Votre recherche

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.

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.

Purpose: By taking a micro-level perspective, this paper aims to examine the influence of the ongoing paradigm shift from technological to social innovation on principal investigators (PIs) and thereby links the two emerging research fields of entrepreneurial ecosystems and social innovation. The purpose of this paper is to build the basis for future empirical analyses. Design/methodology/approach: The paper is a conceptual paper and therefore focuses on theoretical considerations. Taking a quadruple helix approach, PIs are outlined as central actors of entrepreneurial ecosystems and transformative agents of the innovation process. Findings: PIs can proactively shape the innovation process and thus the shift from technological to social innovation, through various channels. They can affect all other actors of the quadruple helix, e.g. by exerting influence on the process of scientific change, on the public opinion and/or on the industry partners. Further, the paradigm shift might change the universities' role in the quadruple helix, substantiating their importance in the process of social change. Practical implications: As PIs are influencing all other actors of the quadruple helix, they are central actors of entrepreneurial ecosystems and thus crucial players in the innovation process. Hence, they need to be supported in fulfilling their role of transformative agents, accelerating and shaping the paradigm shift from technological to social innovation. Universities should therefore reconsider their missions and vision as well as their role within the society. Originality/value: This paper considers the influence of an ongoing paradigm shift from technological to social innovation on entrepreneurial ecosystems. This work focuses especially on the PIs' role as transformative agents. Therefore, it builds a bridge from entrepreneurial ecosystems to social innovation and thus contributes to both research fields. Moreover, the paper shows the great potential of PIs to influence and shape social innovation.

Purpose: By taking a micro-level perspective, this paper aims to examine the influence of the ongoing paradigm shift from technological to social innovation on principal investigators (PIs) and thereby links the two emerging research fields of entrepreneurial ecosystems and social innovation. The purpose of this paper is to build the basis for future empirical analyses. Design/methodology/approach: The paper is a conceptual paper and therefore focuses on theoretical considerations. Taking a quadruple helix approach, PIs are outlined as central actors of entrepreneurial ecosystems and transformative agents of the innovation process. Findings: PIs can proactively shape the innovation process and thus the shift from technological to social innovation, through various channels. They can affect all other actors of the quadruple helix, e.g. by exerting influence on the process of scientific change, on the public opinion and/or on the industry partners. Further, the paradigm shift might change the universities' role in the quadruple helix, substantiating their importance in the process of social change. Practical implications: As PIs are influencing all other actors of the quadruple helix, they are central actors of entrepreneurial ecosystems and thus crucial players in the innovation process. Hence, they need to be supported in fulfilling their role of transformative agents, accelerating and shaping the paradigm shift from technological to social innovation. Universities should therefore reconsider their missions and vision as well as their role within the society. Originality/value: This paper considers the influence of an ongoing paradigm shift from technological to social innovation on entrepreneurial ecosystems. This work focuses especially on the PIs' role as transformative agents. Therefore, it builds a bridge from entrepreneurial ecosystems to social innovation and thus contributes to both research fields. Moreover, the paper shows the great potential of PIs to influence and shape social innovation.

Academic literature about the idea of social innovation grew sharply over the last decade, with researchers trying to define its concept and presenting several examples of successful social innovations. However, to support the development of social innovation initiatives is important to have a conceptual framework that allows evaluating its true impact. The purpose of this paper is to identify the boundary conditions for an effective set of social innovation indicators, which will help to have a more informed decision-making process. The main conclusion is that the impact of social innovations can be conceived as a set of results that manifests itself through different time periods, at different spatial scales, and must take into account the value experienced by all stakeholders involved. Thus, since a positive social innovation outcome depends on diverse factors and conditions, being most often context-dependent, it means that rather than imposing a specific set of indicators, based on a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach a measuring process procedure should be adopted to assess the impact of social innovations.

La dernière décennie a été marquée par une croissance mondiale du nombre d’initiatives d’innovation sociale lancées dans le secteur universitaire. Ces initiatives visent à résoudre des problèmes sociaux complexes et à induire des changements institutionnels et systémiques. Cette poussée de l’activité d’innovation sociale se produit sans une base de connaissances empiriques bien développée. Nous y contribuons en fournissant une description et une analyse complètes de toutes les initiatives d’innovation sociale auxquelles participe le secteur universitaire canadien, de leurs caractéristiques et du paysage qu’elles constituent. Résultats notables: près de la moitié des 96 universités canadiennes sont associées à au moins une initiative; de nombreuses initiatives sont interdisciplinaires et mettent l’accent sur la résolution de problèmes en collaboration avec des secteurs extérieurs à l’université; Les agences gouvernementales et les fondations caritatives sont les sources de financement les plus courantes. Les résultats suggèrent: il existe un potentiel de croissance de l’innovation sociale dans le secteur; il y a moins de liens internes et de regroupement d’initiatives que ne le recommande la théorie de l’innovation; l’accent mis sur la collaboration extérieure rejoint la «troisième mission» des universités, qui existe depuis longtemps, mais les innovateurs sociaux ont des objectifs, des méthodes et des processus distincts pour mener à bien cette mission. Nous concluons avec les orientations pour les recherches futures. Keywords / Mots clés: Universities; Higher education; Social innovation; Community engagement; Service mission; Social change; Canada / Universités; Établissements d’enseignement supérieur; Innovation sociale; Engagement communautaire; Mission de service; Changement social; Canada

There has been global growth in the number of social innovation initiatives launched in the university sector over the last decade. These initiatives aim to address complex social problems and to promote institutional change. This surge is occurring without a well-developed empirical knowledge base. This article provides a comprehensive description and analysis of the landscape of social innovation initiatives in the Canadian university sector. Findings show that nearly half of Canada’s 96 universities are associated with at least one initiative; many are interdisciplinary and emphasize collaborative problem-solving with sectors outside the university; and government agencies and charitable foundations are the most common funding sources. Findings suggest there is room for growth and for linking and clustering initiatives. The article concludes with directions for future research. RÉSUMÉLa dernière décennie a été marquée par une croissance mondiale du nombre d’initiatives d’innovation sociale lancées dans le secteur universitaire. Ces initiatives visent à résoudre des problèmes sociaux complexes et à induire des changements institutionnels et systémiques. Cette poussée de l’activité d’innovation sociale se produit sans une base de connaissances empiriques bien développée. Nous y contribuons en fournissant une description et une analyse complètes de toutes les initiatives d’innovation sociale auxquelles participe le secteur universitaire canadien, de leurs caractéristiques et du paysage qu’elles constituent. Résultats notables: près de la moitié des 96 universités canadiennes sont associées à au moins une initiative; de nombreuses initiatives sont interdisciplinaires et mettent l’accent sur la résolution de problèmes en collaboration avec des secteurs extérieurs à l’université; Les agences gouvernementales et les fondations caritatives sont les sources de financement les plus courantes. Les résultats suggèrent: il existe un potentiel de croissance de l’innovation sociale dans le secteur; il y a moins de liens internes et de regroupement d’initiatives que ne le recommande la théorie de l’innovation; l’accent mis sur la collaboration extérieure rejoint la «troisième mission» des universités, qui existe depuis longtemps, mais les innovateurs sociaux ont des objectifs, des méthodes et des processus distincts pour mener à bien cette mission. Nous concluons avec les orientations pour les recherches futures. Keywords / Mots clés: Universities; Higher education; Social innovation; Community engagement; Service mission; Social change; Canada / Universités; Établissements d’enseignement supérieur; Innovation sociale; Engagement communautaire; Mission de service; Changement social; Canada

There has been global growth in the number of social innovation initiatives launched in the university sector over the last decade. These initiatives aim to address complex social problems and to promote institutional change. This surge is occurring without a well-developed empirical knowledge base. This article provides a comprehensive description and analysis of the landscape of social innovation initiatives in the Canadian university sector. Findings show that nearly half of Canada’s 96 universities are associated with at least one initiative; many are interdisciplinary and emphasize collaborative problem-solving with sectors outside the university; and government agencies and charitable foundations are the most common funding sources. Findings suggest there is room for growth and for linking and clustering initiatives. The article concludes with directions for future research. RÉSUMÉLa dernière décennie a été marquée par une croissance mondiale du nombre d’initiatives d’innovation sociale lancées dans le secteur universitaire. Ces initiatives visent à résoudre des problèmes sociaux complexes et à induire des changements institutionnels et systémiques. Cette poussée de l’activité d’innovation sociale se produit sans une base de connaissances empiriques bien développée. Nous y contribuons en fournissant une description et une analyse complètes de toutes les initiatives d’innovation sociale auxquelles participe le secteur universitaire canadien, de leurs caractéristiques et du paysage qu’elles constituent. Résultats notables: près de la moitié des 96 universités canadiennes sont associées à au moins une initiative; de nombreuses initiatives sont interdisciplinaires et mettent l’accent sur la résolution de problèmes en collaboration avec des secteurs extérieurs à l’université; Les agences gouvernementales et les fondations caritatives sont les sources de financement les plus courantes. Les résultats suggèrent: il existe un potentiel de croissance de l’innovation sociale dans le secteur; il y a moins de liens internes et de regroupement d’initiatives que ne le recommande la théorie de l’innovation; l’accent mis sur la collaboration extérieure rejoint la «troisième mission» des universités, qui existe depuis longtemps, mais les innovateurs sociaux ont des objectifs, des méthodes et des processus distincts pour mener à bien cette mission. Nous concluons avec les orientations pour les recherches futures. Keywords / Mots clés: Universities; Higher education; Social innovation; Community engagement; Service mission; Social change; Canada / Universités; Établissements d’enseignement supérieur; Innovation sociale; Engagement communautaire; Mission de service; Changement social; Canada

La dernière décennie a été marquée par une croissance mondiale du nombre d’initiatives d’innovation sociale lancées dans le secteur universitaire. Ces initiatives visent à résoudre des problèmes sociaux complexes et à induire des changements institutionnels et systémiques. Cette poussée de l’activité d’innovation sociale se produit sans une base de connaissances empiriques bien développée. Nous y contribuons en fournissant une description et une analyse complètes de toutes les initiatives d’innovation sociale auxquelles participe le secteur universitaire canadien, de leurs caractéristiques et du paysage qu’elles constituent. Résultats notables: près de la moitié des 96 universités canadiennes sont associées à au moins une initiative; de nombreuses initiatives sont interdisciplinaires et mettent l’accent sur la résolution de problèmes en collaboration avec des secteurs extérieurs à l’université; Les agences gouvernementales et les fondations caritatives sont les sources de financement les plus courantes. Les résultats suggèrent: il existe un potentiel de croissance de l’innovation sociale dans le secteur; il y a moins de liens internes et de regroupement d’initiatives que ne le recommande la théorie de l’innovation; l’accent mis sur la collaboration extérieure rejoint la «troisième mission» des universités, qui existe depuis longtemps, mais les innovateurs sociaux ont des objectifs, des méthodes et des processus distincts pour mener à bien cette mission. Nous concluons avec les orientations pour les recherches futures. Keywords / Mots clés: Universities; Higher education; Social innovation; Community engagement; Service mission; Social change; Canada / Universités; Établissements d’enseignement supérieur; Innovation sociale; Engagement communautaire; Mission de service; Changement social; Canada

In this paper, we discuss how universities can become more essential players in the digital innovation and artificial intelligence (DI&AI) ecosystem and increase their capacity to support the “responsible” development and use of these technologies. The four sections of Part I explore the different ways in which universities can change the future of DI&AI and how DI&AI might transform the world of universities. Concrete examples of innovative and inspiring academic practices related to various challenges and opportunities explored in the paper are highlighted throughout. In section 1, we recognize that academics in the social and human sciences (SHS) have started to develop knowledge, tools and methodologies around the concept of responsible DI&AI. However, these have yet to be integrated in organizations and policy, which struggle to anticipate the societal impact of producing and using cutting-edge DI&AI systems. Collaboration between SHS scientists, their Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) colleagues and non-academic actors in the DI&AI ecosystem is not yet commonplace. We explore some of the impediments to this collaboration, while stressing its increasing importance in the face of growing public mistrust of organizations operating DI&AI and collecting and using personal data. Universities have not yet adopted changes required to capitalize on their status as trust brokers and engage with civil society and other stakeholders on issues of responsible innovation.

In this paper, we discuss how universities can become more essential players in the digital innovation and artificial intelligence (DI&AI) ecosystem and increase their capacity to support the “responsible” development and use of these technologies. The four sections of Part I explore the different ways in which universities can change the future of DI&AI and how DI&AI might transform the world of universities. Concrete examples of innovative and inspiring academic practices related to various challenges and opportunities explored in the paper are highlighted throughout. In section 1, we recognize that academics in the social and human sciences (SHS) have started to develop knowledge, tools and methodologies around the concept of responsible DI&AI. However, these have yet to be integrated in organizations and policy, which struggle to anticipate the societal impact of producing and using cutting-edge DI&AI systems. Collaboration between SHS scientists, their Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) colleagues and non-academic actors in the DI&AI ecosystem is not yet commonplace. We explore some of the impediments to this collaboration, while stressing its increasing importance in the face of growing public mistrust of organizations operating DI&AI and collecting and using personal data. Universities have not yet adopted changes required to capitalize on their status as trust brokers and engage with civil society and other stakeholders on issues of responsible innovation.

This article responds to increasing public and academic discourses on social innovation, which often rest on the assumption that social innovation can drive societal change and empower actors to deal with societal challenges and a retreating welfare state. In order to scrutinise this assumption, this article proposes a set of concepts to study the dynamics of transformative social innovation and underlying processes of multi-actor (dis)empowerment. First, the concept of transformative social innovation is unpacked by proposing four foundational concepts to help distinguish between different pertinent 'shades' of change and innovation: 1) social innovation, (2) system innovation, (3) game-changers, and (4) narratives of change. These concepts, invoking insights from transitions studies and social innovations literature, are used to construct a conceptual account of how transformative social innovation emerges as a co-evolutionary interaction between diverse shades of change and innovation. Second, the paper critically discusses the dialectic nature of multi-actor (dis)empowerment that underlies such processes of change and innovation. The paper then demonstrates how the conceptualisations are applied to three empirical case-studies of transformative social innovation: Impact Hub, Time Banks and Credit Unions. In the conclusion we synthesise how the concepts and the empirical examples help to understand contemporary shifts in societal power relations and the changing role of the welfare state.

This article responds to increasing public and academic discourses on social innovation, which often rest on the assumption that social innovation can drive societal change and empower actors to deal with societal challenges and a retreating welfare state. In order to scrutinise this assumption, this article proposes a set of concepts to study the dynamics of transformative social innovation and underlying processes of multi-actor (dis)empowerment. First, the concept of transformative social innovation is unpacked by proposing four foundational concepts to help distinguish between different pertinent 'shades' of change and innovation: 1) social innovation, (2) system innovation, (3) game-changers, and (4) narratives of change. These concepts, invoking insights from transitions studies and social innovations literature, are used to construct a conceptual account of how transformative social innovation emerges as a co-evolutionary interaction between diverse shades of change and innovation. Second, the paper critically discusses the dialectic nature of multi-actor (dis)empowerment that underlies such processes of change and innovation. The paper then demonstrates how the conceptualisations are applied to three empirical case-studies of transformative social innovation: Impact Hub, Time Banks and Credit Unions. In the conclusion we synthesise how the concepts and the empirical examples help to understand contemporary shifts in societal power relations and the changing role of the welfare state.

Some see universities as a possible source of solutions to enable a sustainable transition and overcome societal challenges. Findings from three multisite case studies of Desis Labs, FabLabs, and Science Shops shed light on how universities can help empower communities and solve societal challenges locally. Adopting a sociotechnical and flat relational perspective inspired by science and technology studies (STS), we focus on the material and spatial aspects of how these spaces are configured, thereby ensuring practical relevance for policy makers and practitioners. Applying an analytical generalization methodology, we condense the qualitative data into a typology of three ideal space-types (i.e. affording, mediating, and impact-oriented) that represent specific configurations of actors, researchers, students, communities, spaces, infrastructure, equipment, facilitators, etc. The ideal space-types empower communities in different ways, require different resources to create and operate, and translate differently into specific local contexts.

Some see universities as a possible source of solutions to enable a sustainable transition and overcome societal challenges. Findings from three multisite case studies of Desis Labs, FabLabs, and Science Shops shed light on how universities can help empower communities and solve societal challenges locally. Adopting a sociotechnical and flat relational perspective inspired by science and technology studies (STS), we focus on the material and spatial aspects of how these spaces are configured, thereby ensuring practical relevance for policy makers and practitioners. Applying an analytical generalization methodology, we condense the qualitative data into a typology of three ideal space-types (i.e. affording, mediating, and impact-oriented) that represent specific configurations of actors, researchers, students, communities, spaces, infrastructure, equipment, facilitators, etc. The ideal space-types empower communities in different ways, require different resources to create and operate, and translate differently into specific local contexts.

Stanford is a quintessential entrepreneurial university, encouraging firm formation from existing knowledge that the university aggregates as well as new knowledge that it creates. Its founders implanted an academic institution, with scholarly and entrepreneurial ambitions, on a ranch where cattle still graze in the upper campus. In contrast to MIT's founding role in Boston, infusing new technology into an old industrial region's firms, Stanford assisted industrial development in an agricultural region and its industrial interlocutors raised the technical level of the university in mutually beneficial symbiosis (Lecuyer, 2007). The theory and practice of how to “make over” a university into an entrepreneurial actor has come to the forefront of academic and policy attention, internationally, with the European Union sponsoring development of the U-Multirank tool that includes the phenomenon (Van Vught and Ziegele, 2012) and a Brazilian post-graduate student project part of the ITHI Global Entrepreneurial University Metrics (GEUM) initiative that produced a dedicated entrepreneurial university metric (Nerves and Mancos, 2016). As an academic institution propelled to the forefront of global rankings (O'Malley, 2018), while helping create the world's leading high-tech region, Stanford University is in a radically different position from its late 19th century developing region origins. Should Stanford respond to dramatic shift in status and fortune by reverting to an Ivory Tower mode in response to critics who label it “Get Rich U.” (Auletta, 2012)? Or, should it double down on its entrepreneurial heritage and forge more extensive ties to Silicon Valley and other innovation hubs? In 2011, then Stanford President John Hennessy responded to former New York Mayor Bloomberg's request for proposal (RFP) for a university to establish an entrepreneurial campus. Intrigued by the prospect of engaging with the city's financial, art and media complexes, Stanford invested one million dollars in proposal development but eventually withdrew its bid in the face of faculty opposition to diversion of resources as well as Cornell University's munificent counter-offer in alliance with Israel's Technion (Hennessy, 2018). Instead, Hennessy inaugurated a program with an altruistic bent, funding international scholars who will, after pursuing advanced degrees at Stanford, “drive progress for humanity rather than for a select few.” Doubtless, these nascent social entrepreneurs will internalize Silicon Valley's optimistic ideology. Success, as well as entrepreneurial exuberance, creates blinders that suppress disconcerting events, at least temporarily. In the late 00's, generating 7–9 start-ups per annum, the highest rate of any university, Stanford ignored flaws in its technology transfer process that inhibited greater attainment. The research question generated may be stated as follows: how is a hidden innovation gap recognized and resolved? An attitude of, “if it's not broken don't fix it” had taken hold rather than the converse “If it's working well make it better.” Inventions that were too early-stage to be licensed and required translational research or a start-up, languished. The first author faced a dilemma in presenting such less than stellar results from a 2005 study of Stanford's Office of Technology Licensing (OTL) to the Dean of Research, its sponsor: how could such an analysis be taken seriously in the face of overweening achievement? The Dean's response was that, “OTL is not on our radar, they make more money each year.” Nevertheless, neophyte academic entrepreneurs had independently come to a similar conclusion as ours and were impelled to act. Their initiatives are the subject matter of this article. Skeptical of Stanford's relevance to aspiring universities, Jacob et al. (2003) hold that, “The reality of building an entrepreneurial university… is an arduous task for which there is no blueprint.” Yet, a potentially replicable organizational design may be discerned by changing the focal point from Silicon Valley's efflorescence to Stanford's entrepreneurial dynamic. The article proceeds as follows. Section 2 outlines a theoretical framework for the entrepreneurial university and reviews its literature. Section 3 presents a research design to investigate the “paradox of success,” its causes and cures. Section 4 presents a series of initiatives instituted to enhance the Stanford Innovation System. Section 5 formulates an organizational change thesis, linking design thinking to Institution Formation Sociology and social with technological innovation. Section 6 proposes policy measures to improve the Stanford Innovation System in particular and the entrepreneurial university model, in general. Finally, Section 6 sums up research insights, notes study limitations and outlines future research.

Stanford is a quintessential entrepreneurial university, encouraging firm formation from existing knowledge that the university aggregates as well as new knowledge that it creates. Its founders implanted an academic institution, with scholarly and entrepreneurial ambitions, on a ranch where cattle still graze in the upper campus. In contrast to MIT's founding role in Boston, infusing new technology into an old industrial region's firms, Stanford assisted industrial development in an agricultural region and its industrial interlocutors raised the technical level of the university in mutually beneficial symbiosis (Lecuyer, 2007). The theory and practice of how to “make over” a university into an entrepreneurial actor has come to the forefront of academic and policy attention, internationally, with the European Union sponsoring development of the U-Multirank tool that includes the phenomenon (Van Vught and Ziegele, 2012) and a Brazilian post-graduate student project part of the ITHI Global Entrepreneurial University Metrics (GEUM) initiative that produced a dedicated entrepreneurial university metric (Nerves and Mancos, 2016). As an academic institution propelled to the forefront of global rankings (O'Malley, 2018), while helping create the world's leading high-tech region, Stanford University is in a radically different position from its late 19th century developing region origins. Should Stanford respond to dramatic shift in status and fortune by reverting to an Ivory Tower mode in response to critics who label it “Get Rich U.” (Auletta, 2012)? Or, should it double down on its entrepreneurial heritage and forge more extensive ties to Silicon Valley and other innovation hubs? In 2011, then Stanford President John Hennessy responded to former New York Mayor Bloomberg's request for proposal (RFP) for a university to establish an entrepreneurial campus. Intrigued by the prospect of engaging with the city's financial, art and media complexes, Stanford invested one million dollars in proposal development but eventually withdrew its bid in the face of faculty opposition to diversion of resources as well as Cornell University's munificent counter-offer in alliance with Israel's Technion (Hennessy, 2018). Instead, Hennessy inaugurated a program with an altruistic bent, funding international scholars who will, after pursuing advanced degrees at Stanford, “drive progress for humanity rather than for a select few.” Doubtless, these nascent social entrepreneurs will internalize Silicon Valley's optimistic ideology. Success, as well as entrepreneurial exuberance, creates blinders that suppress disconcerting events, at least temporarily. In the late 00's, generating 7–9 start-ups per annum, the highest rate of any university, Stanford ignored flaws in its technology transfer process that inhibited greater attainment. The research question generated may be stated as follows: how is a hidden innovation gap recognized and resolved? An attitude of, “if it's not broken don't fix it” had taken hold rather than the converse “If it's working well make it better.” Inventions that were too early-stage to be licensed and required translational research or a start-up, languished. The first author faced a dilemma in presenting such less than stellar results from a 2005 study of Stanford's Office of Technology Licensing (OTL) to the Dean of Research, its sponsor: how could such an analysis be taken seriously in the face of overweening achievement? The Dean's response was that, “OTL is not on our radar, they make more money each year.” Nevertheless, neophyte academic entrepreneurs had independently come to a similar conclusion as ours and were impelled to act. Their initiatives are the subject matter of this article. Skeptical of Stanford's relevance to aspiring universities, Jacob et al. (2003) hold that, “The reality of building an entrepreneurial university… is an arduous task for which there is no blueprint.” Yet, a potentially replicable organizational design may be discerned by changing the focal point from Silicon Valley's efflorescence to Stanford's entrepreneurial dynamic. The article proceeds as follows. Section 2 outlines a theoretical framework for the entrepreneurial university and reviews its literature. Section 3 presents a research design to investigate the “paradox of success,” its causes and cures. Section 4 presents a series of initiatives instituted to enhance the Stanford Innovation System. Section 5 formulates an organizational change thesis, linking design thinking to Institution Formation Sociology and social with technological innovation. Section 6 proposes policy measures to improve the Stanford Innovation System in particular and the entrepreneurial university model, in general. Finally, Section 6 sums up research insights, notes study limitations and outlines future research.

In this chapter I turn to how social science can be adapted to the challenges and tools of the 2020s, becoming more data driven, more experimental and fuelled by more dynamic feedback between theory and practice. Social science at its grandest is the way societies understand themselves: why they cohere or fall apart; why some grow and others shrink; why some care and others hate; how big structural forces explain the apparently special facts of our own biographies. It observes but also shapes action, and then learns from those actions.Starting with the idea of social science as collective selfknowledge, I describe how new approaches to intelligence of all kinds can help to reinvigorate it. I begin with data and computational social science and then move on to cover the idea of social R&D and experimentation, new ways for universities to link into practice, including social science parks, accelerators tied to social goals, challenge-based methods and social labs of all kinds, before concluding with the core argument: an account of how social science can engage with the emerging field of intelligence design. This is, I hope, a plausible and desirable direction of travel.The rise of data-driven and computational social ScienceWe are all familiar with the extraordinary explosion of new ways to observe social phenomena, which are bound to change how we ask social questions and how we answer them. Each of us leaves a data trail of whom we talk to, what we eat and where we go. It's easier than ever to survey people, to spot patterns, to scrape the web, to pick up data from sensors or to interpret moods from facial expressions. It's easier than ever to gather perceptions and emotions as well as material facts – for example, through sentiment analysis of public debates. And it's easier than ever for organisations to practise social science – whether it's investment organisations analysing market patterns, human resources departments using behavioural science or local authorities using ethnography.These tools are not monopolised by professional social scientists. In cities, for example, offices of data analytics link multiple data sets and governments use data to feed tools using AI – like Predpol or HART – to predict who is most likely to go to hospital or end up in prison.

In this chapter I turn to how social science can be adapted to the challenges and tools of the 2020s, becoming more data driven, more experimental and fuelled by more dynamic feedback between theory and practice. Social science at its grandest is the way societies understand themselves: why they cohere or fall apart; why some grow and others shrink; why some care and others hate; how big structural forces explain the apparently special facts of our own biographies. It observes but also shapes action, and then learns from those actions.Starting with the idea of social science as collective selfknowledge, I describe how new approaches to intelligence of all kinds can help to reinvigorate it. I begin with data and computational social science and then move on to cover the idea of social R&D and experimentation, new ways for universities to link into practice, including social science parks, accelerators tied to social goals, challenge-based methods and social labs of all kinds, before concluding with the core argument: an account of how social science can engage with the emerging field of intelligence design. This is, I hope, a plausible and desirable direction of travel.The rise of data-driven and computational social ScienceWe are all familiar with the extraordinary explosion of new ways to observe social phenomena, which are bound to change how we ask social questions and how we answer them. Each of us leaves a data trail of whom we talk to, what we eat and where we go. It's easier than ever to survey people, to spot patterns, to scrape the web, to pick up data from sensors or to interpret moods from facial expressions. It's easier than ever to gather perceptions and emotions as well as material facts – for example, through sentiment analysis of public debates. And it's easier than ever for organisations to practise social science – whether it's investment organisations analysing market patterns, human resources departments using behavioural science or local authorities using ethnography.These tools are not monopolised by professional social scientists. In cities, for example, offices of data analytics link multiple data sets and governments use data to feed tools using AI – like Predpol or HART – to predict who is most likely to go to hospital or end up in prison.

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