salamanca, Spain: ACM, Nov. 2016. p. 795–803. DOI: 10.1145/3012430.3012609. Available from: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3012430.3012609. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
ZAMBRANO-MONSERRATE, Manuel A.; RUANO, María Alejandra; SANCHEZ-ALCALDE, Luis. Indirect effects of COVID-19 on the environment. Science of The Total Environment, v. 728, p. 138813, Aug. 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138813. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0048969720323305. Visited on: 30 Sept. 2021.
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2021 Texto Livre: Linguagem e Tecnologia
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Este é um artigo em acesso aberto que permite o uso irrestrito, a distribuição e reprodução em qualquer meio desde que o artigo original seja devidamente citado.