Scaling to new heights: methodological insights for uplifting research on grassroots digital innovation

The Covid-19 pandemic has further evidenced the potential of grassroots actors as initiators of digital innovations, in the form of open-source applications, platform cooperatives, and other crowdsourced digital artifacts. These innovations played a crucial role in mitigating the impact of lockdown measures, specifically serving the needs of communities often neglected by commercial offerings from large tech companies. Grassroots digital innovations (GDIs) have long been recognized by scholars and policymakers as potential remedies to market distortions and social iniquities within digitalization processes. Nevertheless, these initiatives have historically struggled to become sustainable. Recent evidence confirms that many GDIs developed in response to the global health crisis are now facing financial issues that threaten their survival. In this commentary, we reflect on this challenge and assert that GDI literature exhibits several shortcomings that contribute to undermining the long-term stability of these initiatives and their capacity to foster more inclusive, just, and sustainable digitalization processes. We examine how these shortcomings can be addressed to enhance both GDI research and practice. Our discussion focuses on three major methodological and conceptual limitations: a tendency towards theory-devoid empiricism, a bias towards successful cases, and a dearth of longitudinal, multi-site analyses. We discuss the causes of each shortcoming and illustrate how they impact both the theoretical and practical development of GDIs. Drawing on this critical examination, we identify four priorities to advance future GDI research: leveraging methodological pluralism, applying theoretical sampling, enhancing qualitative longitudinal research, and strengthening methods for data collection and archival. These priorities aim to inform the agendas of academic communities, funding bodies, and policy institutions dedicated to harnessing the potential of GDIs for more sustainable and inclusive digitalization processes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
Published
2025-02-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04320-7
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Innovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
5.52

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Scaling to new heights: methodological insights for uplifting research on grassroots digital innovation

Luca Mora, Paolo Gerli, Fabio Neves da Rocha
2 citations
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
Innovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
5.52
article

Scaling to new heights: methodological insights for uplifting research on grassroots digital innovation

Luca Mora, Paolo Gerli, Fabio Neves da Rocha
article en
2 citations

Abstract

The Covid-19 pandemic has further evidenced the potential of grassroots actors as initiators of digital innovations, in the form of open-source applications, platform cooperatives, and other crowdsourced digital artifacts. These innovations played a crucial role in mitigating the impact of lockdown measures, specifically serving the needs of communities often neglected by commercial offerings from large tech companies. Grassroots digital innovations (GDIs) have long been recognized by scholars and policymakers as potential remedies to market distortions and social iniquities within digitalization processes. Nevertheless, these initiatives have historically struggled to become sustainable. Recent evidence confirms that many GDIs developed in response to the global health crisis are now facing financial issues that threaten their survival. In this commentary, we reflect on this challenge and assert that GDI literature exhibits several shortcomings that contribute to undermining the long-term stability of these initiatives and their capacity to foster more inclusive, just, and sustainable digitalization processes. We examine how these shortcomings can be addressed to enhance both GDI research and practice. Our discussion focuses on three major methodological and conceptual limitations: a tendency towards theory-devoid empiricism, a bias towards successful cases, and a dearth of longitudinal, multi-site analyses. We discuss the causes of each shortcoming and illustrate how they impact both the theoretical and practical development of GDIs. Drawing on this critical examination, we identify four priorities to advance future GDI research: leveraging methodological pluralism, applying theoretical sampling, enhancing qualitative longitudinal research, and strengthening methods for data collection and archival. These priorities aim to inform the agendas of academic communities, funding bodies, and policy institutions dedicated to harnessing the potential of GDIs for more sustainable and inclusive digitalization processes.

Humanities and Social Sciences CommunicationsVol. 12(1)
Tallinn University of Technology (EE), Edinburgh Napier University (GB)
European Commission
Industry, innovation and infrastructure
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Innovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
5.52
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.