Introduction
In the past decade, Europe has experienced very rapid changes in the field of social innovation, mainly because digital technologies have entered almost every corner of social life. Many community practices that used to rely on face-to-face communication have gradually moved onto online platforms. This shift does not simply “digitize” old practices; it also changes the conditions under which innovation happens. One symbolic moment was the DSI4EU initiative launched around 2014 [1]. Its attempt to map digital-social projects across Europe suggested that a new category—Digital Social Innovation (DSI)—was emerging. Later, researchers started discussing DSI as something not fully identical to traditional social innovation.
The Conceptual Diversity of DSI and Network Effects
However, the concept of DSI is still unstable. Because of this diversity, it is hard to find one simple definition. From my own reading, I think social network effects may offer a useful “bridge” that connects these different meanings. When more people participate in a digital space, the value and creativity of the system often grow in ways beyond individual contribution. This paper therefore reviews how European scholars interpret network effects within DSI and how these effects shape participation, collaboration, and inequality.
Many studies view DSI as a hybrid space where technology and society interact. Highlight that ICTs create new possibilities for cooperation that would be impossible or extremely difficult in traditional settings [2]. Because of this complexity, the outcomes of DSI depend heavily on how networks are organized.
Although they discuss these separately, all of them actually rely on the strength and openness of the network. If the network lacks trust, participation, or digital infrastructure, these functions cannot operate effectively. In this sense, the network is not only a tool within DSI but also a condition that shapes what DSI can achieve.
Network effects refer to the phenomenon where a platform becomes more valuable when more users join. In commercial platforms this is often discussed economically, but in DSI the meaning is broader: participation brings not only data or content but also skills, knowledge, and emotional investment. When contributions accumulate, the innovation capacity of the network grows like a snowball.
Network Functions, Participation, and Collective Intelligence
This means DSI can be viewed as a kind of socio-technical ecosystem. The size and diversity of the network, as well as the quality of interaction, influence the potential for innovation. However, this also raises questions: Who gets to join the network? Who is excluded? These questions are central to DSI but sometimes ignored in optimistic discussions.
European scholarship often emphasizes that participation is the foundation of DSI. This accumulation of participation produces “collective intelligence,” in which users contribute different knowledge and perspectives that improve the innovation process [3].
However, participation is not automatically inclusive. In many communities, especially those with low digital literacy or limited time resources, people may not participate even when platforms are open. This weakens the network effects that DSI depends on. I also notice that some studies rarely discuss this “absence of participation,” even though it is an important limitation. But these positive effects assume that technological infrastructure is strong and reliable. In areas where the network infrastructure is poor, or where organizations do not share data, the digital network cannot scale. This is a major issue in many rural or economically weaker regions.
Spatial Differences, Rural–Urban Gaps, and Crisis Dynamics
Spatial context also shapes DSI outcomes. Even though their networks are small, “weak ties” connecting rural residents to external actors can create unexpected innovation potential.
In contrast, cities appear to have larger networks and more resources, but these advantages come with stronger inequality. This means network effects can reinforce existing disadvantages rather than reduce them. Therefore, a “bigger” network is not necessarily a more inclusive or innovative one. During the COVID-19 pandemic, digital networks expanded rapidly. Communities used digital tools to organize support, share resources, and maintain social connection. While this shows the adaptability of DSI, it also raises questions about sustainability. Some networks that grew during the crisis may weaken afterward, suggesting that crisis-driven network effects are not always stable.
Bringing these studies together, we can see that network effects help explain why DSI has expanded so quickly in Europe. Digital platforms often become more effective when more participants contribute, creating a self-reinforcing cycle. But this cycle depends on several conditions: openness, trust, digital skills, and infrastructure.
A critical issue that appears across the literature is inequality. Networks do not include everyone equally. Communities with strong digital capacity benefit more from DSI, while disadvantaged groups may be excluded—intentionally or unintentionally. This challenges the common belief that digital innovation automatically produces fairness. In fact, without careful design, network effects may enlarge rather than reduce social gaps. Another point often overlooked is the sustainability of participation. Many DSI projects depend on voluntary contributions, which may not last long. The network effect becomes unstable when participation decreases. Therefore, DSI needs long-term strategies, not just short-term enthusiasm.
Conclusion
Social network effects play a key role in shaping Digital Social Innovation. Whether we examine participation, technological collaboration, spatial differences, or crisis responses, networks determine how innovation unfolds. Strong networks with inclusive values can generate significant social benefits. But weak or unequal networks limit the potential of DSI.
For future development, policymakers should invest in digital inclusion, strengthen local community networks, and provide stable ICT infrastructure. Only when different communities have equal opportunities to join the network can DSI contribute to a more connected and fair society.
References
[1] C. Certomà, Digital Social Innovation: Spatial Imaginaries and Technological Resistances in Urban Governance. Springer Nature, 2021.
[2] G. Misuraca and G. Pasi, “Landscaping digital social innovation in the EU: Structuring the evidence and nurturing the science and policy debate towards a renewed agenda for social change,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 592–600, 2019.
[3] J. A. De Moraes and E. B. De Andrade, “Who are the citizens of the digital citizenship?,” The International Review of Information Ethics, no. 23, 2015.
About Author
