Votre recherche

This study examined the role of Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) in promoting, creating, and sustaining social innovation. Recently, HEIs have extended their contribution beyond the traditional function of teaching and research to perform in socio-economic problem-solving. Considering the increasing trends of higher education involvement in social innovation practices, this study tries to examine the tools such as learning processes and systemic thinking approach that could be helpful to align the function and responsibilities of HEIs towards social innovation. The objective is to develop a theoretical understanding of the "co-creation for social innovation" concept and to understand the functions and activities of HEIs that can contribute to this process. To promote co-creation for social innovation, HEIs should actively encourage collaborative learning tools that focus on open platforms for collective action and systemic change that help them to engage with society and strengthen their collaboration with social actors. Different activities such as mutual learning and knowledge diffusion using a transdisciplinary approach, technology-based learning and collaboration, and relational transformation are key enablers that can promote social innovation.

Frugal innovation has gained prominence based on its potential contribution to sustainable development and the new opportunities that it offers to low-income customers. This paper aims to analyse the strategic knowledge transfer practices implemented by an entrepreneurial university for fostering frugal innovations within an emerging economy. Design/methodology/approach This study adopted a case study methodological approach. The selected case was the University of Campinas (Unicamp), one of the leading universities in Brazil in terms of research quality and technology transfer. The study built upon 14 interviews with key informants and secondary sources of data (official and public documents). Findings The findings highlight the multidimensional dynamics of frugal innovations arising from university–industry relationships. Key dimensions considered include the internal capabilities of universities to foster frugal innovations and connect them to markets, the surrounding innovation ecosystems in which the university is embedded and the overarching institutional framework. Research limitations/implications The analysis of strategic management practices for frugal innovation requires an evolutionary perspective, but the findings lacked sufficient longitudinal information for a formal evaluation. Also, as our empirical analysis is based on an in-depth case study of one university, further validation in other contexts would be necessary. Practical implications This study offers new insights regarding the effectiveness of university-business collaboration partnerships for developing frugal innovations in emerging economies. Policymakers should promote societal programs enhancing the active participation of all agents involved in the entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystem. University managers should understand the challenges and the opportunities behind the adoption of an inclusive and societal orientation. Social implications By adopting frugal innovation practices, universities can enhance their contribution of meeting the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. Originality/value The literature on frugal innovation has emphasized the importance of networking between different types of firms, NGOs and governments, but the role of universities in frugal innovation remains mostly unexplored. This study addresses this gap by exploring how entrepreneurial universities participate in frugal innovations to meet societal challenges.

Cet article étudie les caractéristiques des structures de transfert technologique et des laboratoires d’innovation ouverte gérés par les universités et organismes de recherche. Il compare leurs rôles comme intermédiaires des relations science–entreprises en fonction des modes 2 et 3 de production des connaissances proposés par Etzkowitz & al (1997) et Carayannis & al (2009). Basée sur une comparaison de cas multiples en France, nous analysons leur rôle dans le développement des relations science-entreprise. Cet article identifie aussi les modes de coordination entre ces deux types d’intermédiaires. Dans certains cas, ils coordonnent leurs activités de manière ponctuelle alors que, dans d’autres cas, la complémentarité de leurs activités s’organise sur la durée.

Potential contributions of universities to social innovation are explored with special attention to Southern countries. The normative guide is the notion of Sustainable Human Development understood as stressing the agency of least-advantaged sectors. The main challenges stem from decreasing sustainability and increasing inequality. Their impacts are highly dependent on how the tension between economic growth and environmental protection is managed. Improving actual perspectives demands harnessing advanced knowledge to foster inclusive and frugal innovation. For this to occur, universities need to be main actors. The context in which they act is analyzed with reference to the National Systems of Innovation conceptualization. Possible evolutions of universities as agents of social innovation are discussed with the aid of the Multi-Level Perspective. The importance of the Southern experience of innovating in scarcity conditions is highlighted and illustrated with the specific experience of a Latin American university. The cooperation of universities with weak social actors in ways that involve advanced knowledge appears as a key theoretical issue and as a difficult practical problem for the effective engagement of universities in social innovation. The diverse issues that such engagement needs to integrate conform an ambitious research program, of which the paper aims at giving a first glimpse.

L’article est basé sur une enquête portant sur la structuration de la démarche de développement durable et responsabilité sociale (DD-RS) dans les universités françaises. Il s’appuie sur la théorie de la structuration et la Théorie Néo-Institutionnelle pour construire un cadre conceptuel à la structuration de cette mission. Ce dernier est confronté à la pratique des établissements et débouche sur une typologie fondée sur le rôle de l’implication politique, de la culture du pilotage et des isomorphismes. La discussion autour de cette typologie, à partir d’une ACM montrant l’existence de groupes homogènes d’universités quant à leur structuration d’une démarche DD-RS, permet d’affiner le rôle de chacun des facteurs du modèle conceptuel.

Commonly, social innovation is defined as new ideas proposals to the needs of humans. However, there is a lack of a well-definition comprehensive leading the fragmentation of field research. On the other hand, the contribution of universities for social innovation development is still less investigated. In this sense, this study intends to explore interrelations between universities and social innovation in relation to different lines of investigation employed. For this, a content analysis was applied to results obtained by Cunha et al. [1]. Five categories of analysis were defined. Findings revealed that there are a number of studies that applied qualitative research to investigate practical examples of social innovation inside of universities and few empirical studies. A link among keywords social innovation, higher education, and social entrepreneurship was found. Furthermore, the analysis showed that there is not a leader country but a distribution across several countries, where Spain and United Kingdom stand out. Thus, this result suggests that it would be helpful to develop an instrument to measure academics’ engagement with social innovation research and practice. In addition, this research contributes to current knowledge regarding the role of universities in social innovation model, providing new theoretical and practical insights of investigation.

In the last two decades, social innovation (SI) and social entrepreneurship (SE) have gained relevance and interest within the framework of academia at international level. Higher education institutions (HEIs) are key players in promoting innovation and social entrepreneurship initiatives that respond to multifaceted challenges. They support strategies on the basis of the strengthening of participation, collaboration, and cooperation with society and its local communities. However, the approach of Latin American universities to SI and SE has been very uneven in the way they have understood them, integrated them into academic programmes, and transferred knowledge to society. On the basis of the experience of the Students4Change project, we sought to understand the role of Latin American HEIs in promoting social innovations by analysing the experiences of 10 participating universities to formalise a pedagogical programme on SI and SE in their institutions. The results suggest that there is still a need to formalise an academic syllabus that is specifically designed to promote social innovations and to train universities in this endeavour. This paper contributes to the identification of the main levers of change, strengths, and challenges that Latin American universities face to institutionalise SI and SE in their contexts.

This paper presents the state of the art in promoting social innovation at five leading technical universities in Europe. We assess how these leading technical universities implement social innovation in their strategies, teaching, and research. The results show that all universities highlight the importance of finding solutions to global challenges and addressing Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) as a fundamental university strategy for example by promoting social innovation. Moreover, all address the universities’ need to contribute to sustainability and the Sustainable Development Goals. However, social innovation does not play an important role in research and teaching as the results show that social innovation has so far been little addressed in research and teaching. Based on the political framework in the five European countries, we draw up conclusions for technical universities

The interactions between the higher education sector and society and industry have been attracting increased attention in terms of ways to develop social innovation solutions to societal problems. Despite calls from politicians and the existence of some guidelines, we know little about how higher education could incorporate social innovation activities into its structure and missions. This study examines some practice experiences in two southern European public universities in Portugal and Spain. We show that the third mission of universities, which includes social innovation, is both linked to the first two missions of teaching and research, depending on the university’s historical and social context. The high dependence of higher education institutions on economic returns increases the importance of political action to drive the development of social innovation activities. This conditioning factor seems to be intrinsic to some of the barriers that have been identified, such as lack of legitimization and recognition of social innovation practices at the formal governmental level.

The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) swiftly changed almost all aspects of our lives and society. In this paper, we depict course adjustments that we made to an undergraduate digital innovation course project, called Innovation Farm (IF), in response to the pandemic. Designed as an in-person course project, IF requires students to create AIpowered Android apps to address important social issues. As stay-at-home orders came into effect in March, 2020, we shifted the course to the online modality refocused its student topics to address social issues that COVID-19 has engendered. Accordingly, we also discuss three challenges that we faced and the strategies we employed to cope with them; namely, framing students' social innovation topics in the COVID-19 context, using virtual studios for online groupwork, and hosting a virtual pitch competition. Surprisingly, these strategies not only addressed the challenges but also created unintended benefits and opportunities. We hope to encourage educators to consider the possibilities in transforming challenges to opportunities during these unprecedented times.

This study analyses the importance of teaching social entrepreneurship in state universities. A survey was applied to university students to find out if personality traits are related to the characteristics of social entrepreneurship. This was achieved through Alpha Cronbach and Pearson/Spearman correlation analysis. The results show that students have the personality traits to become social entrepreneurs. However, social entrepreneurship courses are not taught in universities of Tijuana city. Therefore, it is strongly suggested to teach social entrepreneurship in universities of the city and the state because students possess social entrepreneurship traits and are interested in the subject.

Although social innovation is an old paradigm, social innovation courses appeared in the curricula in the approximately last ten years. By doing so educational institutions acknowledged the existence of new approaches to obstacles that the world is facing. The courses regarding the social innovations give the students valuable knowledge and skills related to solving different social problems, increasing the motivation for being active in the society, and raising awareness about specific topics that need attention. An important role in implementing social innovation have ICT technologies. The role of the ICT is multiple: (1) administrative (members of the certain social initiative collaborate on the project through different ICT tools that enable communication and information organization), (2) disseminative and educational (the topic of the social initiative is disseminated through different tools and social media), and sometimes (3) topical (it the topic of social innovation project is directly connected to specific ICT technology). Based on the roles that the ICT takes upon in the process of social innovation implementation, the authors present ICT solutions that could be included in the realization of a social innovation course for business students at the graduate level.

Educating social innovators in higher education is of great importance as many societal challenges exist. This study combines experiential learning with ICT tools to provide students with the needed competences and experiences to solve societal challenges. We employ this approach in an innovative course, named Experts in Teamwork (EiT), which follows the experiential learning cycle. The participants of this study are undergraduate students interested to learn how they can solve societal challenges. Specifically, 26 students with various background and nationalities participated. A collaborative platform was developed that supports teamwork and cooperation, as well as the social innovation process. The findings show that this approach can influence positively learning outcomes and increase students' engagement and motivation with both social innovation and the learning process. Also, students' creativity was increased leading to the development of better solutions. The overall outcomes contribute to theoretical and practical development, to allow educators to take appropriate measures to enhance students' learning experience and foster social innovation through ICT.

Studies on public sector innovation often treat this type of innovation as something that emerges within public sector organizations. However, innovation theory argues that external sources of innovation are more fruitful sources of ideas. We claim that universities must be treated as a mandatory element in public sector innovation. This paper is aimed at clarifying the place of public sector innovation in the classification of innovations currently used in the literature. It also seeks to conceptualize an approach for future research on the topic. Our primary goal is to identify the role of different actors in the development of public sector innovation. We analyze the advantages and disadvantages of different forms of university involvement in public sector innovation. The paper consists of two parts. The first defines concepts of innovation in general and public sector innovation viewed as a variation on social innovation. The second is dedicated to an analysis of the experience of Russian universities in enhancing collaboration between actors in the public innovation system.

This article uses a conceptual approach to propose an innovation model for regional universities. It demonstrates that the traditional university encounters several obstacles that hinder its full integration into the development of its respective region and explains why currently known models cannot adapt to regions that have deficient relationships with the government and lack an entrepreneurial base. The new model is based on a structure composed of units called “innovation hubs” and incorporates social innovation, thus permitting the university to become integrated into the regional innovation ecosystems. The Magdalena University in Colombia was used as a reference in developing the model. Keywords: hub; social innovation; university innovation models; regional innovation ecosystems

Interrelations between creativity, innovativeness and entrepreneurial skills of individuals have long been discussed in the literature. Due to the challenges regarding their measurement, most studies focused on the intentions rather than the outcomes. The idea generation that requires creativity is the first stage of social innovation. The young population's creative potentials in participating social innovation practices deserve a special attention as they play a critical role in the innovativeness and entrepreneurship of societies. This study aims to explore the factors that determine the creative intentions of university students that are important in generating social innovation projects. A structured survey based on the literature was conducted among 600 management and engineering students from 3 universities from the different percentiles of the Entrepreneurial and Innovative University Index for 2012 of the Turkish Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology. The survey included questions on the demographic characteristics, environmental factors, motivators, university/institutional context, perceptions and creative thinking attitudes. By conducting reliability and factor analysis, accuracy and validity of data is tested and the impact factors were identified. Findings reveal that visionary attitude, curiosity, exploration and learning, attitude for own creativity, self-esteem, perception about the learnability of creativity, university and social environment are components of creative thinking intentions of students and some of these factors vary by year of study and university.

Eleven papers explore research in entrepreneurship and community engagement in the context of Syracuse University's Scholarship in Action Model, which emphasizes sustainable campus-community entrepreneurial partnerships and applied research on the outcomes of these. Papers discuss the five keys to success in academic entrepreneurship; transforming a professional curriculum through engagement with practice--the Global Enterprise Technology Program at Syracuse University; tapping our fountain of youth--the guiding philosophy and first report on the Syracuse Student Startup Accelerator; Syracuse University Technology Commercialization Clinics; community development law and legal education; the Syracuse Miracle--inspiring entrepreneurs through conversations; the South Side Newspaper Project; bridging a traumatic past to an envisioned future--a case study of social entrepreneurship; inclusive entrepreneurship; the role of information and motivation in the process of innovation; and students serving as catalysts within a teacher education innovation.

Purpose In recent decades, higher education institutes (HEIs) have come under pressure to cooperate with society as a whole. This shift towards an increased focus on third mission and social innovation activities implies a substantial organizational change process for many HEIs, as they need to initiate both structural and cultural changes. This paper provides guidance for such change processes by examining the views and attitudes of academic and administrative staff, as well as students within the HEIs over a period in which the HEIs increase their focus on social innovation. Design/methodology/approach The study uses a longitudinal quantitative approach consisting of a survey of administrative and academic staff, as well as students at two German HEIs. The authors studied members' attitudes towards third mission and social innovation activities (N = 3470). Findings Results suggest that the university members' attitudes towards third mission and social innovation are positive but change to some extent over time. Different aspects shape the attitudes within the three groups (administrative staff, academic staff and students). Furthermore, attitudes vary among academic employees who are involved in the process and those who are not. Practical implications The findings provide useful information for university managers and anyone aiming to promote social innovation at HEIs. Originality/value The study examines how attitudes of university members change whenever social innovation takes place at HEIs. This study includes data on the participation and empowerment of all HEI members in view of the important role that HEIs can play as supporters of social innovation.

University social responsibility (USR) is an important assessment criterion of the QS Stars. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the social orientation of universities as intellectual leaders in the development of society gains particular importance. The research purpose is to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the university activity directions in the framework of strategies (USR). An empirical assessment of the level and complementary factors of USR in the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) was conducted, using the method of integral and expert assessment. Grounded on scoring according to the principal component analysis, the structure of the factors of the USR development in the BRICS countries was determined. Multifactor regression modeling allowed substantiating the priority of factors stimulating the development of USR in the BRICS countries in modern conditions and arguing the main barriers to introducing the concept of social responsibility into university activities and expanding the stakeholders’ circle in it. The research results showed that the university management creativity, effective communication with the public and stakeholders, the quality of the educational process and the development of scientific activities stimulate USR development in the BRICS countries and should be used as the basis for the strategic planning of activities in the context of the continuing COVID-19 pandemic. Conceptual trends in the USR development can be useful for universities in the studied countries when adapting strategic development plans regarding the social needs of modern society.

This chapter considers the role of universities in stimulating social innovation, and in particular the issue that despite possessing substantive knowledge that might be useful for stimulating social innovation, universities to date have not been widely engaged in social innovation activities in the context of Quadruple Helix developmental models. We explain this in terms of the institutional logics of engaged universities, in which entrepreneurial logics have emerged in recent decades, that frame the desirable forms of university-society engagement in terms of the economic benefits they bring. We ask whether institutional logics could explain this resistance of universities to social innovation. Drawing on two case studies of universities sincerely committed to supporting social innovation, we chart the effects of institutional logics on university-supported social innovation. We observe that there is a “missing middle” between enthusiastic managers and engaged professors, in which four factors serve to undermine social innovation activities becoming strategically important to HEIs. We conclude by noting that this missing middle also serves to segment the operation of Quadruple Helix relationships, thereby undermining university contributions to societal development more generally.