Search results

This paper aims to illustrate how dispersed institutes of social innovation operating as intermediary actors within higher education institutions (HEIs) may help overcome many of the institutional bureaucracies and structures that inhibit social innovation in higher education.

This paper reviews core conditions for social innovation, along with the opportunities, challenges and tensions that emerge as HEIs work to apply these conditions in practice. It then describes how dispersed institutes enact principles of decentralization, localization and collaboration in pursuit of social innovation.

Five main ways that dispersed institutes enable social innovation were identified in this review, including bridging academic–practice divides, enabling co-creation and co-production with users, facilitating experiential and co-curricular education, supporting interdisciplinary collaborations and generating customized and place-based solutions.

Findings suggest four strategies that HEIs can use to support dispersed institutes, including prioritizing social purpose organizations as institutional partners, incentivizing public engagement and collaboration, leveraging their convening power to strengthen global networks among dispersed institutes and using budgeting models that reflect the importance of creating both economic and social value.

Although innovation labs in HEIs have long been a feature of natural sciences and technology services, they are still comparatively new for the social sciences and humanities. This paper addresses a gap in the literature on the value contributed by dispersed institutes of social innovation operating within HEIs such as living labs, makerspaces, incubators and excubators, social innovation parks, cooperation accelerators and technology transfer offices.

This study aims to enhance the understanding of the nature of collaboration between public and nonpublic actors in delivering social services and achieving social innovation in a fragile context, with an emphasis on the role of civil society organisations (CSOs). The paper focuses on Bosnia and Herzegovina, a Southeastern European country which has faced a turbulent post-conflict transition and experienced challenges in its social welfare policy and practice.

This study uses institutional theory, particularly new institutionalism and institutional networking, as a lens through which to understand public and nonpublic collaboration and social innovation within a fragile context. This study adopts a sequential mixed-method approach. Data were derived from 15 semi-structured interviews with representatives from local CSOs, international donors and public institutions, as well as a survey of 120 CSO representatives.

The collaboration and social innovation in a fragile welfare context have been initiated primarily by nonpublic actors and developed within the triple context of relations between public, civil and foreign donors’ organisations. In such a context, coercive, normative and mimetic isomorphisms act as leading drivers, but also as potential barriers of public–nonpublic collaboration and social innovation. They are triggered by influences from multiple actors, challenging power relations and external pressures on local CSOs.

The paper contributes to the growing research interest in the role of nonpublic actors in the provision of public services and public social innovation, but examines these issues from the perspective of a fragile context, which has thus far been overlooked in the literature.

This chapter aims to investigate how a range of emerging trends within the international community can be used to build a connective educational ecosystem based on an inclusive and universal process (Biggeri et al., 2017; Ziegler, 2017). The starting question is: how multidisciplinary teams in Italy could take action toward inclusive education?

Partnering is becoming a central system organization strategy for schools to adopt for successful innovative teams with creative educational ideas (Kelly et al., 2002), and here it is declined in the Italian context in which inclusive education was officially embraced in 1977 as a national policy (D'Alessio, 2011). National legislation (104/92 Law) made explicit the mandate that students with disabilities receive their education (to the maximum extent possible) with nondisabled peers in the general education classroom using appropriate supplemental aids and services in the least-restrictive environment (Anastasiou et al., 2015; Canevaro & de Anna, 2010).

It is crucial to encourage new forms of practice which require collaboration capabilities (Hattie, 2015; Vangrieken et al., 2015) between multidisciplinary teams that comprised general teachers, special education teachers, health professionals, school psychologists, school leaders, and the students' family (Meirink et al., 2010). These resources could be distributed across inclusive ecosystems to support all students by enabling them to prosper in an increasingly diversified and complex environment in which creativity, ability to innovate, entrepreneurship, and a commitment to continuous learning are joint and connective (EU, 2008). This creates a state of positive multiagency collaboration that promotes the well-being of students and the system.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution has escalated innovation to new heights unseen, creating an evolution of innovation and corporate social responsibility (CSR), and as a result, a more Innovative CSR. With this evolution comes also the evolution of the ‘Preneur’ from social entrepreneur to corporate social entrepreneur and corporate social intrapreneur. It is therefore important to acknowledge that social entrepreneurship is not just for the social sector, or start-up entrepreneur – corporations can also be social entrepreneurs. This chapter establishes an understanding of this possibility alongside solving wicked problems and challenges, and how to provide collaborative networks and co-creation experiences to assist others on this journey. More importantly, the chapter discusses how corporates can assist millennials (and Generation Z) by funding and incubating their innovative or social enterprise idea under the umbrella of CSR strategy, until it is ready to be released to the world. The chapter is supported by academic literature and business publications with suggestions for future research opportunities.

Responsible innovation (RI) and social innovation (SI) are two fields of innovation study experiencing burgeoning policy, practice and research interest. Despite this rapid rise in popularity, the scholarly literature in these two related areas of innovation study remains quite separate, stymieing the growth of shared research insights. The purpose of this paper is to propose a pragmatic, process-based framework that lends itself to advancing systematic research in both fields while retaining their distinct identities.

This conceptual paper outlines an analogy-inspired framework that builds on the logical thinking put forward by Philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine in 1962. It focusses on key processes that cross-cut both fields.

Reflexivity, collaboration and design are identified as three broad core processes that span both the RI and SI fields and form the basis of an integrative framework that highlights the scope for cross-field research pollination.

The literature that draws these two fields together is virtually non-existent. The paper uses analogy to facilitate awareness of the parallels between these two areas of innovation study. The integrative framework put forward in the paper is of value for advancing cumulative research in innovation fields of critical importance to the society.

This paper aims to recount the genesis of a successful innovation cluster among Irish-based divisions of multinational enterprises (MNEs) and Irish universities in the pharmaceutical industry. This cluster was actively “narrativized” through the language of obligation, desire, competence and know-how. As such, it is typical of the “hero’s quest” literary genre in which challenges are faced, obstacles are overcome and victory is ultimately won. Importantly, in this story, the cluster was morally and pragmatically charged with dealing with significant challenges faced by the Irish pharmaceutical industry. Broader societal discourses operated as a resource for actors to use in proposing collaboration and innovation as the appropriate response to such challenges. Specifically, through narrative and discourse, actors created the necessary conditions conducive for a cluster to develop. These created a discursively constituted shared purpose which ultimately ensured successful innovation collaboration. Essentially, through narrative and discourse, the key actors identified the collaboration a protagonist in pursuit of a quest. By linking theoretical and empirical insights, the paper offers a conceptual framework that can be used in future studies to understand the emergence of clusters.

Adopting Wengraf’s (2001) structured approach to narrative interviewing, 18 key actors shared their understanding of how the cluster came into being. Each interview began with a single question intended to induce narrative, in this case “tell me the story of the cluster as you see it.” This allowed participants to be in control of their own story (Wengraf, 2001). Each interview was transcribed in full and appended to notes taken at the time of the interview. Each narrative offered a “purposeful account” (Jovchelovitch and Bauer, 2000) of how and why the cluster was formed and the centrality of the participants’ roles. In line with recognised protocols, in the authors analysis of data, they paid specific attention to how stories were told, the roles assigned to key protagonists, as well as how events and actors were linked in stories (see Czarniawska, 1997).

This paper further demonstrates how language, metaphor and narrative and discourse (Hatch, 1997) becomes a strategic resource on which actors can draw to create desired realities (Hardy et al., 2000) particularly in terms of collaboration and innovation. Further, this case highlights how dialogue was encouraged throughout the process of establishing the cluster and has continued to be an important element. Rather than imposing some grand design, the SSPC cluster is and always will be emergent. In this sense, in the early stages of collaboration, detecting and supporting existing and emergent communities is essential to success, and shared identity which is the outcome of members’ discursive practices appears to be a powerful driver of collaboration.

There are important insights for cluster and innovation theory development that can be extrapolated from this study. First, context-specific narrative accounts provided in this study further extend the authors’ understanding of the process through which fundamental changes (innovation) in organisational activities are enacted (Ettlie and Subramaniam, 2004). Second, the authors’ understanding of how new ventures are attributed organisational legitimacy through language and story is augmented (Gollant and Sillince, 2007; Pentland, 1999). Third, the authors have articulated how different discourses are mobilised by actors at different stages of development and for different audiences to create desired innovation outcomes, illustrating that innovations can result from advances in knowledge (McAdam et al., 1998). Finally, the authors see how discourse and practice are dynamic as participants articulate their intention to exert further influence on innovation discourse through their lobbying activities.

By focusing on the specific problem of crystallisation, and using the discourse of collaboration, particularised ties emerged around SSPC and this inspired synergistic action. When seeking approval from host organisations, they spoke in terms of return on investment and the potential to add value, part of the discourse of organisational effectiveness. Consequently, the authors stress the benefits of understanding audiences and adjusting discursive approaches on this basis. As such, this study provides evidence that tailored discursive approaches can be used as a resource for managers and practitioners that are seeking to inspire innovation through collaboration.

The discourse of collaboration also became a resource upon which actors could draw to articulate how they might respond to the context and realise the vision. Because this discourse is promoted in government reports and embodied in government strategy, the protagonists were able to borrow from the discourse to secure the necessary resources (in this case funding) that would enhance the possibilities of more effective collaboration. This is because different stakeholders engage with discourse in ways that help to create the outcomes they desire. It was noticeable that the leaders within the Solid State Pharmaceutical Cluster recognised the importance of discourse to innovation collaboration, and on this basis, they successfully adjusted the use of terminology in relation to the exchange partners they were addressing. When addressing potential partners within industry and academia, they utilised both the “burning platform” and “Ireland Inc.” metaphors to create generalised membership ties around the need for innovation and action.

First, context-specific narrative accounts provided in this study further extend the authors’ understanding of the process through which fundamental changes (innovation) in organisational activities are enacted (Ettlie and Subramaniam, 2004). Second, the authors have articulated how different discourses are mobilised by actors at different stages of development and for different audiences to create desired innovation outcomes, illustrating that innovations can result from advances in knowledge (McAdam et al., 1998). Finally, the authors see how discourse and practice are dynamic as participants articulate their intention to exert further influence on innovation discourse through their lobbying activities.

This paper aims to determine whether a combined set of process models for university contributions to social innovation can be effectively used to describe how higher education institutions facilitate and disseminate research for social value.

The author applies Cunha and Benneworth’s (2013) social innovation process model, with additions from the Nichols et al. (2013) model of campus-community collaboration and the Jain et al. (2020) social value framework, to a pair of case studies at Portland State University about research projects on homelessness. Information was gathered through primary sources, observation and secondary texts.

Applying the models to the case studies provides additional detail on the types and value of Portland State University’s contributions to addressing homelessness through social innovation. The models are found to be effective in describing and providing guidance for social innovation research projects at other higher education institutions.

The models may have widespread applicability in understanding or designing university contributions to social innovation, but additional case studies and analysis are needed to understand the full range of project types and institutional contexts to which they can be successfully applied.

The projects described in the paper’s case studies have not been analyzed elsewhere using social innovation frameworks and are valuable in their own right as social innovations worthy of replication. The findings of the paper extend the applicability of a process model for university contributions to social innovation.

The academic experience of top management team (TMT) has a positive impact on firms' innovation performance. However, existing studies predominantly focus on the educational qualifications and institutional prestige of TMT, failing to comprehensively evaluate whether TMT possess genuine academic experience and the role of academic competence. This article aims to examine whether TMT academic competence has a potential influence on firm innovation performance and to understand the mechanisms behind this relationship.

Using firm-level metrics of Chinese listed firms and TMT scholarly publication data spanning 2000–2021, this paper investigates whether TMT academic competence can promote firms' innovation performance and conducts a moderated mediating effect analysis.

(1) Academic competence of TMT can contribute positively to firms’ innovation performance; (2) university–industry collaboration partially mediates this relationship; (3) the mediating effect is enhanced by cognitive proximity and (4) distance proximity does not diminish the mediating effect.

Outcome of this study can assist academia in further understanding the impacts of TMT on firm innovation and aid government in promoting university–industry collaboration. Simultaneously, it can help firms adjust their TMT selection and training strategies to enhance innovation performance.

This article, as the first to construct an index of academic competence and to explore whether it has an impact on firms' innovation performance and its inherent mechanism, can provide a new research perspective for the study of the impact of TMT's characteristics on firms' innovation.

Based on a single case approach, this chapter empirically explores the triple helix configuration of Centurion University of Technology and Management (CUTM) and its social innovation programme. The study uses case files and web available material to consider the nature of the university’s relationship with industry and government. The findings show that triple helix social innovation has yet to be studied in an Indian context. Also, CUTM’s human and social orientation is a driver of its triple helix interaction. The university’s pursuit and trust in employers’ participation in the curriculum and campus experience is the hallmark of its social and pedagogic success. To advance the literature, this chapter draws attention to a much-overlooked Indian context and, for practitioners, it demonstrates the inner-workings of a functioning triple helix system.