Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Summary

While systemic research of social innovation has made substantial progress in recent years, the interactions between social and technological innovation and the societal impact of technology – also as regards their contribution to addressing grand societal challenges – are as yet underexplored. Focusing on Adaptive Social Innovation, the authors take the first steps in response to this research gap by proposing a theoretical model that integrates discussions in macroeconomics, social psychology, political science to explain motives and impacts.

2. General concept comments

Against the backdrop of the recent shift in research and innovation policies towards ‘missions’ to cope with grand societal challenges by putting people at the core and asking for innovations’ societal value-added, the authors contribute to advance our understanding of the role of the digital economy respectively technology to drive social change. The visualization of the model in Figure 3 is coherent and easy to follow.

This said, however, the article comes with clear limitations.

First, the author(s) promise to integrate the ‘discussions in macroeconomics, social psychology, political science’ to develop the theoretical model. However, while explicitly mentioning this ambition in the abstract, section 2 (‘Theoretical background’) lacks respective references and a sound conceptualization of their integration. Instead, the author(s) only make implicit references and remain vague (see specific comments).

Second, digital social innovation (DSI) is a central topic in social innovation research (cf. Qureshi et al., 2021; Huh & Kim, 2019). But unfortunately, the authors neither pick up on these discussions nor position their study in the context of DSI.

Third, the author(s) proposes a ‘new’ type of innovation, i.e. ‘Adaptive Social Innovation’. However, earlier conceptions such as ‘adaptive innovation systems’ (Cooke, 2011) or ‘adaptive innovation’ (cf. Santha, 2020) are not considered. For example, Santha (2020: 28) posit that ‘[a]daptive innovation involves a combination of observing, thinking, doing and reflecting wherein knowledge is acquired, shared and assimilated through iterative practices of different actors’. Li et al. (2021: 437) define adaptive innovation as ‘a type of evolutional or incremental new adaptions in response to significant changes in the environments’. Hence, this raises the question of what distinguishes ‘Adaptive Social Innovation’ from earlier conceptions of adaptive innovation. In particular, clarification and justification of the ‘social’ in the proposed model remain underdeveloped.

Fourth, terms such as ‘digital economy’, ‘social innovation’, ‘scientific technology’, ‘social structures’, which are central to the proposed theoretical model, are only discussed superficially without a clear definition. On the one hand, such imprecision bears the risk of misinterpretation, and on the other hand, leaves the reader with several open questions.

Huh T. & Kim J.H. (2019). Multiple Conjunctural Impact on Digital Social Innovation: Focusing on the OECD Countries. Sustainability. 11(18): 4887-. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184887

Qureshi, I., Pan, S. L., & Zheng, Y. (2021). Digital social innovation: An overview and research framework. Innovation Systems Journal, 31(5), Special Issue: Digital Social Innovation, 647-671. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12362

Cooke, P. (2011). Complex Adaptive Innovation Systems: Relatedness and Transversality in the Evolving Region (1st ed.). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203126615

Santha, S. D. (2020). Climate Change and Adaptive Innovation. A Model for Social Work Practice. Abingdon: Routledge

Li, J., Wang, Y., Sun, W., Luo, M., & Liu, Z. (2021). Underestimation of novel risks and anti-pandemic performance: the moderating effects of politics and adaptive innovation. https://doi.org/10.24205/03276716.2020.2040

In summary, the theoretical derivation of the proposed model necessitates a major revision to qualify for publication in this journal. Furthermore, the article offers several opportunities to reduce redundancies resulting from the repetition of identical arguments.

Specific comments

p. 1, line 36ff.: The argument you make here reads as if the focus on products, services and processes implies a technology focus in innovation studies, which, from my perspective, is not correct. There is a clear focus on technology in its broadest sense and on products, services and processes. However, in economics and business management, innovation, in general, is discussed as driving economic growth and welfare. What has largely been neglected is its added value for society, including adverse effects.

p. 2, line 47f.: You claim that approaching technological innovation from a social perspective allows us to grasp changes in relations and perceptions underlying social change. For the reader, it could be helpful to define what exactly you mean by social/societal change.

p. 2, line 52f.: You propose that ‘innovation should be discussed in macroscopic level’ but do not explain why and in how far these extend current innovation studies.

p. 2, line 62: I recommend naming the two types of social innovation.

p. 3, line 95ff.: The ‘general’ definition of social innovation you presented is rather unspecific and does not reflect the phenomenon's complexity. At least you should outline the specifics of social innovation compared to other forms of innovation, such as its cross-sectoral nature, the diversity of actors involved, its non-linear innovation processes and further.

p. 3, line 105ff: What exactly do you mean by ‘structural transformation beyond the level of shifting’? A shift of what? And what ‘big changes’ is the social sector undergoing to ‘cope with new Digital Economy’? What distinguishes the ‘new’ digital economy from the ‘old’? This paragraph makes several assertions without substantiating them or explaining them in more detail. Therewith, you leave the reader with many open questions.

p. 3, line 1116: The term ‘social structure’ has various meanings and is used inconsistently in the literature. In its broadest sense, social structure refers to patterns of social relationships in society and how social relations are arranged into patterns. For other scholars, e.g. Merton, the social structure also consists of inequalities of power, status, etc., which give members of society somewhat different opportunities and alternatives. Other scholars emphasize unobservable structures that have observable effects on behaviour, society and culture (i.e. structuralist perspective, Levi Strauss). Hence, to allow the reader to follow your line of reasoning better, it might be helpful to clarify what you mean by social structure as distinguished from social relationships.

p. 3, line 124: What do you mean by ‘scientific technology’?

p. 4, line 161: You posit that ‘[s]ocial and economic changes transform the perception of individuals or organizations, thereby changing the overall society’s perception’. To me, it remains rather unclear what exactly you mean with perception here. Perception of society, of relations, or else? As you also refer to ‘perception’ in the subsequent sections, I would strongly recommend detailing this aspect. It could also prove helpful to provide some examples (line 176 ff.).

p. 5, line 211: You posit that the demand for transformation of social systems comprises two types but do not mention these. From the following text, it is clear that you are dealing with formal and informal institutions, but they should already be mentioned at this point.

p. 6, line 256ff: Although the argumentation is coherent, it is not clear to me where precisely technology-induced social innovations are positioned in your model. I recommend clarifying this aspect, also as regards the visual presentation in figure 2.

p. 7, line 285ff.: Here, you claim that the digital economy deconstructs the existing market order. As this is a fundamental statement, I strongly recommend adding references and explaining in more detail how this happens.

p. 7, line 298: Please add references to substantiate your argument that ‘Germany is undergoing a bigger scale job replacement […]’.

p. 8, line 345: I suggest adding examples of dominating tech companies.

p. 8, line 351: In view of the platform providers continuously further developing their algorithms, for example, to analyze user behaviour and to make individual offers, I have my doubts that ‘managerial cost is becoming almost zero’ as you posit. I would suggest further detail your argument, also by adding references.

p. 10, line 426f.: I strongly recommend specifying how ‘transformations spread to the whole society’. Rabadjieva and Butzin (2019), for example, elaborate from a practice field perspective how social innovation diffuses by travelling elements of material, competence and meaning. => Rabadjieva, M., & Butzin, A. (2019). Emergence and diffusion of social innovation through practice fields. European Planning Studies, 28(5), 925-940. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1577362

p. 13, line 609: I appreciate the coherent and easy to follow visualization of the interactions between motives, outputs and impacts. Good work!

Next to the outcomes and impacts you discuss, I would find it worth also considering organizational and behavioural aspects of policymaking and governance in response to the digital economy as is reflected in mission-oriented or challenge-based innovation policies, particularly participatory and cross-departmental/inter-ministerial approaches of policymaking.

Author Response

1. While systemic research of social innovation has made substantial progress in recent years, the interactions between social and technological innovation and the societal impact of technology – also as regards their contribution to addressing grand societal challenges – are as yet underexplored. Focusing on Adaptive Social Innovation, the authors take the first steps in response to this research gap by proposing a theoretical model that integrates discussions in macroeconomics, social psychology, political science to explain motives and impacts. General concept comments: Against the backdrop of the recent shift in research and innovation policies towards ‘missions’ to cope with grand societal challenges by putting people at the core and asking for innovations’ societal value-added, the authors contribute to advance our understanding of the role of the digital economy respectively technology to drive social change. The visualization of the model in Figure 3 is coherent and easy to follow.

RESPONSE

• We appreciate your encouragement and helpful comments on our work.

 

2. First, the author(s) promise to integrate the ‘discussions in macroeconomics, social psychology, political science’ to develop the theoretical model. However, while explicitly mentioning this ambition in the abstract, section 2 (‘Theoretical background’) lacks respective references and a sound conceptualization of their integration. Instead, the author(s) only make implicit references and remain vague (see specific comments).

RESPONSE

• This study focused on the macroeconomics, social psychology and political science to find motivation. To avoid any confusion, we wrote additional sentences in research limitation part.
• The revised sentences are as follows: Among the recent series of discussions in these fields, one thing in common is the changes experienced by society due to the digital economy. Changes in individual perception(social psychology), in economic structure (macroeconomics), and norms or institutions(political science) are been studied. Attempts are being made in each field to explain and understand the phenomenon of change. This study constructed a model called “adaptive social innovation” by synthesizing discussions in each field. It shows that changes in humans, economy, and institutions, which seemed to be different phenomena, eventually interacted through socioeconomic activities, continuing adaptation and innovation.. …. On the other hand, the limits of this study are as follows: first, other elements except the key motives and their impact could be available because of digital economy. This is because it has not reached the level of integrating discussions such as macroeconomics, social psychology, and positive science.

 

3. Second, digital social innovation (DSI) is a central topic in social innovation research (cf. Qureshi et al., 2021; Huh & Kim, 2019). But unfortunately, the authors neither pick up on these discussions nor position their study in the context of DSI.

RESPONSE

• Through your comment, we learned that research on ‘digital social innovation’ is drawing a lot of attention recently. In the part of introducing the general discussion on social innovation, the entire context was supplemented by adding content on digital social innovation
• The revised sentences are as follows: Innovation is discussed as an element to boost economic growth and deliver new products and services by combining new production elements in the economic sector (Schumpeter, 1983). Furthermore, its social function to supplement the inefficiency of existing social welfare systems was discussed(Henkel &Hippel, 2004). Digital social innovation is a representative concept that stands for the current innovation study. It utilizes digital technologies to improve the well-being of socially disadvantaged groups or cope with the social issues such as marginality, inequality, etc. (Qureshi et al., 2021).

 

4. Third, the author(s) proposes a ‘new’ type of innovation, i.e. ‘Adaptive social innovation’. However, earlier conceptions such as ‘adaptive innovation systems’ (Cooke, 2011) or ‘adaptive innovation’ (cf. Santha, 2020) are not considered. For example, Santha (2020: 28) posit that ‘[a]daptive innovation involves a combination of observing, thinking, doing and reflecting wherein knowledge is acquired, shared and assimilated through iterative practices of different actors’. Li et al. (2021: 437) define adaptive innovation as ‘a type of evolutional or incremental new adaptions in response to significant changes in the environments’. Hence, this raises the question of what distinguishes ‘Adaptive Social Innovation’ from earlier conceptions of adaptive innovation. In particular, clarification and justification of the ‘social’ in the proposed model remain underdeveloped.

RESPONSE

• Following your suggestions, we added discussions of Santha(2020) and Li et al.(2021)’s ‘Adaptive innovation’. We revised the difference of our article with adaptive innovation and its contribution to research gap as follows: Adaptive social innovation shares the views of recent studies on ‘adaptive innovation(Santha, 2020; Li et al., 2021)’ in terms of requiring a ‘repetitive and gradual process’ to cope with threats. Santha (2020) emphasizes observing, thinking, doing and reflecting the knowledge through iterative practice for the process of ‘adaptive innovation’ to cope with the climate change. Li et al (2021) who suggested the conceptual model for risk and disaster management defines adaptive innovation as ‘a type of evolutional or incremental new adaptations in response to significant changes in the environments’. Santha (2021) and Li et al (2021) focus on the behavioral aspect by suggesting the knowledge -action frames of certain actor to cope with threats. However, this study tries to expand the perspective by focusing on the adjustment process of society itself to cope with threats. Also, it tries to rediscover innovation in the interaction between individuals, markets, and governments by including the process of converting the social perception into the system change through values and norms.

 

5. Fourth, terms such as ‘digital economy’, ‘social innovation’, ‘scientific technology’, ‘social structures’, which are central to the proposed theoretical model, are only discussed superficially without a clear definition. On the one hand, such imprecision bears the risk of misinterpretation, and on the other hand, leaves the reader with several open questions.

• Huh T. & Kim J.H. (2019). Multiple Conjunctural Impact on Digital Social Innovation: Focusing on the OECD Countries. Sustainability. 11(18): 4887-. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184887
• Qureshi, I., Pan, S. L., & Zheng, Y. (2021). Digital social innovation: An overview and research framework. Innovation Systems Journal, 31(5), Special Issue: Digital Social Innovation, 647-671. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12362
• Cooke, P. (2011). Complex Adaptive Innovation Systems: Relatedness and Transversality in the Evolving Region (1st ed.). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203126615
• Santha, S. D. (2020). Climate Change and Adaptive Innovation. A Model for Social Work Practice. Abingdon: Routledge
• Li, J., Wang, Y., Sun, W., Luo, M., & Liu, Z. (2021). Underestimation of novel risks and anti-pandemic performance: the moderating effects of politics and adaptive innovation. https://doi.org/10.24205/03276716.2020.2040

RESPONSE

• Following your comments, we defined these concepts to avoid misinterpretation. And please accept our apology about typing mistake. It is “science” technology instead “scientific”.
• The revised sentences are as follows: … A representative example of such changes is the digital economy. It is “part of economic output derived solely or primarily from digital technologies with a business model based on digital goods or services(Bukht & Heeks, 2017). ” …. In general, social innovation is “the way to handle social issues(Caulier-Grice, 2012) ”, “sustainable and fair solution that can affect society overall(Howaldt & Schwarz, 2010) ” or “the activities to satisfy social demands(Mulgan et al., 2007) ”. … The purpose of social innovation has two kinds of differences compared to other types of innovation. The first one is that it emerged as a way of finding a solution for the failure in the market in providing vital public goods (Nicholls et al., 2015). The second one is that it focuses on the changes in social relations and the readjustment of power imbalance, which causes economic inequality in the society (Moulaert, 2014). Unlike other innovations, it has cross -sectoral nature that has multiple and complex purposes. Nicholls et al. (2015) suggested three kinds of levels that realize social innovation. It includes the incremental level supplementing products that failed in the market, the institutional level that readjusts the market structure, and the disruptive level with political objective that tries to replace the social system. Like complex purposes and levels, there are various players, and the key players are NPOs/NGOs and public bodies. Other players are private companies and research institutes. Grassroots of civil society are also included (Butzin & Terstriep, 2018). The representative discussions on social innovation are as follows.

 

 

6. In summary, the theoretical derivation of the proposed model necessitates a major revision to qualify for publication in this journal. Furthermore, the article offers several opportunities to reduce redundancies resulting from the repetition of identical arguments.

RESPONSE

We appreciate your invaluable comments.

 

7. 1, line 36ff.: The argument you make here reads as if the focus on products, services and processes implies a technology focus in innovation studies, which, from my perspective, is not correct. There is a clear focus on technology in its broadest sense and on products, services and processes. However, in economics and business management, innovation, in general, is discussed as driving economic growth and welfare. What has largely been neglected is its added value for society, including adverse effects.

RESPONSE

• Following your suggestion, we discussed the added value of innovation for society as follows: Innovation is discussed as an element to boost economic growth and deliver new products and services by combining new production elements in the economic sector (Schumpeter, 1983). Furthermore, its social function to supplement the inefficiency of existing social welfare systems was discussed(Henkel &Hippel, 2004). Digital social innovation is a representative concept that stands for the current innovation study. It utilizes digital technologies to improve the well-being of socially disadvantaged groups or cope with the social issues such as marginality, inequality, etc. (Qureshi et al., 2021). One of the types to focus on social function is Frugal Innovation (Khan, 2016). Frugal Innovation provides a solution for the poor customers’ demands by attracting them into the main stream with developing goods and services for them to consume. This kind of social innovation contributes to both the economic and social objectives. Digital social innovation and Frugal Innovation show how these approaches towards innovation are advanced and maximized in terms of social influence. However, the long-term overlooked issue is the side effects of innovation. The innovation is changing the existing patterns of production, consumption and even the concept structure. The social issues derived from this are increasing, but the discussions on the side effects of innovation are relatively neglected.

 

RESPONSE

8. 2, line 47f: You claim that approaching technological innovation from a social perspective allows us to grasp changes in relations and perceptions underlying social change. For the reader, it could be helpful to define what exactly you mean by social/societal change.

• We suggested focusing on interaction of actors to embody the meaning of ‘social change’. We provided the definition of social changes as follows: Social changes refers to a wide range of changes in society as a whole beyond individuals or organizations in production, consumption, and distribution activities that are the basis of the socioeconomic environment
• The revised sentences are as follows: … Social change refers to a wide range of changes in society as a whole beyond individuals or organizations in production, consumption, and distribution activities that are the basis of the socioeconomic environment. The discussion on innovation needs to be expanded to a social perspective that includes changes in relationships experienced by actors who have continued to interact according to existing relationships such as markets-consumers, governments-citizens(Lin & Chen, 2016)

 

9. 2, line 52f.: You propose that ‘innovation should be discussed in macroscopic level’ but do not explain why and in how far these extend current innovation studies.

RESPONSE

• We revised in more detail the reasons and scope to be viewed macroscopically through revised manuscript. The focus of current innovation studies are mainly on specific areas such as business, marketing, organization, management etc. When those studies are conducted to find the mechanism of innovations and economic values, the adverse effects of innovation were overlooked. To focus on this gap, we need to address not only innovation itself but also the phenomena of social changes.
• The revised sentences are as follows: The changes in values, culture, and systems can’t be handled properly in specific sectors (technology, management, economy) that were mainly discussed in innovation studies. When those studies are conducted to find the mechanism of innovations and economic values, the adverse effects of innovation were overlooked. We need to look not only into the changes in technology, management, and economy, but also in the changes in society itself. This approach will supplement innovation studies by linking it with social effects and consequences. Therefore, it is necessary to attempt to look at the changing process of society itself at the macroscopic level surrounding technology, management, and economy. This kind of viewpoint can be embodied by including individuals, markets, and governments that compose society.

 

10. 2, line 62: I recommend naming the two types of social innovation.

RESPONSE

• Following your suggestion, we added the name of two types of social innovation in this sentence as follows: Also it divides the types of social innovation into two types, which leads to discussion of social change brought by technology innovation called ‘adaptive social innovation’ and discussion of resolving social challenges called ‘Problem-solving social innovation’

 

11. 3, line 95ff.: The ‘general’ definition of social innovation you presented is rather unspecific and does not reflect the phenomenon's complexity. At least you should outline the specifics of social innovation compared to other forms of innovation, such as its cross-sectoral nature, the diversity of actors involved, its non-linear innovation processes and further.

RESPONSE

• We have cited multiple studies that you suggested to reflect the context of general concept for social innovation to stand out the difference with other forms of innovations.
• The revised sentences are as follows: social innovation is “the way to handle social issues(Caulier-Grice, 2012)” “sustainable and fair solution that can affect society overall(Howaldt & Schwarz, 2010)” or “the activities to satisfy social demands(Mulgan et al., 2007)”. Especially, social innovation is discussed in sociology as a way of resolving local development, public health, climate change, etc. The common features of social innovation are cross-sectoral; pro-cumption and co-production; open and collaborative; grassroots and bottom-up(The Young Foundation, 2012). The purpose of social innovation has two kinds of differences compared to other types of innovation. The first one is that it emerged as a way of finding a solution for the failure in the market in providing vital public goods (Nicholls et al., 2015). The second one is that it focuses on the changes in social relations and the readjustment of power imbalance, which causes economic inequality in the society (Moulaert, 2014). Unlike other innovations, it has cross -sectoral nature that has multiple and complex purposes. Nicholls et al. (2015) suggested three kinds of levels that realize social innovation. It includes the incremental level supplementing products that failed in the market, the institutional level that readjusts the market structure, and the disruptive level with political objective that tries to replace the social system. Like complex purposes and levels, there are various players, and the key players are NPOs/NGOs and public bodies. Other players are private companies and research institutes. Grassroots of civil society are also included (Butzin & Terstriep, 2018). The representative discussions on social innovation are as follows.

 

12. 3, line 105ff: What exactly do you mean by ‘structural transformation beyond the level of shifting’? A shift of what? And what ‘big changes’ is the social sector undergoing to ‘cope with new Digital Economy’? What distinguishes the ‘new’ digital economy from the ‘old’? This paragraph makes several assertions without substantiating them or explaining them in more detail. Therewith, you leave the reader with many open questions.

RESPONSE

• If changes caused by the digital economy simply replace existing jobs, products, and welfare policies with new ones, those are “shift” or “replacement”. However, if it changes the concept of the job, establishes a new market mechanism, or threatens the foundation of welfare policy, we should consider it as a “transformation” of society. This transformation influence the perception of individual, market and government.
• “new digital economy” is not appropriate term in our article. It should be ‘new environment like digital economy’. we also rewrote it down in detail about subject of shift. We explained the phenomenon using labor market as an example.
• The revised sentences are as follows: In the economy sector, production, consumption, and distribution activities are undergoing structural transformation beyond the level of shifting. Traditional forms of business models are facing with challenges to digital goods and services. In the case of labor market, It’s not just replacing existing jobs with new ones, but also changing the concept of job and relation between its environments (market, governments, legal status). In addition, in the social sector, the existing perception, standards, order, and systems are undergoing a big change to cope with the new environment, digital economy..

 

13. 3, line 1116: The term ‘social structure’ has various meanings and is used inconsistently in the literature. In its broadest sense, social structure refers to patterns of social relationships in society and how social relations are arranged into patterns. For other scholars, e.g. Merton, the social structure also consists of inequalities of power, status, etc., which give members of society somewhat different opportunities and alternatives. Other scholars emphasize unobservable structures that have observable effects on behaviour, society and culture (i.e. structuralist perspective, Levi Strauss). Hence, to allow the reader to follow your line of reasoning better, it might be helpful to clarify what you mean by social structure as distinguished from social relationships.

RESPONSE

• We discussed the differences between the social structure and social relationships in the revised manuscript as follow: In this study, social structure is based on the ‘social exchange theory’ developed by Homans (1961), Blau (1964), and Emerson (1972), etc. Therefore, it includes external factors like economic resources, power, and dependence, and the framework composed by mutual interaction between individuals and groups based on economic exchanges

 

14. 3, line 124: What do you mean by ‘scientific technology’?

RESPONSE

• We made a typo. The correct term should be science technology.

 

15. 4, line 161: You posit that ‘[s]ocial and economic changes transform the perception of individuals or organizations, thereby changing the overall society’s perception’. To me, it remains rather unclear what exactly you mean with perception here. Perception of society, of relations, or else? As you also refer to ‘perception’ in the subsequent sections, I would strongly recommend detailing this aspect. It could also prove helpful to provide some examples (line 176 ff.).

RESPONSE

• We discussed the perception of individuals or organizations as follows:, Perception is “sensory experience of the world and involves recognition of environmental stimuli and actions in response(Otara, 2011)”. The perception of individuals or organizations refers to personal or organizational evaluation of the socioeconomic environment to decide their action. It can be formed through personal interaction or from information encountered by mass media. The shift in perception means setting it as 'personal agenda', which forms beliefs and opinions about the upcoming changes and determines actions. If the influence of change can have a substantive influence on one's own safety, a transition in existing perception(or non-perception) occurs. As a personal agenda that determines behavior, we look at changes in society and the economic environment. The process of social adaptation, which leads to government intervention and institutional constraints, begins with overall society's perception.

 

16. 5, line 211: You posit that the demand for transformation of social systems comprises two types but do not mention these. From the following text, it is clear that you are dealing with formal and informal institutions, but they should already be mentioned at this point.

RESPONSE

• Following your suggestions, we revised the relevant sentences as follows: The change of industrial structure by digital technology and the follow-up changes in markets become some pressure to demand the change of systems. The demand for transforming the social systems is found in formal institutions and informal institutions

 

17. 6, line 256ff: Although the argumentation is coherent, it is not clear to me where precisely technology-induced social innovations are positioned in your model. I recommend clarifying this aspect, also as regards the visual presentation in figure 2.

RESPONSE

• We modified Figure 2 to clearly show where technology-induced social innovations are positioned. Figure 2 is as follows:

 

 

 

18. 7, line 285ff.: Here, you claim that the digital economy deconstructs the existing market order. As this is a fundamental statement, I strongly recommend adding references and explaining in more detail how this happens.

RESPONSE

• We added references that addressed disruptive digital economy and tried to explain how it deconstructs existing market order. You can find a list of the new references that were added to our manuscript as follows:
• Sunil Gupta. 2018. Driving Digital Strategy: A Guide to Reimagining Your Business. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press
• Schuchmann, D. & Seufert, S., 2015. Corporate Learning in Times of Digital Transformation: A Conceptual Framework and Service Portfolio for the Learning Function in Banking Organisations. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning, 8(1), pp.31-39
• The revised sentences are as follows: The companies combine digital technology that dominates the market with business process, and achieve improvements by other methods without traditional value chains or pre-existing business models (Gupta, 2018). This forces other companies to take a complex and challenging learning process and change the pre-existing business models fundamentally (Schuchmann & Seufert, 2015). The order that activated the market in the past is not compatible with digital economy any more.

 

19. 7, line 298: Please add references to substantiate your argument that ‘Germany is undergoing a bigger scale job replacement […]’.

RESPONSE

• We added relevant references to show extent of risk for job replacement in Germany. Please see the new references below.
• The revised sentences as follow: In Germany, the job loss rate is expected to be by a minimum of 25% (Arntz et al., 2017) and up to 54.2% (OECD, 2019)
• OECD (2019) How's Life in the Digital Age?: Opportunities and Risks of the Digital Transformation for People's Well-being.
• Arntz, M., Gregory, T. and Zierahn, U. (2017). Revisiting the risk of automation. Economic Letters, 159, 157–160

 

 

20. 8, line 345: I suggest adding examples of dominating tech companies.

RESPONSE

• We wrote examples of dominating tech companies like Amazon, Google, Meta, and so on.. The revised sentences are as follows: The big tech companies such as Amazon, Google, Meta, etc. who dominate the platform industry interfere in all kinds of consumption activities of individuals within the platform, exerting their market dominance power

 

21. 8, line 351: In view of the platform providers continuously further developing their algorithms, for example, to analyze user behaviour and to make individual offers, I have my doubts that ‘managerial cost is becoming almost zero’ as you posit. I would suggest further detail your argument, also by adding references.

RESPONSE

• We rewrote this paragraph to explain more detail about marginal cost.
• The revised sentences are as follows: Jeremy Rifkin (2014) describes that the intangible, digitized goods and services that can be possessed without necessarily being owned need quasi-zero marginal costs for reproduction(Rifkin, 2014). The typical example is the difference between a paper book and e-book. Paper books need the printing cost to reproduce contents, but e-book needs almost zero cost to reproduce contents (Valenduc & Vendramin, 2016).

 

22. 10, line 426f.: I strongly recommend specifying how ‘transformations spread to the whole society’. Rabadjieva and Butzin (2019), for example, elaborate from a practice field perspective how social innovation diffuses by travelling elements of material, competence and meaning. => Rabadjieva, M., & Butzin, A. (2019). Emergence and diffusion of social innovation through practice fields. European Planning Studies, 28(5), 925-940. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1577362

RESPONSE

• We were able to get great implications from Rabadjieva & Butzin(2019). The diffusion process of social innovation they suggested is a link between perception and institution in our conceptual model.
• The revised sentences are as follows: The diffusion process of transformed perception is like the travel process of ‘element of meaning’ suggested by Rabadjiieva & Butzin (2019). For instance, the tacit or codified knowledge on the threats about future jobs or income due to AI spread by re-contextualization according to each region, industry, and generation. The meaning of threats is delivered directly through personal interaction or indirectly through mass media.

 

23. 13, line 609: I appreciate the coherent and easy to follow visualization of the interactions between motives, outputs and impacts. Good work!

RESPONSE

• Thank you for your positive comments.

 

24. Next to the outcomes and impacts you discuss, I would find it worth also considering organizational and behavioural aspects of policymaking and governance in response to the digital economy as is reflected in mission-oriented or challenge-based innovation policies, particularly participatory and cross-departmental/inter-ministerial approaches of policymaking.

RESPONSE

• We agree with you that it is necessary to discuss the practical implications. We wrote it as a limitation of this manuscript as follows:: The adaptive social innovation model through this study suggests that the role of government and polices to cope with the social & economic transformation because of digital economy is very important. Therefore, the follow-up study needs to handle the discussions on the organizational and behavioral aspects of policymaking process.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. This article introduces novel conceptual definition to  Social Innovations as Adaptive Social Innovation. The concept has introduced very early, at the very beginning of the introduction (line 27-31) and it has not informative to confirm the concrete definition of the concept.  However, the clear definition development is unable to find thereafter.  
2. Innovations are developed by many players. ex: Cooperations, Universities, Research institutes, independent inventors etc.  with their specified intentions. Social innovation is just a one kind of innovation can be developed by any of these players. Authors claim:" So far, the study on innovation has been discussed by focusing on the economic impact of innovation, especially in terms of technology innovation" (line 33-34) is not specifically correct as there are so many discussions on social innovations and emergence of discussion of Frugal innovations, social sustainability (Khan, R. How Frugal Innovation Promotes Social Sustainability. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1034. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8101034). Authors' conceptualization of Adaptive Social innovations should be derived  from the light of these emerging trends. 
3. Authors have use the term "Chapter" rather than section in the article. If it is not acceptable norm, should be changed 
4.  it is recommended to have summary of meta analysis as a table over the concept of social innovation across the time to identify the concept development over the time and justify the conceptual gap filled by this article. As this article aim to articulate the concept of adaptive social innovation.
5. Authors use the term "This study explores" in the article; however, this article is a theoretical argument, not developed as a meta analysis. Therefore, it is recommended to use the term appropriate to reveal the true nature of the article consistently.
6. Introduction of key motives and impacts are sound like hypothetical. As authors says, it does not empirically prove, but also lacks theoretical and practical connectivity. Should improve the arguments based on evidence based logic.   

Author Response

1. This article introduces novel conceptual definition to Social Innovations as Adaptive Social Innovation. The concept has introduced very early, at the very beginning of the introduction (line 27-31) and it has not informative to confirm the concrete definition of the concept. However, the clear definition development is unable to find thereafter.

RESPONSE

• We appreciate your comment. We revised the concept and definition of adaptive social innovation and also the difference with ‘social innovation’ in general on section 2
• Adaptive Social Innovation is a kind of modification or transformation process for the social interactive structure to cope with the socio-economic transformation caused by the technical innovation and digital economy. This is based on the premise that Digital Economy brought by digital technology changes the interaction between individuals, markets, governments, etc [4,15]. Also it focuses on the economic changes by technological innovation rather than the technological innovation‘s direct impact on society. For example, the Platform Economy brought by digital technology forms a new kind of labor-management relations so called platform labor, and on-demand economy is changing the consumer relations by customized production. Therefore, we can define “Adaptive Social Innovation‘ is to cope with the destructive change by modifying or transforming the existing structure of social interaction”.

 

2. Innovations are developed by many players. ex: Cooperations, Universities, Research institutes, independent inventors etc. with their specified intentions. Social innovation is just a one kind of innovation can be developed by any of these players. Authors claim:" So far, the study on innovation has been discussed by focusing on the economic impact of innovation, especially in terms of technology innovation" (line 33-34) is not specifically correct as there are so many discussions on social innovations and emergence of discussion of Frugal innovations, social sustainability (Khan, R. How Frugal Innovation Promotes Social Sustainability. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1034. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8101034). Authors' conceptualization of Adaptive Social innovations should be derived from the light of these emerging trends.

RESPONSE

• Khan(2016)’s study about ‘frugal innovation’ has a lot of implication to our work. Especially its social function shows how far the social innovation studies address and link economy with social purpose. We wrote Khan’s frugal innovation in manuscript and discussed the difference with adaptive social innovation.
• The revised sentences are as follows: … One of the types to focus on social function is Frugal Innovation (Khan, 2016). Frugal Innovation provides a solution for the poor customers’ demands by attracting them into the main stream with developing goods and services for them to consume. This kind of social innovation contributes to both the economic and social objectives. Digital social innovation and Frugal Innovation show how these approaches towards innovation are advanced and maximized in terms of social influence.

 

3. Authors have use the term "Chapter" rather than section in the article. If it is not acceptable norm, should be changed

RESPONSE

• We have replaced the term “chapter” with “section” in the revised manuscript.

 

4. it is recommended to have summary of meta analysis as a table over the concept of social innovation across the time to identify the concept development over the time and justify the conceptual gap filled by this article. As this article aim to articulate the concept of adaptive social innovation.

RESPONSE

• Following your helpful suggestion, we inserted Table 1 that summarizes the concepts of social innovation. Table 1 also emphasizes different theoretical concepts of ‘digital social innovation’ or ‘frugal innovation’. Please see Table 1 below:

 

Table 1. Development of social innovation

Schumpeter (1983)	·         Innovation with entrepreneurs who combine existing elements to create new product or service
Castells (1996)	·         Civic networked forms of social movements with technologies and distinctive power
Mulgan et al. (2007)	·         Innovative activities and services that meeting a social need and that developed and diffused through organisations whose primary purposes are social
Cajaiba-Santana (2014)	·         New social practices from intentional, and goal-oriented action aimed for social change
Khan (2016)	·         Products, processes, or marketing methods that seek to minimize the cost while fulfilling acceptable quality standards
Qureshi et al. (2021)	·         Development and implementation involve digital technologies that seek to improve the well-being of socially disadvantaged groups or address social problems

 

 

5. Authors use the term "This study explores" in the article; however, this article is a theoretical argument, not developed as a meta analysis. Therefore, it is recommended to use the term appropriate to reveal the true nature of the article consistently.

RESPONSE

• We replaced the term ‘explores’ with ‘reveals’.

 

6. Introduction of key motives and impacts are sound like hypothetical. As authors says, it does not empirically prove, but also lacks theoretical and practical connectivity. Should improve the arguments based on evidence based logic.

RESPONSE

• We agree with your opinion. The main objective of our study is to develop a conceptual model to explain how the society relieves the shock from digital economy. Unfortunately, as we focused on discussing theoretical aspects, there’s insufficient practical implication in article. So we wrote it as limitation of our study.
• The revised sentences are as follows: This study has theoretical contributions with conceptual models and hypotheses, While there’s a limitation of practical implications. To supplement these limits, the future follow-up study should implement empirical analysis, which was not conducted in this study to try generalization of the key motives and their impact.

Reviewer 3 Report

The research question is interesting and novel. There is an emerging focus on the topic of social innovation thus the title is definitely attractive for the public.

About the Abstract: The abstract has a standard formulation.

1. The Introduction: is complying to its scope.

In the Introduction section, the authors are revealing the purpose and the logic of the research, by briefly presenting the knowledge landscape on the subject and practical implications and also the central pieces of the qualitative research which are the research questions that build up the research theoretical model. The argument of this choice is valid, “academic research on innovation study by integrated perspective is in the beginning stage; thereby the concept is a little ambiguous”.

2. Literature background and hypotheses argumentation are well-done.

Literature review is detailed and complex as it debates all the concepts involved in the research and theoretical model.

In my opinion, from this literature review, and paper, misses the approach of adaptive innovation sources and a few coordinates about management strategies of the adaptive innovation process.

3. Materials and Methods

The presentation of the method is clear and very -well known by the audience, namely the qualitative model approach.  The results and final scope of the model are stated well-enough.

“This study was started by embodying the concept of social innovation, and it connected economy, society, and polices beyond the technical sector to study social innovation by expanded perspective.”

4. Results

There is no Section, having the title of Results or Discussions … but section 4. Impact of Adaptive Social Innovation that I understand should be the Discussions section.

Argumentation of deduced conclusions is well-done in specific terms.  

5.Conclusions

Conclusions formulate an overview of the paper and clearly point the limits of the research.

The research topic has a great potential and the authors are on the right path but this scientific research topic needs improvements in order to reflect better the composition of the concepts and the links across them by developing an empirical study.

TECHNICAL ISSUES: Page 1 line 40 : and furthermore. in the

Author Response

1. The research question is interesting and novel. There is an emerging focus on the topic of social innovation thus the title is definitely attractive for the public.

RESPONSE

• Thank you for your positive comments.

 

2. In the Introduction section, the authors are revealing the purpose and the logic of the research, by briefly presenting the knowledge landscape on the subject and practical implications and also the central pieces of the qualitative research which are the research questions that build up the research theoretical model. The argument of this choice is valid, “academic research on innovation study by integrated perspective is in the beginning stage; thereby the concept is a little ambiguous”. Literature background and hypotheses argumentation are well-done. Literature review is detailed and complex as it debates all the concepts involved in the research and theoretical model.

Literature background and hypotheses argumentation are well-done. Literature review is detailed and complex as it debates all the concepts involved in the research and theoretical model.

RESPONSE

• We appreciate your encouragement and positive comments.

 

3. In my opinion, from this literature review, and paper, misses the approach of adaptive innovation sources and a few coordinates about management strategies of the adaptive innovation process.

RESPONSE

• We rewrote the various approach of innovation especially concepts that emerging recently like ‘Adaptive innovation (Santha, 2020; Li et al., 2021)’. ‘Digital social innovation (Quireshi et al., 2021)’, ‘Frugal innovation(Khan, 2016)’. We revised the difference of our article with these approaches and its contribution to research gap.

 

4. Materials and Methods. The presentation of the method is clear and very -well known by the audience, namely the qualitative model approach. The results and final scope of the model are stated well-enough. “This study was started by embodying the concept of social innovation, and it connected economy, society, and polices beyond the technical sector to study social innovation by expanded perspective.”

RESPONSE

• Thanks for your positive comments.

 

5. There is no Section, having the title of Results or Discussions … but section 4. Impact of Adaptive Social Innovation that I understand should be the Discussions section.

RESPONSE

• Following your suggestion, we have replaced the name of section 4. ‘Impact of Adaptive Social Innovation’ with ‘discussions’.

 

6. Argumentation of deduced conclusions is well-done in specific terms.

RESPONSE

• We appreciate your opinion.

 

7. Conclusions formulate an overview of the paper and clearly point the limits of the research. The research topic has a great potential and the authors are on the right path but this scientific research topic needs improvements in order to reflect better the composition of the concepts and the links across them by developing an empirical study.

RESPONSE

• We fully agree with your opinion. The main objective of our study is to establish conceptual model to explain how the society relieves the shock from digital economy. Unfortunately, we were not able to verify it empirically. So we wrote it as limitation of our study.
• The revised sentences are as follows: This study provides the conceptual models and hypothesis by focusing on theoretical contribution, but practical implication is limited. To supplement these limits, the future follow-up study should implement empirical analysis, which was not conducted in this study to try generalization of the key motives and their impact.

 

8. Technical issues: Page 1 line 40 : and furthermore. in the

RESPONSE

• We rewrote the introduction section. Please see our revised manuscript
• The revised introduction section as follows: Innovation is discussed as an element to boost economic growth and deliver new products and services by combining new production elements in the economic sector. Furthermore, its social function to supplement the inefficiency of existing social welfare systems was discussed. Digital social innovation is a representative concept that stands for the current innovation study. It utilizes digital technologies to improve the well-being of socially disadvantaged groups or cope with the social issues such as marginality, inequality, etc. (Quireshi et al., 2021) One of the types to focus on social function is Frugal Innovation (Khan, 2016). Frugal Innovation provides a solution for the poor customers’ demands by attracting them into the main stream with developing goods and services for them to consume. This kind of social innovation contributes to both the economic and social objectives. Digital social innovation and Frugal Innovation show how these approaches towards innovation are advanced and maximized in terms of social influence. However, the long-term overlooked issue is the side effects of innovation. The innovation is changing the existing patterns of production, consumption and even the concept structure. The social issues derived from this are increasing, but the discussions on the side effects of innovation are relatively neglected.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

You have considerably improved and streamlined your article—also, thanks to taking my earlier comments into consideration and your comprehensive comments on how you did this. 

For comments on minor changes, please see the attached PDF file.

Next, I would strongly suggest language wash the article.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. P.2 Line 86. / P.8 Line 343. : Please provide page numbers for verbatim quotes

RESPONSE

• We added page numbers for verbatim quotes.
• Revised sentences are as follows:
• 2 Line 86. : “part of economic output derived solely or primarily from digital technologies with a business model based on digital goods or services” [6](p. 13).
• 9 Line 343. : “a type of evolutional or incremental new adaptations in response to significant changes in the environments” [40] (p. 437).

 

2. P.2 Line 86. : Put quotation marks.

RESPONSE

• We put quotation marks for this sentence.

 

3. P.2 Line 98. / P.5 Line 185, 198, 203. : Upper-case letter is unnecessary.

RESPONSE

• Please accept our apologies for the mistake. We changed the upper-case letters into lower-case letters.

 

4. P.4 Line 162. : This sentence seems to be incomplete.

(In the economic sector, the elements of production, consumption, and distribution activities are undergoing structural conversion beyond the level of shifting)

RESPONSE

• The revised sentence as follows: In the economic sector, the structural conversion beyond replacing the elements of production, consumption, and distribution is being conducted.

 

5. P.4 Line 162. Consider using a different wording, e.g. “but also changing the way we work”

RESPONSE

• We rewrote this sentence as you suggested.
• Revised sentences as follows: In the case of labor market, It’s not just replacing existing jobs with new ones, but also changing the way we work and relation between its environments.

 

6. P.5 Line 191. Providing a definition or explanation about ‘science technology’ to help the reader to better understand your argument.

RESPONSE

• We reviewed whole paragraph again and decided that the word ‘science’ or ‘scientific’ is unnecessary for this paragraph. Revised sentences as follows: According to Son & Yi (2021), problem–solving social innovation is a kind of social innovation activity by various subjects that carry out sustainable social development by resolving social problems utilizing technology. The term ‘technology’ refers to any techniques, methods, process and knowledge used in production of goods and services.

 

7. P.5 Line 204. ‘like’ → ‘as shown in’

RESPONSE

• We changed the word ‘like’ into ‘as shown in’.
• Revised sentences are as follows: … adaptive social innovation as shown in Figure 1.

 

We are grateful for your kind feedback.

All of your suggestions were valid and most helpful.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx