The role of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) is particularly relevant in light of the current trends in learning innovation. The MOOCs have the wind in their sails as the international actors of education and learning are turning their focus on them. Users can both learn and teach freely with partners around the world through a variety of courses adapted to their needs.

As such, the questions surrounding their relevance and benefits in life-long learning are increasingly important and reveal burning issue in their current politics: how can they fund such unstable developments in pedagogical, social and technical trends ? Our Speech will deal with the development of innovative learning devices, particularly their durability and adaptability. Furthermore, inclusion is the first challenge posed against the democratisation of access to culture and knowledge. The reforms and progress in education are not benefiting all, excluding the most disadvantaged social groups.

European programs such as Grundtvig support life-long leaning and adult education to overcoming the economic crises and to develop the knowledge-based economy. It is clear that this open-ended and informal process cannot be imposed upon classical institutions. The actors involved in developing and maintaining these educational and learning systems include civilian and non-profit societies, however these emerging communities appear to be poorly structured and ephemeral. The same project following different paths, for example, depending on the type of people engaged, territories of actions and the area of study. Will have different consequences?We could therefore consider that such an experiment reveals a dynamic of innovation situated between appropriation and formalisation. The aim of this study is to answer these questions : How does an innovative learning system emerge? How are novel practices transmitted ? How much adjustment would allow to expand the life span of the learning innovation?

Social innovation provides a potential alternative model for democratizing knowledge and education. As such, it aims to transform social relations and empower individuals. Generally speaking, researchers agree that social innovation, the development of new ways of doing things, is triggered by social need (Cloutier, 2003) : a gap between their ideal and reality, a desire for a better life. The definition will include furthermore the ways to implement innovations where different actors, especially users, jointly participate in defining the objectives and methods of the social innovation. According to Chambon, David and Develey (1982), the innovative nature is related to a discontinuity in the practices. Alter (2002) defines innovation as an inventive practice in everyday practices that spreads through their institutionalization and normalisation. "Institutions favor the innovative process but, at the same time, innovation implies changes affecting institutions" (González-López, 2011), what Gabher (1992) calls "embeddedness dilemma". As a result, the success of a learning innovation can be deduced not only from the ownership process but also from the institutional and surrounding reactions. The concept of territory is used here as both social space, physical space and social relations, as well as a "living-in" space, that connotes existential experiences (Di Méo, 2001).

In relation to the life-long learning system in inclusive society, social innovation is studied to understand the success of innovative learning systems due to ownership by many different people, and specifically the ones classical educational institutions don't affect: an innovative practice which has been disseminated in the area of popular education. In the socio-technical approach, the concept of "dispositif" (Albero, 2010 ; Foucault, 1975) or apparatus, offers us key elements of the diffusion of learning innovations (such as rules, roles, social values or scientific theories), but also several configurations displaying tensions and synergies between these keys elements within a territory.

Albero, B. (2010a). De l’idéel au véçu  : le dispositif confronté à ses pratiques. In Albero, Brigitte & Poteaux, Ncole (Éd.), Enjeux et dilemmes de l’autonomie, une expérience d’autoformation à l’université, étude de cas (p. 67‑94). Paris : Editions MSH. Albero, B. (2010b). La formation en tant que dispositif:du terme au concept. In Charlier, B. & Henri, F. La technologie de l’éducation:recherches, pratiques et perspectives (p. 47‑59). Paris: PUF. Alter, N. (2002). Les logiques de l’innovation: approche pluridisciplinaire. Paris: La Découverte. Castoriadis, C. (1975). L’institution imaginaire de la société. Paris: Seuil. Chambon, J.-L., David, A., & Devevey, J.-M. (1982). Les innovations sociales. Paris: PUF. Cloutier, J. (2003). Qu’est-ce que l’innovation sociale? Montréal: CRISES. Di Méo, G., Pitte, Jean-Robert. (2001). Géographie sociale et territoires. Paris: Nathan Université. Dumoulin Kervran, D., & Pépin-Lehalleur, M. (2012). Agir-en-réseau: modéle d’action ou catégorie d’analyse ? Rennes : PUR. Eneau, J. (2005). La part d’autrui dans la formation de soi : Autonomie, Autoformation et Réciprocité en Contexte Organisationnel. Paris: L’Harmattan. Foucault, M. (1975). Surveiller et punir. Paris: Gallimard. Giddens, A. (2005). La constitution de la société : Eléments de la théorie de la structuration. Paris: PUF. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publisching Compagny. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publisching Compagny. González-López, M. (2011). The Institutions-Innovation Dilemma: the Case of Coastal Fisheries. Journal of technology management & innovation, 6, 3, 184‑195. Linard, M. (2002). Conception de dispositifs et changement de paradigme en formation. Education Permanente, 152, 143‑155. Paillé, P. (1994). L’analyse par théorisation ancrée. Cahiers de recherche sociologique, 23, 147‑181. Paillé, P., & Mucchielli, A. (2006). L’analyse qualitative en sciences humaines et sociales. Paris: Armand Colin.