Search

Who gets to benefit from failure is a hot topic in recent research on science and innovation. This article articulates the phenomenon of failure privilege on the terrain of public policy, that is, circumstantial and institutionally ingrained dispositions to use policy downfalls, derailments, and crises as resources of policy action, tools of integration, and dynamism. Building on analyses of policy failures, the article advances a typology of three forms of privilege: exploitation, (in)visibilization, and projection of policy futures. It brings illustrations from abortion policymaking in Poland. Here, failure privilege interacts with a bio-political and culturally polarized setting that further blends neoliberal mechanisms of failing with post-Communist transformation of cultures of failure. This leads to the argument that exploitation and controversial interventions in public policy demand legitimacy that is today constructed by advancing imaginaries and models of failure that allow actors to both visibilize new futures and advance a policy stalemate. Failure is a powerful resource of integration and even surveillance, as well as a factor furthering the politics of waiting. Redefining it is a crucial policy win and entails complex and implicit mechanisms impacting policy agendas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While service design has been highlighted as a promising approach for driving innovation, there are often struggles in realizing lasting change in practice. The issues with long-term implementation reveal a reductionist view of service design that ignores the institutional arrangements and other interdependencies that influence design efforts within multi-actor service systems. The purpose of this article is to build a systemic understanding of service design to inform actors' efforts aimed at intentional, long-term change in service systems. To achieve this aim, we inform the conceptual building blocks of service design by applying service-dominant logic's service ecosystems perspective. Through this process, we develop four core propositions and a multilevel process model of service ecosystem design. The conceptualization of service ecosystem design advances service design theory by illuminating previously taken for granted aspects; explaining how intentional, long-term change emerges; and expanding the scope of service design beyond projects. Furthermore, this research offers a foundation for future research on service design that involves extending the systemic conceptualization of service design, conducting more holistic empirical investigations, and developing practical methods and approaches for the embedded, collective processes of designing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article addresses the issue of the so-called refugee crisis in Europe from the perspective of ignorance studies and seeks to establish the mechanisms whereby ignorance is created through categorizations. We depart from the proposal of Proctor and view ignorance as either "native state," "lost realm," or "strategic ploy." In all three, ignorance is an unalienable part of social action. The case of Polish academic research on refugees before and after 2015 is explored in order to establish who ignores what, when, and why, when categorizing, and to analyze the relationship between ignorance and social action. In the Polish refugee field, the crisis of 2015 was the moment when the refugee issue stepped out of the shadows and attracted the attention of the public and policymakers. The analysis of the category "refugee" in Polish scholarship before 2015 demonstrates that the category was based on culturalization and idealization; thus, the socio-political and pragmatic aspects of the group's characteristics and actions were systematically ignored, and the ignorance worked as a "lost realm." After 2015, a new body of scholarship emerges in which the category "refugee" acquires negative connotations with security threat or fakeness. In the new scholarship, ignorance is a strategic framing that sets the category of "refugee" outside the humanitarian issues. We claim that the new categorizations follow the logic of culturalization and moralization typical of the previous period. Strategic ignorance inherent in the categorizations that dichotomize "good" and "bad" refugees, or "refugees" and "migrants," unlocks the potential for political action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]