Using a systematic review we examine the extent to which empirical studies on social innovation focus on Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) samples and are produced by WEIRD researchers. This examination reveals that 56,1% of social innovation research is WEIRD and that non-WEIRD research is 37,8%, with 6.1% in non-disclosed contexts. We also find that this field of research focuses on social or technological outcomes and whether it views the phenomenon as a single or multi-actor process. This classification identifies four quadrants with the following levels of WEIRDness. From these findings, we outline three critical issues: a limited understanding of diverse contextual factors, a reductionist view of non-WEIRD contexts, and the marginalization of non-WEIRD scholars.
