SOCIAL INNOVATION PERCEPTION DIFFERENCES BY THE CHARACTERISTICS OF TOURISM ENTERPRISES

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 1 Sayı: 1, 27 - 46, 07.09.2018

Yunus Topsakal , Nedim Yüzbaşıoğlu

Öz

While researches are generally focused to
investigate the effects of innovations commonly on the organizations, the topic
of social innovation is commonly theoretically addressed. Organizations’ social
innovation practices have not generally been examined. On the other hand,
social innovation has begun to increase in importance because of the local gathering
benefits and the desired social change. Therefore, it is necessary to reveal
the features that are effective in social innovation applications of
enterprises. In this context, the purpose of the research is to reveal the
perception differences of tourism enterprises based on the characteristics of
tourism enterprises operating in Antalya destination. The issue of social
innovation is used in the literature in different disciplines with different
meaning. In this research, social innovation is addressed from the viewpoint of
entrepreneurship, since the research sample is tourism enterprises. A
four-dimensional social innovation perception scale was developed from the
perspective of entrepreneurship. Scale development stages have been developed
and tested by following the general steps of scale development in the
literature. Data were collected from the tourism enterprises with the developed
scale. As a result, it can be said that small-scale tourism enterprises use
transportation options that pollute the environment less than large-scale
tourism enterprises.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Social Innovation

TURİZM İŞLETMELERİNİN ÖZELLİKLERİNE GÖRE SOSYAL İNOVASYON ALGI FARKLARI

Öz

Kaynakça

• BEPA (Bureau of European Policy Advisers). (2014). Social innovation – a decade to change. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union,
• Bozdoğan, A.E., & Öztürk, Ç. (2008). Coğrafya ile ilişkili fen konularının öğretimine yönelik öz-yeterlilik inanç ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 2(2), 66-81.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2003). Veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: PegemA Yayınları.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: PegemA Yayınları.
• Choi, N. & Majumdar, S. (2015). Social innovation: towards a conceptualization. In. M. Satyajit, G. Samapti, M. Nadiya (Eds.), Technology and innovation for social change (pp. 7-33). India: Springer.
• Clements, M.D.J. & Sense, A.J. (2010). Socially shaping supply chain integration through learning. International Journal of Technology Management, 51(1), 92-105.
• Dees, J.G. (1998). The meaning of “social entrepreneurship”. Kansas City: Kauffman Foundation.
• Dees, J.G. & Anderson, B. (2006). Framing a theory on social entrepreneurship: building on two schools of practice and thought. ARNOVA Occasional Paper Series, 1(3), 39-66.
• Drucker, P.F. (1987). Social innovation - management's new dimension. Long Range Planning, 20(6), 29-34.
• Erkorkmaz, Ü., Etikan, İ., Demir, O., Özdamar, K., & Sanisoğlu, S.Y. (2013). Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve uyum indeksleri. Türk Klinikleri Journal of Medical Sciences, 33(1), 210-223.
• Guth, M. (2005). Innovation, social inclusion and coherent regional development: a new diamond for a socially inclusive innovation policy in regions. European Planning Studies, 13(2), 333-349.
• Henderson, H. (1993). Social innovation and citizen movements. Futures, 25(3), 322-338.
• Howaldt, J., & Schwarz, M. (2010). Social innovation: concepts, research fields and international trends. Germany: Sozialforschungsstelle.
• Klein, J.L., Tremblay, D.G., & Bussieres, D.R. (2010). Social economy based local initiatives and social innovation: a montreal case study. International Journal of Technology Management, 51(1), 121-138.
• Krelev, G., Bund, E. & Mildenberger, G. (2014). Measuring what matters - Indicators of social innovativeness on the national level. Information Systems Management, 31(3), 200-224.
• Leadbeater, C. (1999). Living on thin air. London: Penguin Books.
• Lettice, F., & Parekh, M. (2010). The social innovation process: themes, challenges and implications for practice. International Journal of Technology Management, 51(1), 139-158.
• Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. New York: Archives of Psychology, New York University, Erişim Linki: https://legacy.voteview.com/pdf/ Likert_1932.pdf (E.T.: 15/03/2016).
• MacCallum, R.C., Browne, M.W., & Sugawara, H.M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130-149.
• Marcy, R.T., & Mumford, M.D. (2007). Social innovation: enhancing creative performance through causal analysis. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2-3), 123-140.
• Martin, R.L., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: the case for definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 5(Spring), 29-39.
• Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D., Mehmood, A., & Hamdouch, A. (2013). The international handbook on social innovation. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
• Moulaert, F., Martinelli, F., Swyngedouw, E., & Gonzalez, S. (2005). Towards alternative model(s) of local innovation. Urban Studies, 42(11), 1969-1990.
• Mulgan, G. (2006). Social innovation: what is it, why it matters and how it can be accelerated. London: Young Foundation.
• Mumford, M.D. (2002). Social innovation: ten cases from Benjamin Franklin. Creative Research Journal, 14(2), 253-266.
• Murray, R., Mulgan, G., & Caulier-Grice, J. (2009). How to innovate: the tools for social innovation. London: NESTA and Young Foundation.
• Nunnally, J.C. (1970). Introduction to psychological measurement. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• OECD. (2012). Innovating for global and societal challenges. Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Otrar, M., & Argın, F.S. (2015). Öğrencilerin sosyal medyaya ilişkin tutumlarını belirlemeye yönelik bir ölçek geliştirme çalışması. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 4(1), 391-403.
• Pol, E., & Ville, S. (2009). Social innovation: buzz word or enduring term?. Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(6), 878-885.
• Swedberg, R. (2009). Schumpeter’s full model of entrepreneurship: economic, non-economic and social entrepreneurship. In R. Ziegler (Eds.). An Introduction to Social Entrepreneurship: Voices, Preconditions, Contexts (pp. 264-294). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
• Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.
• Tavşancıl, E. (2010). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve spss ile veri analizi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• Tezbaşaran, A. (1997). Likert tipi ölçek geliştirme kılavuzu. Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği Yayınları.
• Topsakal, Y., & Yüzbaşıoğlu, N. (2017). Sosyal İnovasyon Kavramsal Model Önerisi, Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 13(3), 565-576.
• Unceta, A., Castro-Spila, J., & Fronti, J.G. (2017). The three governances in social innovation. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, DOI: 10.1080/13511610.2017.1279537, 1-15.
• Van Langenhove, L. (2001). About innovating the social sciences and innovation in society. In N. Rosenberg (Eds.). Social sciences and innovation (pp. 29-34). Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Ventura, K. (2011). AMOS (Analysis of Moment Structures) ve Yapısal Eşitlik Modeli. Erişim Tarihi: 27.09.2017). http://web.deu.edu.tr/upk15/docs/seminerSunumlari/AMO S%20(ANALYSIS%20OF%20MOMENT%20STRUCTURES)%20VE%20YAPISAL%20ESITLIK%20MODELI-YRD.%20DOC.%20DR.%20KETI%20VENTURA.pdf
• Wyman, O. (2016). Social innovation, a guide to achieving corporate and societal value. İsviçre: World Economic Forum.
• Yazıcıoğlu, Y., & Erdoğan, S. (2004). Spss: uygulamalı bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
• Zeller, R.A., & Carmines, E.G. (1978). Statistical analysis of social data. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company.