The Impact of Dissonance? A Valuation Perspective on Rural Social Innovation Processes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The first two paragraphs in "1. Introduction" offer little value to the paper and should be discarded. They seem to replicate well-worn rituals about pretending most social innovation research isn't a technology of neoliberal governance in capitalist systems. Starting, instead, with a discussion (as in the final three paragraphs of the Introduction, of the need to measure social forms of impact within a constructivist framework, although not an original model, is a better place to begin this paper.

2. Despite the attempt to measure subjective interpretations of social value as a form of impact, SI research across the field that measures "power" as a form of impact continues to be missing. This refusal is reflected in the embarrassing errors in the top paragraph of "3.Towards a valuation..." That paragraph records a "contrast" between Marxism, neoclassical economics, and the "Dewey-inspired" framework. The reductive claims in that paragraph reveal the author(s)' lack of knowledge about the former two frameworks. The attempt to ascribe to Marxism a narrow interest in the value of one particular object within a capitalist system (their language refers to socially necessary labor time) is erroneous in itself but also appears to suggest that Marxism is only interested in the value of commodities. Further, the claim that this is an "essentialist" determination of all value is misleading and denies Marxism a close connection to the "constructivist" argument which they are trying to frame as unique or different. Even the particular and narrow idea of socially necessary labor time, in Marxism, is a matter of power and struggle determined by the interaction of class forces in a concrete situation. Thus, human choices, actions, and subjectivities shape that political/social/economic/moral fact. The author(s) contrast here is mistaken and unsubstantiated and shouldn't be published.

3. This theoretical approach reveals a fundamental flaw in the methodology, that of confirmation bias. Once a real idea of power (not simply empowerment, which is a code word for getting subalternized people who have been abandoned or neglected by neoliberal state apparatuses to do more work  to manage social systems without support or resources), such as increased determination over state apparatuses, direct influence in collective ways over the distribution of public resources, and the expansion of public goods and services in meaningful ways, is taken from the analysis of social value, researchers can discover any subjective statement about the benefits of a project for organizations directly benefited by meager resources and attention by outside researchers seems to confirm the author(s)' constructivist claims about the production of perceptions of value among the participants.

4. Some of the listed projects that are studied here do not seem especially innovative. Instead, more closely fit a pattern of charity work (perhaps public-private partnerships) that serves to replace far more effectively resourced public institutions. 

5. While the paper claims empirical objectivity, no data is presented that actually demonstrates the concept that is supposedly demonstrated. On page 10, for example, gaps in the text in the PDF I have been given to review further exacerbate this problem. Despite this technological glitch, the authors appear to ignore or seem unconcerned by causation or context. In the example of the building--a conflict over its preservation as a historical site or its acquisition as a municipal site--no context is present. Purely subjective statements are selected that confirm the paper's framework. Struggles over real estate and public space are typically rooted in class forces related to property and cannot simply be extracted from a social and historical context. This decontextualization and dehistoricization of events is a consistent problem within a narrow "constructivist" frame. A conflict (or even its resolution) between a municipality and a historical society over a building hardly represents an innovative situation. Indeed, to what extent resolution or negotiation of a process for a solution was predicated on existing power relations between the two sides is not represented in this research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are a handful of errors in the paper but they can easily be remedied by a careful copy edit.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We would like to thank you for the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript entitles “The Impact of Dissonance? A Valuation Perspective on Rural Social Innovation Processes”. We appreciate your constructive feedback and are grateful for the critical remarks that helped substantially in avoiding the one or other pitfall in debates on value and valuation.

We have addressed the comments and suggestions provided by you. Below, we detail our responses to each of the points raised and the revisions made to the manuscript.

Comment 1:

The first two paragraphs in "1. Introduction" offer little value to the paper and should be discarded. They seem to replicate well-worn rituals about pretending most social innovation research isn't a technology of neoliberal governance in capitalist systems. Starting, instead, with a discussion (as in the final three paragraphs of the Introduction, of the need to measure social forms of impact within a constructivist framework, although not an original model, is a better place to begin this paper.

Reply 1:

Thank you very much for this hint helping us to directly focalize the point of this paper, namely the addition of a valuation perspective to the debate of SI impact, which is typically approached from an evaluation point of view. The introduction now focuses on the necessity to approach impact from a social constructivist stance too, while pointing to the potentials of a processual perspective taking the performativity of valuations more serious. In this line, valuation is considered promising as it shifts focus away from the mere attribution of value to the creation of value itself. The letter point is where we particularly see an added value in this academic contribution, namely by transferring insights from pragmatist approaches in the sociology of valuation to SI impact debates.

Comment 2:

Despite the attempt to measure subjective interpretations of social value as a form of impact, SI research across the field that measures "power" as a form of impact continues to be missing. This refusal is reflected in the embarrassing errors in the top paragraph of "3.Towards a valuation..." That paragraph records a "contrast" between Marxism, neoclassical economics, and the "Dewey-inspired" framework. The reductive claims in that paragraph reveal the author(s)' lack of knowledge about the former two frameworks. The attempt to ascribe to Marxism a narrow interest in the value of one particular object within a capitalist system (their language refers to socially necessary labor time) is erroneous in itself but also appears to suggest that Marxism is only interested in the value of commodities. Further, the claim that this is an "essentialist" determination of all value is misleading and denies Marxism a close connection to the "constructivist" argument which they are trying to frame as unique or different. Even the particular and narrow idea of socially necessary labor time, in Marxism, is a matter of power and struggle determined by the interaction of class forces in a concrete situation. Thus, human choices, actions, and subjectivities shape that political/social/economic/moral fact. The author(s) contrast here is mistaken and unsubstantiated and shouldn't be published.

Reply 2:

First of all, thank you for pointing out the imprecise and over-simplified locating of a pragmatist valuation perspective in opposition a.o. Marxist perspectives of value. We agree that this relation to meta-debates was misguiding. We have now rewritten the first two paragraphs of section three in order to illustrate the embeddedness of our perspective in pragmatist valuation debates as well as clarifying our understanding of valuation further. Central to this is the understanding of valuation as being constituted of both, evaluation and valorization. This opens up conceptual space for the engagement with the emergence of value that goes beyond linear cause-effect chains as found in many impact assessments. Instead, it looks at valuations (as triggered by dissonances) and their performative power bringing about value (captured by an assemblage lens).

Furthermore, you indicated the insensitivity of this valuation perspective with regards to questions of power. We agree that this is a limitation of the manuscript that is to be taken seriously. Accordingly, we have discussed the following thoughts in the final paragraph of our discussion (section 6): “The here presented perspective so far does not explicitly address power relations and practices of legitimation of particular activities embedded in SI processes. Precisely because of using empirical vignettes to demonstrate the potential of a valuation perspective on social innovation processes, we would have overstretched the analysis of our existing empirical material. However, from what we presented in this paper, we understand our contribution as a starting point that needs to be further substantiated by including questions regarding power (in)balances in valuation processes. This might also take into consideration, how valuation processes in themselves may become performative and thereby directly or indirectly influence decisions, perspectives, or opinion of participants involved in or actively withdrawing from or excluded from collaborative valuation processes. This also requires to better understand beliefs, motivations, choices and individual search for benefits that participants in SI processes may bring to the fore or, contrary, might lead individuals to actively contest such processes or withdraw from them. Further exploring this line of thinking might also better address the nexus of valuation and justice”. Overall, we understand a pragmatist perspective that is sensitive to potentially antagonistic value grammars as a constructive starting point to engage with questions of power and justice in future research. In this case, however, we believe this to be beyond the scope of the manuscript.

Comment 3: 

This theoretical approach reveals a fundamental flaw in the methodology, that of confirmation bias. Once a real idea of power (not simply empowerment, which is a code word for getting subalternized people who have been abandoned or neglected by neoliberal state apparatuses to do more work  to manage social systems without support or resources), such as increased determination over state apparatuses, direct influence in collective ways over the distribution of public resources, and the expansion of public goods and services in meaningful ways, is taken from the analysis of social value, researchers can discover any subjective statement about the benefits of a project for organizations directly benefited by meager resources and attention by outside researchers seems to confirm the author(s)' constructivist claims about the production of perceptions of value among the participants.

Reply 3:

Following your remarks in terms of decontextualization and confirmation bias, we found a greater need to reflect and elaborate on the taken methodological approach and to, more precisely, emphasize the qualities (as well as limitations) of a vignette approach. To do so we draw on perspectives from ethnography as well as pedagogy where vignettes are understood as narrative descriptions and as condensed, exemplary portrayals of specific empirical situations facilitating analytical conclusions. In the case of this paper, we employ vignettes to incorporate a wide empirical basis, to further qualify the theoretically deduced analytical grid and to illustrate its applicability, thereby enabling us to qualify the theoretically deduced triad of dissonance as a conceptual contribution (see section 4). With regards to its limitations we discuss in the last section: “However, the reliance on cross-sectional data rather than comprehensive case studies comes at the expense of a certain degree of de-contextualization. Instead of a coherent in-depth research design, we presented empirical vignettes from a variety of cases. Instead of going into depth, we use the range of empirical material available to us to initially illuminate the potential of an evaluation perspective, emphasizing the need for empirical research designs that allow for a longitudinal study of valuation throughout selected SI processes. A processual perspective that relates instances of dissonance and their implications, in line with perspectives such as 'innovation biographies' [47], can provide a lens that is sensitive to the time-spatial dynamics of value construction in SI processes.” We therefore understand the taken vignette approach as methodologically useful and justified for the sake of developing this valuation perspective, but do understand it as opening up a (not least) methodological research agenda at the nexus of SI and valuation.

 

Comment 4:

Some of the listed projects that are studied here do not seem especially innovative. Instead, more closely fit a pattern of charity work (perhaps public-private partnerships) that serves to replace far more effectively resourced public institutions. 

Reply 4:

Of course, the question of the degree of newness an initiative needs to embody in order to be regarded innovative is subject to interpretation and discussion. In light of your comment, we tried to make our reasoning in this context clearer, a.o. by better outlining our case selection (section 4). Following established definitions of rural SI we have focused on three selection criteria (community-driven/bottom-up, addressing societal challenges, introduction of novel solutions/practices) (see Mumford, 2002; Howaldt and Schwarz, 2021). Our understanding of innovativeness is certainly one of relative newness, which is why we have specified newness as ‘relative newness’ for a region. Therefore, we agree that the mere re-opening of a former soviet cultural house in the countryside is not per se innovative. Rather the finding of an operating model with a citizens’ association and the municipality co-operating it as a socio-cultural space is considered to be. This is as it is clearly distinguishable from former usages (thus a new practice), addresses both the omnipresent issue of real estate vacancy and lack of social places (Kersten et al., 2022) in the regarded rural areas and is essentially community-driven. In order to make our methodological approach more transparent we have included a distinct subsection (4.2) also hoping to better demonstrating our case selection.

Comment 5:

While the paper claims empirical objectivity, no data is presented that actually demonstrates the concept that is supposedly demonstrated. On page 10, for example, gaps in the text in the PDF I have been given to review further exacerbate this problem. Despite this technological glitch, the authors appear to ignore or seem unconcerned by causation or context. In the example of the building--a conflict over its preservation as a historical site or its acquisition as a municipal site--no context is present. Purely subjective statements are selected that confirm the paper's framework. Struggles over real estate and public space are typically rooted in class forces related to property and cannot simply be extracted from a social and historical context. This decontextualization and dehistoricization of events is a consistent problem within a narrow "constructivist" frame. A conflict (or even its resolution) between a municipality and a historical society over a building hardly represents an innovative situation. Indeed, to what extent resolution or negotiation of a process for a solution was predicated on existing power relations between the two sides is not represented in this research.

Reply 5:

Thank you for pointing out this aspect, and we excuse the technical issue in the initial version of the manuscript. While we have deferred to the issue of decontextualization as well as the merits and limitations of the used vignette approach in our third reply already, your remark highlighted the need to better illustrate the potentials (and limitations) of our conceptual approach as well as its use in the empirical part of the paper. Therefore, we have made clearer our adaptation of SI impact debates from a pragmatist valuation point of view, how this translates into analytical categories and what these account for in section 3. “An innovation process perspective provides a clear starting point for viewing SI through a pragmatist-informed valuation lens. Innovation processes fundamentally involve breaking away from conventional or established practices. As illustrated, they are pivotally driven by dissonance. Simultaneously, as approaches in the sociology of valuation emphasize, joint valuations and hence agreements on how to proceed unfold a performative power further shaping the SI process. It is for this baseline understanding that we suggest the use of three distinct analytical categories when scrutinizing the processual emergence of impact in valuation processes. The category of dissonance captures the often-conflictual encounter of diverging orders of worth throughout innovation processes, while valuation examines the kind of negotiation and agreement potentially allowing to overcome the former. Finally, assemblage accounts for the performativity of valuations (see Table 1 for an overview of the analytical categories).” For instance, the category of assemblage captures how the performativity of valuation plays out in materialistic, symbolic, cultural and social terms. This, finally, resonates with calls for a processual idea of impact that is sensitive to its emergence rather than conceiving of impact as external (see Barinaga, 2023; Marzi, 2023). In order to offer a more consistent argument, we have also further elaborated on the understanding of impact in section 2.

 

Thank you again very much for the detailed review of our manuscript and the opportunity for us to improve our work.

 

Sincerely,

The authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is excellently crafted and presented. To enhance its structure and readability, I suggest the authors consider separating the content into distinct sections for Methods and Results. A dedicated Methods section could provide a comprehensive discussion of the data collection and analysis methodologies employed, particularly focusing on the empirical case studies. This should include detailed explanations of the research design, processes, and participant sampling procedures.

Furthermore, separating the Results/Findings section from the Discussion and Conclusion would enable readers to more effectively grasp the key insights related to Dissonance, Valuation, and Assemblage. This separation would facilitate a clearer understanding of the empirical findings presented in the study.

 

In the Conclusion and Recommendation section, I recommend that the authors expand upon the policy and practical implications of their research, particularly highlighting the potential roles of the Ministry of Rural Development and other relevant government agencies in rural development initiatives. Providing insights into the actions and interventions these stakeholders could undertake would enhance the article's relevance and applicability to real-world contexts.

 

Additionally, it would be beneficial for the authors to discuss the limitations of the study and conduct a retrospective analysis in this final section. Addressing limitations and reflecting on the study's strengths and weaknesses would contribute to the overall rigor and credibility of the research.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We would like to take the opportunity and thank you for the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript, “The Impact of Dissonance? A Valuation Perspective on Rural Social Innovation Processes”. We appreciate your constructive feedback which helped us greatly to improve the paper particularly in terms of structure, readability and methodology. Below, we detail our responses to each of the points raised and the revisions made to the manuscript.

Comment 1:

This article is excellently crafted and presented. To enhance its structure and readability, I suggest the authors consider separating the content into distinct sections for Methods and Results. A dedicated Methods section could provide a comprehensive discussion of the data collection and analysis methodologies employed, particularly focusing on the empirical case studies. This should include detailed explanations of the research design, processes, and participant sampling procedures.

Reply 1:

Thank you very much for illuminating the needs for further improvement in terms of readability and structure. In response to your comment, we have particularly revisited our methodological section (section 4) and added an explicit subsection (‘Methodological considerations and consequences’). In this subsection we have taken the opportunity to more precisely explain and discuss questions of research design, sampling, context, etc. Thereby, we hope to more clearly describe our methodological approach as well as to give some reflections on how to research valuation in SI processes. Furthermore, section 4 now benefits from changes in section 3, making the manuscript from the outset via the conceptual embedding, our analytical starting point and empirical translation more coherent.

Comment 2:

Furthermore, separating the Results/Findings section from the Discussion and Conclusion would enable readers to more effectively grasp the key insights related to Dissonance, Valuation, and Assemblage. This separation would facilitate a clearer understanding of the empirical findings presented in the study.

 Reply 2:

Thank you very much for pointing us to the need of an easier to access structure with regards to the results of the study. However, we abstained from sticking to a classic research paper structure following the established logic of distinct sections for methods, results and discussion as the presented paper is not a classic research paper, but rather develops a conceptual idea which is underscored drawing on empirical vignettes. This way we intend to give center stage to our conceptual heuristic ‘product’, the triad of impulses, turning points and lock-ins. Overall, your comment inspired us to more clearly communicate the nature of this paper (as rather conceptual), illustrate the unfolding research agenda, and as mentioned before increase the overall coherence of the sections with each other for improved structure and readability.

Comment 3:

In the Conclusion and Recommendation section, I recommend that the authors expand upon the policy and practical implications of their research, particularly highlighting the potential roles of the Ministry of Rural Development and other relevant government agencies in rural development initiatives. Providing insights into the actions and interventions these stakeholders could undertake would enhance the article's relevance and applicability to real-world contexts.

 Reply 3:

The practical implications have indeed not taken a very central position in the initial submission. Thank you for pointing this out. We have now revisited the paragraph in the discussion and conclusion section (section 6) on this matter and focused on three aspects: the understanding of valuation as a resource of innovation that needs to be managed, the necessity to also understand impact from a perceived value point of view and the importance of understanding the potentially conflictive and political character of innovation. “Furthermore, a valuation perspective bears the potential to stimulate rural regional innovation debates. Not solely thinking of value as a mere epiphenomenon of SI, but also viewing valuations as a foundation for SI dis/assembly allows us to see them as crucial resources in rural SI processes. While the concept of bricolage has become widespread to understand the pragmatic use of resources by particularly rural actors for the sake of assembling a SI process in light of considerable resource constraints [45], a valuation viewpoint prompts us to think the bricolage of value. Specifically, how do SI initiatives strategically attract value and what are the time-spatial dynamics at play? Understanding these questions better can provide additional insights into how dissonances can be used as opportunities for innovation, as well as how pragmatic or epistemic conflicts can hinder SI activities. This allows to account for an understanding of perceived innovation value and its potentially political character. Hence, the proposed perspective sensitizes policy makers to both, the intangible social benefits of rural SI and the potential conflicts and diverging valuations that need to be navigated.” Since we understand this paper as a conceptual contribution spurring future empirical research, we equally believe that these three lines of transfer messages need to be further substantiated and elaborated in future empirical research.

Comment 4:

Additionally, it would be beneficial for the authors to discuss the limitations of the study and conduct a retrospective analysis in this final section. Addressing limitations and reflecting on the study's strengths and weaknesses would contribute to the overall rigor and credibility of the research.

 Reply 4:

Thank you for this hint, indeed the discussion of limitations has been underdeveloped in the initial submission. We have now restructured the discussion section (section 6) and given considerable space to discussions of limitations, both in methodological and conceptual terms. Regarding methodological limitations we discuss particularly the use of longitudinal data as well as issues of decontextualization: “Our approach also comes with limitation, both in terms of methodical as well as conceptual ones. The here presented vignette approach allowed us to test our initial conceptualization on an existing empirical basis and enabled us to qualify the theoretically deduced triad of dissonance as a conceptual contribution. However, the reliance on cross-sectional data rather than comprehensive case studies comes at the expense of a certain degree of de-contextualization. Instead of a coherent in-depth research design, we presented empirical vignettes from a variety of cases. Instead of going into depth, we use the range of empirical material available to us to initially illuminate the potential of an evaluation perspective, emphasizing the need for empirical research designs that allow for a longitudinal study of valuation throughout selected SI processes. A processual perspective that relates instances of dissonance and their implications, in line with perspectives such as 'innovation biographies' [47], can provide a lens that is sensitive to the time-spatial dynamics of value construction in SI processes.”. With regards to conceptual limitations we emphasized the need of future engagement with questions of power and justice in the context of SI valuation. “The here presented perspective so far does not explicitly address power relations and practices of legitimation of particular activities embedded in SI processes. Precisely because of using empirical vignettes to demonstrate the potential of a valuation perspective on social innovation processes, we would have overstretched the analysis of our existing empirical material. However, from what we presented in this paper, we understand our contribution as a starting point that needs to be further substantiated by including questions regarding power (in)balances in valuation processes. This might also take into consideration, how valuation processes in themselves may become performative and thereby directly or indirectly influence decisions, perspectives, or opinion of participants involved in or actively withdrawing from or excluded from collaborative valuation processes. This also requires to better understand beliefs, motivations, choices and individual search for benefits that participants in SI processes may bring to the fore or, contrary, might lead individuals to actively contest such processes or withdraw from them.”

 

Thank you again very much for the detailed review of our manuscript and the opportunity for us to improve our work.

 

Sincerely,

The authors

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

On presentation of English language and style: phrases such as "The here presented perspective so far" or "The here presented vignette approach" are inaccurate usages and create confusions. Try more basic statements: Our perspective is... or Our vignette approach...

On the definitional binary, articulated in the theoretical framework near the beginning, between "novelty" as such and actors' perceptions of value or "valuation" consider thinking more carefully through the issue of "articulation," or the possibility that novel solutions enhance material connections within and across communities and how social actors discuss this on a basis of shared power or empowerment rather than simply submission to perceived necessities and changes.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

On presentation of English language and style: phrases such as "The here presented perspective so far" or "The here presented vignette approach" are inaccurate usages and create confusions. Try more basic statements: Our perspective is... or Our vignette approach...

On the definitional binary, articulated in the theoretical framework near the beginning, between "novelty" as such and actors' perceptions of value or "valuation" consider thinking more carefully through the issue of "articulation," or the possibility that novel solutions enhance material connections within and across communities and how social actors discuss this on a basis of shared power or empowerment rather than simply submission to perceived necessities and changes.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you again for the repeated effort you put into checking our manuscript. We have addressed your comments and suggestions. Below, we detail our responses to each of the points raised and the revisions made to the manuscript.

Remark 1

On presentation of English language and style: phrases such as "The here presented perspective so far" or "The here presented vignette approach" are inaccurate usages and create confusions. Try more basic statements: Our perspective is... or Our vignette approach...

Response 1

Following your comment we engaged in extensive language polishing, thereby, among others, simplifyed sentence structures, used active rather than passive voice and generally ensured correctness and clarity.

Remark 2

On the definitional binary, articulated in the theoretical framework near the beginning, between "novelty" as such and actors' perceptions of value or "valuation" consider thinking more carefully through the issue of "articulation," or the possibility that novel solutions enhance material connections within and across communities and how social actors discuss this on a basis of shared power or empowerment rather than simply submission to perceived necessities and changes.

Response 2

Thank you for stressing the necessity of discussing new solutions and the related valuations in terms of power and empowerment rather than merely approaching them as an adaptation to changes perceived as necessary. We very much agree with this perspective on the relation between ‘novelty’ and ‘value’ as this is equally rooted in the constructivist understanding of innovation as finally shaped by both “practices of perception and legitimation” (see Hutter and colleagues in the introduction). The latter aspect of legitimation, we believe, builds a starting point for the engagement with questions in terms of how certain innovation actors manage to establish a problem definition as well as a solution proposal that is valued by sufficient community members and against the backdrop of distinct power dynamics. To emphasise this aspect, we now refer to Vercher et al.'s (2021, [4]) work, the role of narratives, and the power-induced negotiations of what is considered problematic and innovative. Overall, in the revised document, we have considered this aspect in sections 1, 3 and shortly 6. While having touched upon this aspect in our conceptual debate, it must be said that valuations as fundamentally communicative and ongoing practices benefit from using longitudinal data sets, as these allow to examine how (de)legitimation unfolds throughout the innovation process. This paper intends to build a heuristic for the dissonance-centred and performativity-sensitive understanding of SI and its impacts through a valuation lens. As brought forward earlier, we, therefore, see a comprehensive longitudinal empirical study beyond the scope of this paper. Nevertheless, we are convinced that the provided heuristic offers a starting point for longitudinal case studies.

Thank you again for the detailed review of our manuscript and for giving us the opportunity to improve our work.

Sincerely,

The authors