sustainability

Article
Co-Creation for Social Innovation in the Ecosystem
Context: The Role of Higher Educational Institutions
Richa Kumari 1,2 , Ki-Seok Kwon 3 , Byeong-Hee Lee 1,2 and Kiseok Choi 1,2, *
1 Department of Science and Technology Management Policy, University of Science and Technology, Daejeon
34113, Korea; [email protected] (R.K.); [email protected] (B.-H.L.)
2 National Science and Technology Information Service (NTIS) Center, Korea Institute of Science and
Technology Information (KISTI), Daejeon 34113, Korea
3 Department of Public Policy, Hanbat National University, Daejeon 34158, Korea; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-42-869-1723




Received: 19 October 2019; Accepted: 25 December 2019; Published: 30 December 2019


Abstract: 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.

Keywords: problem-solving; critical reflection; knowledge integration; social learning; systemic thinking

1. Introduction
There has been an increasing interest in understanding and expanding the role of Higher
educational institutions (HEIs) for social innovation to address complex societal challenges [1,2].
Recently, social innovation, emerged as one of the top institutional agendas in European Union
(EU) policy process and appeared in various EU strategies such as relaunched Libson Strategy and
Europe 2020 strategy [3]. The growing trends of social innovation initiatives in the international
arena have made the topic highly important. However, the key issue for social innovation in HEIs
is to integrate social innovation in the function and working model of HEIs. The rigid institutional
environment and lack of flexibility to adapt as per the changing social context have reduced the
effectiveness of HEIs in social innovation initiatives. To improve the efficiency and effectiveness, HEIs
require a more flexible environment where they can transform to improve the attributes and functions
and to work more responsible towards society. Currently, HEIs are facing immense pressure to
continuously enhanced their role with the fast-changing society to cope with the changing complexity
of the enivironment and to respond to the changing social needs. Most of the existing literature
on the changing role of HEIs in society highlights the economic contribution and wealth creation
perspective of HEIs, where they perform various market-oriented activities such as technology transfer
and creation of knowledge-based enterprises through spin-off that promotes economic growth and

Sustainability 2020, 12, 307; doi:10.3390/su12010307 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 307 2 of 21

regional development [1,4]. The current entrepreneurial model and third mission focuses on active
university-industry participation and technology commercialization activities are mainly limited to
their economic role in society [4,5]. However, these studies have undervalued the societal engagement
of HEIs where they serve as a primary role in bringing social change and shaping the culture and
values for future society [5]. The new role of HEIs in social value creation can only be achieved when
societal needs can be integrated into HEI activities, and knowledge generated can be used to solve
real-life societal challenges. To manage the prevailing challenges and to improve the engagement of
HEIs in social innovation practices require an understanding of an integrated approach that leads
towards the redesigning and transformation in different levels of processes and functions of HEIs that
can improve their capacity for social innovation [6].
Considering the institutional theory perspective, Cai and Liu [7] explored the role of the university
as an institutional entrepreneur [7] and highlights actor-driven activities of the university to show how
changing the institutional conditions helps the university to improve their performance and to foster regional
innovation [5,7,8]. The concept of an institutional entrepreneur focuses on the role of HEIs as a change agent
which participates in the designing of a particular institutional arrangement through involving different
strategies (organizing sufficient resources and mobilizing resources and power) to enact the institutional
changes [7–9], and the new role makes HEIs more socially responsible. Merton et al. [10] examined the
impact of changing of curriculum (in two US universities) and found that implementation of changed
learning processes and curriculum was influenced by how well the changes in learning processes are
associated with the arrangements and culture of the institutions, which directly have an impact on the
success of innovation [10,11]. In another study on educational system transformation, Furst-Bowe [12]
strongly suggests the need for a system thinking approach for changing the HEIs’ educational programs,
learning processes, strategy, and management [12]. The study emphasized when the innovation leaders,
administrators, and researchers use a system thinking approach in governing and transforming institutions;
the system thinking improves the pace and efficiency of working.
In order to create successful innovation, HEIs depend on its social networking capabilities such as how
they collect resources, facilitate the knowledge dissemination process, and identify opportunities by forming
social ties [11,13], thus increasing legitimacy for collective action and social innovation process. Social
innovation in HEIs usually comes as a consequence of collective action and collaboration with institutional
actors of the innovation ecosystem [14,15], low level of collaboration reduce the chances of co-development
and co-creation of social innovation (CoSoI). Thus, it is important to understand the ways by which HEIs
can enhance their networking capabilities to facilitate co-creation of social innovation.
To fill the gap between the current capabilities and status of HEIs and in order to fulfill emerging
goals of changing society, it is important to examine the changes to improve the capabilities of HEIs to
create and facilitate social innovation. Thus, the paper aims to develop understanding by examining
and exploring different ways by which HEIs can improve their capabilities and capacity to enhance the
opportunities for social innovation learners to participate in social innovation practices. This aspect
focuses on two sub-questions: 1. How HEIs can incorporate different levels of changes to re-establish
and reorganize their processes, activities and institutional action plan to improve their capacity and
capabilities? The second question is 2. How these changes are aligned with the role of HEIs to bring
social change and transform society. The paper further aims to find out how innovation in learning
processes and the systemic thinking approach can support and encourage the participation of HEIs in
CoSoI process? This question considers role of HEIs in the innovation ecosystem to facilitate CoSoI
which depends on networking and formation of social capital aspects.
Considering the various efforts to improve the capacity and to enhance the role of HEIs in
innovation process, this paper proposes a framework how the changes in the learning models,
improvements in curriculum programs, and the use of systems thinking approach can be linked with
the contribution of HEIs in the social innovation process. This paper is structured as follows: Section 2
highlights the social innovation concept and outlines the steps required in co-creation for social
innovation. Section 3 presents research methods and process. Section 4 elaborates about developing
Sustainability 2020, 12, 307 3 of 21

CoSoI capabilities through learning and system thinking approach. In Section 5, we discuss the
transformations in the educational system. Section 6 presents proposition and recommended action
plan and lastly, discussion and conclusion are presented in Section 7.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Social Innovation as an Emerging Context

Nowadays, society is facing new problems and grand challenges (environment destruction, social
exclusion, aging, energy security, etc.), which are complex, interconnected, and multidisciplinary in
nature and almost impossible to solve without the active and direct participation of actors of society and
citizens. The complex interconnectivity of the problems has driven society towards social innovation
initiatives that require critical thinking and cooperation that can guide the co-creation of new ideas or
solutions to provide sustainability in society. According to The Bureau of European Policy Advisors
(BEPA), social innovation is social in its means and ends which provide collective empowerment to
people, meet their social needs, and drive social change [16]. Recently, social innovation has been
increasingly evident in policy areas and projects of development organizations as a means to solve
emerging societal problems. However, the idea and the notion of social innovation is still weakly
conceptualized due to various definitions and lack of comprehensive theoretical foundation [17–21].
These definitions (Table 1) indicate the involvement of social aspects as an important feature and the
innovation process is often bottom-up and context-specific approach [14]. Mulgan et al. [20] pointed
out that working on social innovation depends on meeting the effective demands and supply together
the idea production and diffusion of knowledge require proper strategies and adaptation to support the
combination of demands and supply to achieve social impact [20]. Moulaert [22] conceptualizes social
innovation as an outcome of actions which should lead to an effective way to bring improvements in
social structure and relationship, and also can bring empowerment in society [14,22]. The new ideas
that emerge as a consequence of social innovation provide an effective way to meet social goals by
affecting (creating new or altering existing) relationships among the engaged stakeholders [23–25].
The improved or new relations in the social innovation process are based on trust and understanding
rather than status and position and create a supportive environment that challenges and replaces the
dominant power structure and institutions [26]. Thus, the key aspects of social innovation are:

• learning and knowledge exchange process,

• collaboration and change in relation,
• major actors and organizations involved in the process,
• change in social interaction and relations, encompass new ways of knowing and doing,
• collective empowerment and social change,
• development of new ideas and action to meet the demands,
• effective solution to address societal problems,
• sustainability to the outcome.

Table 1. Definition and stages model of the social innovation process.

Authors Stage1 Stage 2
Mulgan et al. 2007 [21] development of new ideas or activities or new approaches to meet societal goals
Herrera 2015 [27] measurable initiatives generate social value
Jørgensen 2018 [28] design co-creation system changing alters the perception, behavior and social structures
Phillis et al. 2008 [19] novel solution value generation an effective and sustainable solution to society
Pol and Ville 2009 [29] new ideas quality and quantity of life
Moulaert 2013 [22] outcome of actions empowerment
Bureau of European Policy
innovation social to their means and ends empowering people and drive social change
Advisors (BEPA) 2010 [16]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 307 4 of 21

2.2. Ecosystem Concept of Social Innovation

The ecosystem of social innovation allows the facilitation of a network of actors that interact and
inter-relate in a variety of forms to co-create social innovation [30–33]. The ecosystem structure is
dynamic and not limited to any geographical or industrial boundary and can evolve at any level in
response to the actor’s interaction to co-produce innovation. In these ways, it is unlike the system
organization, which is static and geographically bounded. The collaborative structure of the ecosystem
has agility in the environment and because of this ability of the actors to enjoy self-sustaining governance
networks [34]. The social innovation ecosystem is characterized by complex interactions among a
variety of stakeholders (actors) and their components, and the ecosystem aims to support technology
development and innovation [35]. Multi actor perspective of the ecosystem and their connection helps
to develop new ideas and solve societal problems. In the recent setting, the process of innovation is no
longer seen as linear but as the unforeseeable product that a system generates by a nonlinear iterative
process and increasingly relies on interaction and integration among the actors in the network [36,37].
The ecosystem concept provides a complete framework for socio-economic development, in which
actors with diverse backgrounds and perspectives collectively work to improve the environment to
make it favorable to innovation [38–41].
The framework of the innovation ecosystem is predominantly suitable for the creation of
social innovation, where innovation follows a bottom-up approach that embraces the inclusion
of society [42,43]. In the context, actors and supporters of the ecosystem must leverage the multifaceted
system of interaction in rapidly changing environments. Moreover, the components of the system
like policies, governance, financial, and social structure should create an environment and culture to
support the system. HEIs play an important role in promoting the culture of trust and learning that
reduces the conflict between partners. The knowledge exchange between HEIs and the community in
the ecosystem brings positive change in society and promotes social innovation.

2.3. The Context of Co-Creation for Social Innovation

The co-creation is an important factor in the development of social innovation in the ecosystem
framework which promotes the complex interaction of actors and citizens in the creation of new ideas.
Co-creation is the core of the social innovation process encourages actors to integrate knowledge and
assets, which can provide long-term benefits to society [44–46]. The idea of co-creation came from the
business-and-service economy, in which co-creation is referred to the participation of the end-user
with the business firms or service providers to co-create value (customers in service-dominant (S-D)
logic), and the process is considered very cost-effective and time-saving [47,48]. S-D logic proposes
that co-creation is a co-operative and dynamic process that involves the consumers in value creation.
However, the concept of co-creation has not been widely explored in knowledge and innovation areas
where it can be implied from the ecosystem perspective and can allow various actors to participate
in innovation creation to co-create innovation. In a social-innovation context, the complex societal
challenges demand the integration of knowledge and ideas and the collective approach of various
innovation actors. Moreover, resources and capabilities (human and financial resources; knowledge,
empowerment) are limited in individual organizations, so co-creation is a prerequisite for social
innovation. EU Social Innovation–Driving Force of Social Change (SI-Drive) projects consider around
1005 cases in social innovation confirmed that co-creation and empowerment are two general features
of all sorts of social innovation [46]. The means of collaboration, co-creation, and power shift during
resource integration primarily determines the modes and approaches of social innovation.
The co-creation in the social domain involves citizens and civil society in designing and
implementing the process in society. Voorberg, Bekkers, and Tummers [23] developed a framework
of how citizens could be involved in the various co-creation process; citizens act as the initiator
(co-initiate), as a co-designer and as implementors (implement public services). In the majority of
cases, citizens participate in the co-implementation process, and the involvement of citizens in any
of the co-creation process produces valuable outcomes [45]. To understand the co-creation for social
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 22

initiate), as a co-designer and as implementors (implement public services). In the majority of cases,
Sustainability 2020, 12, 307 5 of 21
citizens participate in the co-implementation process, and the involvement of citizens in any of the
co-creation process produces valuable outcomes [45]. To understand the co-creation for social
innovation, we
innovation, we adopted
adopted Young
Young Foundation
Foundationprinciples
principlesandandprocesses
processes which
which serve as as
serve a foundation
a foundationfor
CoSoI
for [49].
CoSoI TheThe
[49]. principles and
principles processes
and processes are
arebased
basedon onthe
the social
social innovation community (SIC)
innovation community (SIC)
experimentation projects that aim to create a supportive environment for social innovation
experimentation projects that aim to create a supportive environment for social innovation in Europe in Europe
and beyond
and beyond [49].
[49]. The
The four
four phases
phases of
of co-creation
co-creation of
of social
social innovation
innovation can
can bebe described
describedas:
as:
1.
1. Prepare—understanding
Prepare—understanding ofofchallenges challenges andand problems
problems and provide
and provide time totime
thinktoabout
thinkallabout
possible all
possible
solutions,solutions, team building,
team building, and capacity and building),
capacity building),
2. Co-define—define the challenges, engagement of new stakeholders, co-defining the process),
2. Co-define—define the challenges, engagement of new stakeholders, co-defining the process),
3. Co-create—connect with similar challenges, resources for pilot work, a collective creation of
3. Co-create—connect with similar challenges, resources for pilot work, a collective creation
solutions,
of solutions,
4. Implement—application and testing of the solution.
4. Implement—application and testing of the solution.
Based on the co-creation process stated above, we developed the CoSoI process to better
Based onthe
understand theconcept
co-creation process
in the stated
social above, we
innovation developed
area. CoSoI can the CoSoI process
be broadly to better understand
understood as a four-
the concept in the social innovation area. CoSoI can be broadly understood
stage process (Figure 1). The first step of the process is to identify the societal needs, demands, as a four-stage process
and
(Figure
challenges which is important to define the existing problems. This stage is the same which
1). The first step of the process is to identify the societal needs, demands, and challenges as the
is important to
preparation define
phase the aim
main existing
is toproblems. This stage
develop capacity andis core
the same
team.asThe
the second
preparation phase
step is main aimthe
to recognize is
to develop capacity and core team. The second step is to recognize the resource
resource capabilities of different actors and to map stakeholders. This step is about co-defining the capabilities of different
actors and to
challenges map
that usestakeholders.
a collaborative Thisand
step is about
open co-defining
approach theframe
to better challenges that use a collaborative
the challenges. For example,
and open approach to better frame the challenges. For example, the SIC
the SIC project identified and defined many local and complex challenges of Europe related project identified andto defined
urban
many local and complex challenges of Europe related to urban redevelopment,
redevelopment, immigrant and refugee integration, public health, etc. and shared different ideas immigrant and refugee
and
integration,
solutions to public health,
solve these etc. and[49].
problems sharedThe different
third stepideas and knowledge
explores solutions todiffusion,
solve these problems
mutual [49].
learning,
The
andthird step explores
resource knowledge
integration activitiesdiffusion, mutual learning,
and is identical and resource
to the co-create phaseintegration activities
which focuses onand the
is identical to the co-create phase which focuses on the collective creation of solutions.
collective creation of solutions. In the fourth step, actors jointly utilize and exploit the knowledge and In the fourth
step, actorstojointly
resources createutilize
novelandideasexploit the those
and put knowledge
ideas and
into resources
action. The to implementation
create novel ideas and put
phase those
is related
ideas
to the practical application of ideas to test the solution. In all steps, active and real participationthe
into action. The implementation phase is related to the practical application of ideas to test of
solution. In all steps,
the community with active and real participation
key authorities of theiscommunity
at the local level an important with keyfor
key authorities at thesocial
the successful local
level is an important
innovation key for the successful social innovation process [50].
process [50].

Figure1.1.Four
Figure Fourstages
stagesof of Co-Creation
Co-Creation for for the Social
the Social Innovation
Innovation Process.
Process. Source:
Source: adapted
adapted from
from the the
Young
Young Foundation
Foundation [49]. [49].

Co-creation activities among actors rely on the resource capabilities of other actors; the networking
and relationships between embedded actors determine the diffusion of knowledge, and integration
Sustainability 2020, 12, 307 6 of 21

of resources [51]. Moreover, relational capabilities to interact with external partners transform the
social relations by redistributing resources and power among the actors. An actor with superior
relational capabilities can interact better than other actors with partners, and thus has superior access to
knowledge and resources, and can thus enhance the co-creation process. This diffusion of knowledge
and research by integration and transformation of social relations, governance, and power structure
are the basic components of social innovation [52], and the process presents a new solution to attain
sustainability in society [53].

3. Research Method and Process

The main purpose of the research is to find the way through which HEIs can participate in
co-creation of the social innovation process. For the study, we used the Web of Science (WoS) core
collection database to extract the documents. The search was conducted using the keyword: “social
innovation” and “higher education” or “university in the title, abstract or keywords (TS = Topic) to
find the relevant articles. As a result of the search, we found 67 publication documents. Out of 67
documents, only 41 publications were available in English. In the next stage, we checked for duplicate
articles and also did a manual screening of title and abstract of these 41 documents to find the relevance
as our search criteria; we excluded two articles as duplicates. Furthermore, after the manual screening
of title and abstract, we removed nine records that were either not related to higher education or does
not discuss the concept of social innovation in education perspective. Finally, we downloaded 30
articles for our systemic review. We checked key concepts and research trends used in these studies
by analyzing the author’s keyword (Appendix A). Finally, these 30 publications were selected for
the literature survey and were used to build a model for HEIs to participate in social innovation. In
addition to the above documents, we also reviewed the European Union social innovation project
reports to gain better insight into the topic.

3.1. Framework for HEIs to Participate in CoSoI

The engagement of HEIs in the social innovation process is challenging for several reasons.
First, HEI is considered as a change-resistant organization [54]. The institutional culture, legacy, and
bureaucratic environment slow down evolution and make them resist change. Second, since social
innovation has no clear standard definition, the concept uses a broad variety of expressions and
approaches. Third, in the context of HEI contribution to social innovation, there is no specific framework
and guidelines on how HEIs should contribute to the social innovation process. Benneworth [55]
found HEIs’ emphasis on teaching and research activities over place-based innovation that confines
their role in dealing with social innovation. The restrictions and challenges in institutional structure
and function create a gap in the pathway of HEIs for successful implementation of social innovation;
HEIs, therefore, require proper planning, strategies, and evolution to be involved in the process of
social innovation.
HEI evolution for the social innovation process has been investigated under two conventional
bodies in the literature. One focuses on the process of institutional adaptation of HEIs towards
changing environmental challenges [56] and the other emphasizes the internal characters of HEIs [57].
The literature covers both external (system) and internal (institutional) structures and function of HEIs
that affects their capability to innovate and to serve the societal challenges and describes multiple
level change in the structure and function of HEIs that include the change in structure, governance,
and educational curriculum [58], change in norms and values of the institution [41,59], and changes
that would improve the quality of interaction and collaboration. With the systemic review process,
we identified some useful theories and concepts that could be helpful for HEIs to initiate necessary
changes and to improve their participation in social innovation. We suggest internal (institutional) and
external (ecosystem) level changes are needed in HEIs to facilitate the social innovation process as
shown in the framework (Figure 2).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 307 7 of 21
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 22

Figure
Figure 2.
2. Framework
Framework model
model for
for HEIs
HEIs in
in CoSoI.
CoSoI.

The institutional changes can be explained under the institutional entrepreneurship theory that
explores the role of HEIs as a change agent who supports the factors and environments necessary to
initiate such
suchchanges
changes andand actively
actively participate
participate in implementing
in implementing those Changes
those changes. changes.in Changes
institutionalin
institutional
setting reinforcesetting
the reinforce
innovation thein innovation
teaching and in research
teachingpractices
and research practices
to increase to increase the
the participation of
participation of learners
learners in social innovation in social innovation
initiatives. initiatives.
Similarly, system Similarly,
change theory system change
focuses theory
on the focuses on
understanding
the
of theunderstanding
organization asof the organization
a system and focus onas theainterconnectedness
system and focus on the interconnectedness
of components which enhances the of
components
working whichWhether
efficiency. enhances thechanges
these working areefficiency.
made at anWhether these
institutional changeslevel,
or system are such
madechanges
at an
institutional or system by
are mostly influenced level,
thesuch changes
decision are individual
of key mostly influenced by the decision
actors, academic leaders,of or
keydepartment
individual
actors,
leaders academic
who play leaders, or department
an important role in the leaders who play
development of theaninnovation
importantprocess.role in the
Thesedevelopment
people playofa
the innovation
crucial role as aprocess. These people
social innovation playina various
leader crucial role as ainnovation
social social innovation
projects.leaderIn manyin various social
cases, deans
innovation projects.
of universities In many
were found cases,
to play deans
a key ofinuniversities
role were found
driving innovation [60].toInplayother a key
cases,role
theinhead
driving
of a
innovation
department,[60]. In other
teachers, cases, the and
researchers, headstudents
of a department,
can have ateachers,
leading researchers,
role who create andandstudents
run newcansocial
have
aenterprises
leading role by who createIn
spin-offs. and run newenvironments,
ecosystem social enterprises there bycan
spin-offs. In ecosystem
be the other key actors environments,
outside the
there cansettings,
academic be the local
othergovernment
key actorsleaders,outside the academic
bureaucrats, settings,professionals
and business local government leaders,
can be included
bureaucrats,
as innovationand business
leaders as perprofessionals
their ability tocan be included
create as innovation
a new vision, the powerleaders as perthe
to influence their abilityand
decision to
create a new
practical vision, the
capabilities power
to lead thetoprojects
influenceandtheto decision and practical
make innovation capabilities to lead the projects
happens.
and to makeHEIs
Many innovation happens. these changes through innovating the learning environment and
have developed
Many HEIs
introducing new have developed
approaches that these changes to
help learners through innovatingand
gain knowledge theskills
learning environment
necessary and
to facilitate
introducing new approaches
social innovation. The OECD, that help for
Centre learners to gain Research
Educational knowledge and and skills necessary
Innovation (CERI) to facilitate
report [61]
social innovation.
discussed various The waysOECD,
by which CentreHEIsforcan
Educational
engage with Research
society.andHEIsInnovation
can become (CERI) reportwith
involved [61]
discussed
citizens to various
help them ways by which
to define HEIs cantheir
and analyze engage with and
problems society.
can HEIs
provide canknowledge,
become involved with
consultancy,
citizens to physical
resources, help them to define
spaces, andand analyze
financial their problems
support and can provide
to the community to assistknowledge, consultancy,
in societal development.
resources, physicaland
Social innovation spaces, and financial
sustainability support
mission to the community
is strongly incorporated to assist
in many in societal development.
universities of South
Social innovation
America and Europe and which
sustainability
improves mission is strongly incorporated
the contributions in many universities
of these universities in tacklingofsocietal
South
America
challengesand[62].Europe which improves
The involvement of HEIs the contributions
in CoSoI requires aof these universities
reassessment in tackling societal
of the organizational system
challenges [62]. The
and reconsidering ourinvolvement
approach towards of HEIsnewinknowledge
CoSoI requires a reassessment
processing that can bring of innovation.
the organizational
Higher
system andtherefore,
education, reconsidering
needs toour approach
extend its scopetowards new knowledge
in facilitating new learning processing
processes that can bring
and experience
innovation.
that requiresHigher education,
a disruptive innovationtherefore,
modelneeds to extend
to facilitate these its scope in facilitating new learning
changes.
processes and experience that requires a disruptive innovation model to facilitate these changes.
3.1.1. Embedding Social Innovation in Education (Learning Theories)
3.1.1.To
Embedding Social it
facilitate CoSoI, Innovation in Education
is important to consider(Learning Theories)
the learning methods that can develop new skills
and the
To capacity
facilitateto bring it
CoSoI, transformation and
is important to behavior
consider themodification to socialthat
learning methods innovation. The new
can develop designing
skills
and the capacity to bring transformation and behavior modification to social innovation. The
designing of learning processes could be used as an effective strategy for organizational development
Sustainability 2020, 12, 307 8 of 21

of learning processes could be used as an effective strategy for organizational development as well as
to develop an interaction between HEIs to external actors [63]. Here, we identified the various learning
processes from our systemic literature review on WoS data that can help to stimulate the process;
Alden Rivers, Nie, and Armellini [64] identified the importance of different skills, behavior associated
with the notion of changemaker and argued that designing education model for social innovation
should be based on the understanding of outcome of the designed approach and the adoption of
pedagogical praxis that supports and facilitates the designing and learning process [64,65]. The study
conceptualized the different conception of changemaker (AshokaU) to develop the related skills,
behavior, and attributes across the disciplines at the University of Northampton. The five different
conceptions were found under changemaker concepts, for using this concept (1) as university strategy,
(2) as critical thinking and problem solving approach, (3) for enhancing employability, (4) for social
betterment, and (5) for personal transformation. These conceptions provide the basis to formulate a
strategy for change in attributes and behavior for CoSoI.
The different learning processes such as transformative learning [66–68], (emphasizes on change
in thoughts, perceptions, and actions through critical reflection), social learning (focuses on the learning
through social interaction and participation), and critical learning [69] (learning process that opens up
a new lens of perception based on critical reflection developed through social contextual experiences)
are essential for developing competence to understand the context and co-operate with a variety of
partners involved in the innovation process. Mezirow [67] recognized that transformative learning
involves an important aspect of learning in adulthood which provides adults with a new point of view
to see the world as a result of the perception of their own past experiences [67]; the adult learning is
largely understood as a means of improvement of the well-being of society [70]. The knowledge and
reflection achieved from experiences can help to develop analytical capabilities to deal with future
societal challenges.
The learning process is important for the development of social and practical skills that are an
opportunity to recognize and articulate the underlying theories and assumptions in their current
practical approach, and could lead to a better understanding of problems. The outcome-based learning
approach provides a way for assessment and developing the praxis to keep a balance between theoretical
and practical approaches. Designing a social learning approach in the educational curriculum helps
learners to change their attitudes and behavior towards societal problems and support them in creating
social innovation [54,71]. This learning process focuses on the transformation of cognitive structure
and behavior for human development and can develop a more shared knowledge between the partners.
Critical reflection is a key mechanism of the learning that could be useful to place-based learning
experiences and learning through social interaction which are considered as crucial components to the
transformative capacity of HEIs for social innovation [63,65]. These learning processes could deliver
new ideas through shared understanding.
This project-based learning process involves principles and approaches of action learning where
a learner involves the creation of knowledge by collective activity and develops the solution by
working on the real problems [72]. This process of learning by doing is a critical and holistic approach
to traditional theory-based teaching. These learning processes involve the rigorous approach of
developing the solution by understanding the context and relations and by taking action on the idea
and then reassessing and refining the methods [73]. Similarly, introducing the analytical research
practices such as action based research (defined as research methods that helps to systematically
analyze the problems and help to develop practical solutions to address those problems quickly and
efficiently) is seen as beneficial for the CoSoI process. Hence, this process helps to develop visions that
can attain complex challenges and lead pathways to sustainable solutions.
The key elements of transformative learning as defined by Taylor [68]:

1. Focus on individual own experience as the main source for transformation,

2. Critical reflection,
3. Understanding of context,
Sustainability 2020, 12, 307 9 of 21

4. Valuing social relation,

5. Communication with the self and with others,
6. Future-oriented and holistic approach.

The adoption of novel learning processes by HEIs is critical for the institutional environment.
These learning processes allow students and academicians (or learners) to participate in real-life
challenges and prepare them to think critically (or search for) innovative ideas [74], and at the same
time make them responsive to the solutions. Learning at a collective level through shared understanding
and actions provides an opportunity to engage in more analytical discussion and approach societal
issues [75]. At the institutional level, these learning processes provide a strong environment and
mechanism to HEIs to expand their internal capacity and help them to build a relationship with
external partners. HEIs require a value-based strategy that can guide their learning and teaching to
bring institutional change and can enhance their impact on society. HEIs mission should reflect the
purpose and value of the organization. The use of learning processes as a pedagogical strategy could
provide empowerment and can drive social change.
In addition to innovation in learning processes, HEIs introduce different innovative and
entrepreurship programs in curricula that provide opportunities to students and academicians
to participate in various entrepreneurial activities and teach them with skills and knowledge to come up
with novel business ideas and solutions. Such entrepreneurial ideas have supported many new social
and business ventures and creation of new start-ups. Entrepreneurial experience nutures students
with confidence and risk taking abilities and prepares them to better participate in addressing grand
social challenges through social entrepreurship.

3.1.2. Systemic Thinking Perspective for Organizational Change and for Strengthening
the Collaboration
In the ecosystem context, HEIs have been considered as a key organization in bringing social
change and development by improving the organizational effectiveness and by strengthening the
interaction and collaboration with other stakeholders. We reviewed and elaborated on the system
thinking concepts and approach as a pedagogical framework [76] to highlight the characters that
could be applied for the improvement of higher education institutions in the co-creation of the social
innovation process. The system thinking approach provides a holistic understanding of the system
as a whole and provides the ability to identify the components of a system, their processes, and
interconnectedness within the system [77]. Bertalanffy [77] was the pioneer on system thinking,
explains the approaches of viewing the problem as a whole, and emphasizes more on the interrelation
of the components of a system rather than components itself [78]. Seddon [78] compared a traditional
management approach (command and control) with a systemic thinking approach in managing the
business and public services and believes that a systemic approach would lead to optimization within
a system and provide benefits like lower cost, high efficiency, and better service quality as compared to
a command and control management approach. The basic underlying concept of systemic thinking is
adopted and compared with the approach with traditional educational organizations and functions
(Table 2). In HEIs, systemic thinking can help students to visualize them as part of a large system and
provide a better understanding of how-to bring changes to improve effectiveness in the institution
and their co-related actions. Applying the systemic approach is also useful to bring complex and
apparently disparate issues together and provide an understanding of every aspect of the issue and
their impact on a variety of domains [79]. Thus, this systemic approach can help students to develop
and implement solutions.
The use of a system thinking approach in recognizing the context and interrelationship among
actors can guide to a framework that can enhance their behavior in the CoSoI process [80]. Fullan [81]
emphasized that most of the HEIs fail in innovation as they have not understood how to develop system
thinking in action. The incorporation of a system thinking approach in teaching and learning facilitates
innovation as this approach involves activities such as brainstorming models, shared vision, and
Sustainability 2020, 12, 307 10 of 21

learning in the team. A systemic thinking approach produces strategies and environments that nurture
learning (mutual learning, situational learning, learning as a perception), effective communication
and encourages collaboration; all these components are desirable to improve the performance in
CoSoI [82]. Dhukaram et al. [83] urged that the use of technology and ICT for learning and training in
the system can be useful for developing solutions to complex problems in less time. Moreover, in many
universities, a systemic approach is used to design technical and engineering education that involves
an outcomes-based approach to curriculum development, and the assessment and evaluation process
based on results [84] can improve the innovative capacity. The systemic thinking approach allows
HEIs to make changes on various components (multilayer transition) of education system including
a change in hardware (computers, equipment, and devices), software (operating system and other
software), role changing (bottom-up approach, student role in project-based learning), services, finance,
management, and process change, regulations and law, etc. [83]. The systemic thinking approach
is particularly beneficial to address wicked problems and grand challenges of the 21st century that
require a variety of actors and the use of systemic perspective involved towards practical, social-based
learning and adaptive approach. Thus, the systemic thinking approach can be very useful to improve
HEIs capacity in bringing societal transformation and development.

Table 2. Comparison between the traditional approach and the system thinking approach.

Traditional Approach System Thinking Approach

Top-down Bottom-up (focus on user),
Outlook
(focus on to officers’ perspective) Outside-In
Isolated, Integrated with work,
Decision making
No integration with work Work-based learning
Assessment Methods Traditional Assessment Outcome-based and Project-based assessment
Motivation Obligatory, Extrinsic motivation Intrinsic motivation
Methods of teaching Open platform, Based on co-operation and
Closed; Within the organization
and learning partnership, social learning
Management approach Change resistant Adaptative management
Source: Created by author, Adapted from [78].

4. Developing CoSoI Capabilities through a Learning and Systemic Thinking Approach

The use of learning processes and a systemic thinking approach in HEIs requires re-evaluation
and revision of knowledge creation and a dissemination approach that can increase their contribution
to CoSoI [85,86]. Learning and systemic adaptation involve various mechanisms through which HEIs
can improve the capacity and capabilities of co-creation for social innovation. The co-creation aspects
focus on collaboration and social interaction which can bring integration of knowledge/experiences and
resources. The learning and systemic thinking process involves various activities such as knowledge
sharing, collective research, and experimentation and critical thinking and reflexivity which transform
the capacity of HEIs towards CoSoI [63,86]. These processes reshape the structure and relationship
which involves a change in the power structure and redefine the collective meaning, which finally results
in a change in attitudes, behavior, knowledge, and skills. Social learning and a project-based learning
approach in teaching and curricula are used to develop critical thinking, independent problem-solving
skills as well as working in a team. Furthermore, the systemic approach allows the development of
multiple viewpoints to understand a problem and provide a holistic approach to decision-making.

4.1. Knowledge Sharing and Collective Experimentation

Knowledge sharing and experimentation in a social context is the most prominent way through
which HEIs participate in social innovation activities. The literature review highlights the benefits
of a collective approach to learning and experimentation which facilitates knowledge sharing and
diffusion within and across the networking platform [87]. HEIs can extend their scope of knowledge
production to a collaborative learning platform which is important to prepare learners as critical
Sustainability 2020, 12, 307 11 of 21

thinkers. The new learning processes such as project-based learning encourage learners to learn while
doing and experimenting to develop their capabilities [88]. Collaboration, critical reflection, and
creative thinking are a few key components of learning that can foster knowledge exchange activities
between partners and play an important role in empowering society. During the process, social
innovation learners learn from their own past experience of success or failure and alter or redesign the
alternatives to get the desired action [63]. Networking and collaboration formed through the social
learning process form a sustained interaction among actors to work together in order to find solutions
to shared problems.
In addition, the incorporation of learning methods (social learning, learning by doing) as a
teaching strategy to teach students to value social relationships and changes their ways of managing,
doing, and seeing things. The new perspective encourages their capacity to understand and co-operate
with a wide variety of actors as collaboration based on social relation provides a more effective
problem-solving approach than communication as it provides a mutually accepted solution that is
sustainable. The knowledge spillover effects stimulate technology innovation and have a positive
impact on local communities. Furthermore, the exploitation of knowledge outside the academic setting
in an open environment increases the possibilities to solve real-world problems and encourage social
innovation practices [87,88].

4.2. Transforming Capabilities

Creating new and innovative capabilities is another way through which learning processes
support the co-creation of social innovation activities. According to Ottaviano [89], capabilities
refer to abilities to use the processes (business) in order to mobilize its resources and to attain the
desired innovation outcome. Capabilities can be a collection of learning capabilities (knowledge, skills,
competency), technological, financial, social, and organizational capabilities towards the innovation
goals. For example, technological capabilities such as abilities to produce novel ideas and develop
the idea into products are key to innovation [90]. Compared to technology and product innovation,
social innovation focuses on transformative skills and empowerment in order to find solutions for
social challenges and demands. HEIs use various strategies and processes to manage organizational
effectiveness and to improve institutional capabilities that focus more on creating public values instead
of economic benefits and providing fertile ground for CoSoI. Learning theories and system thinking
approaches create new capabilities and improve the existing ones that allow HEIs to adapt to the
changing environment, and simultaneously facilitates social innovation [91]. Moreover, improvement
in the capabilities of HEIs provides a better understanding of the process and supports the integration of
new practices in the education system to deliver social change and facilitate CoSoI. Thus, it is believed
that the improvement in HEIs capabilities is positively related to the co-creation of social innovation.

4.3. Evaluating and Reflecting

Critical reflection and evaluation are an important part of social innovation learning processes.
Actors not only learn from the past reflection but evaluate the experiences to formulate better strategies.
The critical reflection process identifies the deep-rooted assumption about society and individual
relationships with society and brings cognitive changes. The alteration in underlying attitudes and
beliefs and improves their thinking process to innovate and value social relations. The evaluating and
reflecting process further influences the dominance and leadership structure of institutions. The new
leadership structure based on trust and mutual relations in social context improves the transformative
capacity for social change and promotes CoSoI in the long run. The learning processes further
encourage the distribution of responsibilities between the actors and disperse the leadership from
dominance organization to multiple organizations. This perspective helps to reduce the cognitive gap
among engaged partners and support the continuous exchange of ideas and value [92]. Thus, it is
important to support critical reflection and encourage evaluation through learning and systemic
Sustainability 2020, 12, 307 12 of 21

thinking approaches that can lead to transformation at different levels and can enact a collaborative
approach to bring more desirable solutions for the society.

5. Transformation in an Educational System

These learning processes and systemic approaches bring transformation in the educational system
and institutions where HEIs can use them to create public value. These approaches can change future
perspectives and will promote new models in education and research that are based on:

1. Interdisciplinary research and new learning models,

2. Action-based research and entrepreneurship education,
3. New collaborative physical spaces.

5.1. Interdisciplinary Research and New Learning Models

The emergence of new courses and interdisciplinary research fields in learning processes and
curricula have blurred the boundaries between disciplines. The introduction of new technology and
research areas (biotechnology, nanotechnology, robotic technology, and other digital technologies)
have also blurred the borders between basic science and applied research field [93–95], as these
interdisciplinary technology fields require collaborative approaches between both science and
engineering disciplines [96], and are useful to tackle complex problems of society. The convergences of
different areas have an important implication on society and entail a learning approach that requires
contribution and collaboration among different actors. The new fields educate on interdisciplinary
thinking and skills to provide a better understanding of disciplinary methods across the fields to foster
innovation. The new variety of interdisciplinary research areas provides the ability to think beyond
the boundaries of a particular discipline, and encourages innovative culture and values co-creation.
The technology areas also suggest an integrative approach and provide innovative solutions to problems
and facilitate the co-creation of social innovation.
These changes have given rise to new educational institutions such as corporate universities,
consortium, and online universities, etc. The rise of new actors like corporate university and consortium
provides an open platform for business and academia intending to produce new products and services
or improve the existing one. In addition, businesses and corporate universities help in the integration
of the practical side of learning with theoretical balance and provide more funding opportunities and
responses from the market, thus improving the innovative capabilities of higher education institutions.
In addition, the rise of new learning models like Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) and learning
modes such as distance learning, e-learning have come as a future model in the education system.
The new digital and virtual learning methods can deliver cheap or even free education to many
students at a time [97]. The digital technologies support social innovation processes that demand an
open environment and decentralization, in which knowledge can be produced in the societal context
with the involvement of diverse groups of actors [98].

5.2. Action-Based Research and Entrepreneurship

The action-based research is a key component through which actors can learn and foster social
innovation practices. Action-based research includes four major phases: planning (problem definition),
acting (implementation of the strategic plan), observing (perceiving and evaluating the action), and
reflecting (critical reflection on the whole process, helps them to gain a better understanding of
issues and problems. The action-based research provides more systematic and holistic ways in
technology development.
HEI involvement in entrepreneurship allows them to participate in various market-oriented
activities without leaving behind academic values. Their participation in businesses provides them the
ability to respond with complex surroundings with greater autonomy. Entrepreneurial activities can
maintain the self-sufficiency and autonomy of institutions, and generate both economic and social
Sustainability 2020, 12, 307 13 of 21

benefits. In addition, entrepreneurship is important for the growth and innovation that converts
novel ideas and new knowledge to successful innovation (products and services), which is necessary
to gain a competitive advantage and improve their connection with local community [99–101].
To respond to changing research needs and societal technology challenges, HEIs should actively
participate in various research and entrepreneurial activities that facilitate technology development and
commercialization by obtaining patents, then licensing them and spinning-off companies [102–107].
The rise of entrepreneurial universities will help to better serve these functions in the future.

5.3. Rise of New Concepts of Collaborative Spaces

Social innovation focuses on the active involvement of citizens in the generation of public
value [108]. The engagement of HEIs in social innovation encourages academicians and students
to deliver a variety of social services by participating in community-development activities or
service-learning [106]. The concept of transformative learning and systemic thinking uses educational
practices to bring innovative and sustainable social changes. This concept can enable HEIs and other
engaged actors to work on new ideas for social change and to create social impact. The European
Union’s (EU’s) Transformative Social Innovation Theory (TRANSIT) project from 2014–2017 was set
to develop a theory that focuses on the function of co-creation in social innovation [45]. The project
emphasized on requirements of physical spaces (Table 3) like “Science shop”, “Living lab” or “Desis
Lab”, which HEIs can use to provide a collaborative platform to engage stakeholders for knowledge
exploration and mutual learning and help them to perform their activities outside the academic setting
in the societal context [28]. Several other educational organizations and universities provide different
interactive spaces, such as Hackerspace (focus on electronic and computer programing) and Fab Lab
(workshop space with set tools) that promote sharing of facilities for co-creation and co-production of
knowledge [109]. The societal value generated by such facilities brings a transformation that directly
or indirectly influences society. These spaces facilitate co-operation between HEIs and society, and
translate the university knowledge in response to community knowledge needs. They then use this
knowledge to improve research and education, thereby empowering both of the actors.

Table 3. New concepts of physical spaces in social innovation.

Type of Association Supporting Activities Examples
- Sharing of physical spaces, tools or other items
European Union (EU) universities,
Community Workshop - Interactive knowledge exchange and learning
University of Sussex, United Kingdom
Hackerspaces and Fab Labs - Sharing different forms of knowledge, MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms
practices, information
- University’s co-ordination with civil society
United Nation (UN) establishes 17 academic Impact Hubs
Living Knowledge Science Shop, - Community-based research
for SDGs
- Knowledge exchange for co-creation
48 Desis Lab in Europe, Asia, North and South America,
Africa and Oceania
- Desis Lab is based on the use of design school France, École nationale supérieure de création industrielle
Desis Network
thinking in creating value (ENSCI) Paris Desis Lab
(Design for social
- Co-design and co-learning network for Korea, Yonsei Desis Lab
innovation Network)
social innovation Korea, Seoul National University (SNU) Desis Lab
India Ahmedabad, National Institute of Design (NID)
Desis Lab
- Re-create relationship between university and
civil society
The European Network of Living Lab (ENoLL) Learning Lab
- Improve user/people participating in the
Living Lab University of Leeds
research and innovation process
University of Plymouth
- Focus on the utilization of ICT technologies
for society
45 Colleges and universities (37 in US)
- Collaborate with HEIs and universities
Such as Northeastern university
- Financial and networking support for
Arizona state university
Ashoka social entrepreneurship
Cornell University
- Changemaker Campus to support culture and Hanyang University Korea (First East-Asian changemaker
practices of social innovation campus)
- Building social entrepreneurship community to
bring impact
Around 95 local Impact Hubs across 5 continents and more in
Impact Hub - Support social and business innovation
the process of making
- Provide co-working spaces for co-creation
- Knowledge Mobilization Idea cultivation
Sustainability 2020, 12, 307 14 of 21

6. Proposition Based on Reseach Question and Recommended Action Plans

6.1. Proposition Based on Discussing Research Questions

This paper aims to discuss the following problem statements and research questions:
Q1: How can HEIs improve their capabilities and capacity that can increase opportunities for social
innovation learners to engage in different activities related to CoSoI and can enhance their participation
in bringing societal change?
HEIs adopt different learning models and a systemic thinking approach that provides stages
for the development of social innovation and manages the action towards successful innovation.
For example, project-based and collective experimental learning includes more place-based learning
methods that offer an opportunity to learners to upgrade their individual and social skills towards
innovation. The key elements of all the learning models are based on critical reflection and rational
thinking that encourages moderation in previous assumtions and mind frame. HEIs also critically
analyzes and evaluates these learning models and provides feedback which is important to improve the
effectiveness of the strategy and is helpful in redesigning the process based on reflection and outcome.
Q2: In a multi-actor innovation ecosystem, how can the learning activities and systemic thinking
approach support HEIs to participate in the co-creation of social innovation? What are the roles played
by HEIs in facilitating multi-actors for the CoSoI process?
In innovation ecosystem, HEIs play a pivotal role as a network facilitator and mediator that
improve the connectivity between the actors to stimulate innovation. Learning processes in HEIs
such as social learning focuses on mutual respect and valuing relations that are the core element of
networking and collaboration. The learning processes provide necessary skills that allow HEIs to
participate in critical functions of maintaining the relationship and collaboration between stakeholders,
and in the formation of interfaces among education, research, and society to transfer the benefits
of innovation to the larger community. In addition to learning processes, systemic thinking is also
important for HEIs to expand their capabilities and to develop multiple competencies useful for CoSoI.
Social innovation learning stresses the need for an open engagement platform that enables
the integration of resources to facilitate co-creation. This platform helps to integrate resources and
capabilities and to manage collaboration by orchestrating actors to promote successful innovation.
HEIs proactive engagement in open networks and collective innovation improves knowledge mobility
and disseminates knowledge to businesses and society. Furthermore, HEIs can provide mutual ground
and supportive infrastructure that enables the mobilization of funds to sustain the value generation
process and consequent innovation.
Based on two major research questions, the following propositions are developed to test the
hypothesis for future research:

• In the case of CoSoI practices, which requires learning for problem-solving skills based on critical
reflection and evaluation to create and transform capabilities results formulation of an effective
strategy for social innovation.
• Co-creation in the innovation ecosystem requires collective action and collaboration that embrace
social relation, incorporating learning in social context cultivate new skills, knowledge, and
capabilities and enhance knowledge sharing and network connectivity.
• The networking and collaboration through learning processes also influence power relations and
leadership of dominance institutions based on trust developed during learning. This reduces the
differences in attitudes, values, and perspectives.
• Learning processes along with the systemic approach is important for transforming capabilities
and long-term organizational changes that are required to foster societal innovations by changing
attributes and behavior as well as organizational culture.
 and leadership of dominance institutions based on trust developed during learning. This
reduces the differences in attitudes, values, and perspectives.
• Learning processes along with the systemic approach is important for transforming capabilities
and long-term organizational changes that are required to foster societal innovations by
changing
Sustainability 2020,attributes
12, 307 and behavior as well as organizational culture. 15 of 21

6.2. Recommended Action Plan Based on Proposed Framework

6.2. Recommended Action Plan Based on Proposed Framework
Figure 3 suggests an action plan based on our proposed framework. Figure 3 outlines the action
Figure
plan for HEIs3 and
suggests
otheran action
actors plan
like based
society on policymakers
and our proposed to framework.
support and Figure 3 outlines
encourage the These
CoSoI. action
plan for
action HEIs
plans and
can other
serve as actors like society
guidelines for them and
to policymakers
improve capacityto support andinnovation
and social encourage learning.
CoSoI. These
For
action plans
example, HEIscan serve
need to as guidelines
change for them
traditional to improve
learning methodscapacity and social
and support innovation learning.
an environment conduciveFor
example,
to HEIs need to
social innovation changesuch
learning traditional learning methods
as experimentation andlearning
based support and
an environment
transformativeconducive to
learning
social innovation learning such as experimentation based learning and transformative
that can motivate students towards social innovation initiatives. Management and entrepreneurial learning that can
motivate students
education provided towards
by social
HEIs innovation
encourage initiatives. Management
the risk-taking and entrepreneurial
abilities of students for education
social
provided by HEIs encourage
entrepreneurship, which requiresthe risk-taking abilities of
proper platform andstudents
funding for support
social entrepreneurship,
from other partners.which
requires proper
Similarly, platform
citizens should and funding
be aware support
of the from other
educational partners.
programs andSimilarly,
policies tocitizens should benefits.
get optimum be aware
of the educationalofprograms
Implementation and policiesrequires
social innovation to get optimum
a mutual benefits.
process Implementation of socialare
where all partners innovation
equally
requires ainmutual
involved process where
the co-creation all partners are equally involved in the co-creation of innovation.
of innovation.

Figure3.
Figure Recommendedaction
3.Recommended actionplan
planbased
basedon
onframework.
framework.

7. Discussion
7. Discussion
This study presents a conceptual framework on how HEIs can facilitate CoSoI through a learning
This study presents a conceptual framework on how HEIs can facilitate CoSoI through a learning
and systemic approach and highlights the key mechanism underlying the process. An integrated
and systemic approach and highlights the key mechanism underlying the process. An integrated
table showing an overview of the process and functions of HEIs in CoSoI is tabulated in Table 4.
table showing an overview of the process and functions of HEIs in CoSoI is tabulated in Table 4.
Firstly, the paper elaborates on the different steps in the process of CoSoI which includes problem
identification, engaging relevant actors for co-creation, mutual learning, and knowledge exchange
among the actors which results in resource integration and change in relations, and the final step is
joint exploitation of knowledge by actors for successful innovation. These steps in the CoSoI process
provide an understanding of the process and evaluate the changing impact. To fulfill the goal of
CoSoI, different types of learning processes and a system thinking approach are elaborated that can
encourage social innovation capabilities and can empower the actors to improve their access to funds
and resources, and can promote collaboration. The learning processes reviewed in the paper focuses on
a set of underlying features like critical reflection, transforming capabilities, and evaluation that helps
learners to transform their skills and abilities. These collective learning processes in social settings
provide the necessary skills and competence to co-create and implement successful innovation.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 307 16 of 21

Table 4. Overview of process and function of HEIs in Co-creation for Social Innovation.
Objective Achieve Social Demands and Challenges through the “CoSoI” Process
HEIs Function in Knowledge Sharing and Collaborative Research Network Facilitator and New Collaborative
the Process Collective Learning and Entrepreneurship Proactive Collaborator Physical Spaces
Basic and Applied Research
Education and Skill Development
Participatory Research
Mutual Learning
Action Learning Mediator in Collaboration Service-learning
Knowledge Diffusion
Licensing and Spin-Off Engagement Platform Increase openness and Open
Channel of Awareness for Social Problems
Technology Transfer Support Research Collaboration
Contribution Virtual Learning Methods
Business Incubation Integration Living Laboratories
ICT and Digital based Solution
Start-ups and Venture Orchestration of actors Fab Lab
Transdisciplinary Education
Creation
Science and Engineering Balance
Support Commercialization
Students and Academician
Professors, Students, Integrated Knowledge,
Technician and Researchers Professors, Students,
Knowledge, Facilities from Different Facilities and Equipment
Key Resources Joint Lab Support Researcher
actors, Multidisciplinary Knowledge Physical Space
DesisNetwork and Fab Labs Civil society
Science Shop (e.g., Hackerspaces)
Technology Transfer office
New Solution to address Societal Building of New Networks New knowledge and Value Public Value
Outcomes
Needs and Challenges and Relationship Creation Social Change Sustainability

The learning processes used in the framework is based on knowledge sharing and a collective
experimentation process which strengthen HEI capacity to serve with a broad range of responsibilities
and support social innovation initiatives. Designing learning based on key components can provide
direction and motivation to learners to initiate the social innovation process. In addition, it is important
to combine a systemic approach with the learning processes that could be helpful to identify the
organization as a system and emphasizes the interrelationship, arrangements, and response structures
that come together to generate innovation and can bring value propositions to the wider society.
In addition, both learning and a system change approach strengthened organizational abilities to
research and entrepreneurship by supporting key mechanisms of network collaboration and resource
exchange activities. Thus, HEIs are required to be innovative in educational methods and curricula
redesigning which should be done at a regular interval considering the notion of social innovation.
The study is useful for several reasons and has policy implications at different levels. In general,
the study provides an understanding and importance of co-creation in the social innovation process,
which is useful in social innovation practices. Second, the framework outlines how HEIs can contribute
to facilitating CoSoI through different learning processes and systemic change that can support the
development of innovative capabilities. In addition, the paper provides a recommended set of action
plans that can serve as guidelines for educational institutions, the public, and policymakers to better
implement the process. Redesigning educational methods and restructuring of institutions based on
systemic change can help students to improve their skills and reduce the gap between educators and
learners to understand the process and action plan. Furthermore, redesigning and reevaluation of
learning processes help policymakers to formulate effective policies that align with the mission and
goals of social innovation education. For successful implementation of CoSoI, HEIs will require a
conducive environment and regulation where they can enjoy enough autonomy, funding support,
and improved transformative capabilities. This study is limited to theoretical and conceptual methods
based on systemic literature review and the paper provides propositions that are developed to test the
hypothesis in future empirical study to answer the research questions.

Author Contributions: This paper was written by R.K., K.-S.K., B.-H.L. and K.C., contributed in designing the
study, developing the framework for the study, and interpreting the study results. All authors have revised and
approved the final paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: This research was supported by the construction of the linkage system between National
Science and Technology Information Service (NTIS) and the Science Technology Infrastructure project of the Korea
Institute of Science and Technology Information (KISTI).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
approved the final paper.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments: This research was supported by the construction of the linkage system between National
Science and Technology Information Service (NTIS) and the Science Technology Infrastructure project of the
Sustainability
Korea Institute2020,of12, 307
Science and Technology Information (KISTI). 17 of 21

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A
Appendix A

Figure A1. Keywords

Figure as per
A1. Keywords total
as per link
total linkstrength
strength fromWoS author’s
fromWoS author’s keyword
keyword database.
database.

References
1. Etzkowitz, H.; Leydesdorff, L. The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “Mode 2” to a triple
helix of university–industry–government relations. Res. Policy 2000, 29, 109–123. [CrossRef]
2. Mowery, D.C.; Sampat, B.N. Universities in national innovation systems. In The Oxford Handbook of Innovation;
Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2005; pp. 209–239.
3. European Commission. Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan: Reigniting the Entrepreneurial Spirit in Europe.
Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0795:FIN:EN:PDF
(accessed on 12 September 2019).
4. Etzkowitz, H. Evolution of the Entrepreneurial University. Int. J. Technol. Glob. 2004, 1, 64. [CrossRef]
5. Cai, Y.; Liu, C. The entrepreneurial university as an institutional entrepreneur in the regional innovation
system: Towards an analytical framework. In Examining the Role of Entrepreneurial Universities in Regional
Development; Daniel, A.D., Aurora, A.C.T., Preto, T.M., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2018; pp. 133–156.
6. Shukla, D. Modeling systems thinking in action among higher education leaders with fuzzy multi-criteria
decision making. Manag. Mark. Chall. Knowl. Soc. 2018, 13, 946–965. [CrossRef]
7. DiMaggio, P.J. Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory. In Institutional Patterns and Organizations;
Zucker, L., Ed.; Ballinger: Cambridge, UK, 1988; pp. 3–22.
8. Cai, Y.; Liu, C. The entrepreneurial university as an institutional entrepreneur in regional innovation system
development: The case of Tongji Creative Cluster in Shanghai. In Proceedings of the XIII Triple Helix
International Conference 2015, Beijing, China, 21–23 August 2015.
9. DiMaggio, P.J.; Powell, W.W. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis: Introduction. In New
Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1991; pp. 1–38.
10. Merton, P.; Froyd, J.E.; Clark, M.C.; Richardson, J. A Case Study of Relationships between Organizational
Culture and Curricular Change in Engineering Education. Innov. High. Educ. 2009, 34, 219–233. [CrossRef]
11. Hasanefendic, S.; Birkholz, J.M.; Horta, H.; Sijde, P.V.D. Individuals in action: Bringing about innovation in
higher education. Eur. J. High. Educ. 2017, 7, 101–119. [CrossRef]
12. Furst-Bowe, J. Systems thinking: Critical to quality improvement in higher education. Qual. Approaches
High. Educ. 2011, 2, 2–5.
13. Davidsson, P.; Honig, B. The Role of Social and Human Capital among Nascent Entrepreneurs. J. Bus. Ventur.
2003, 18, 301–331. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 307 18 of 21

14. Avelino, F.; Wittmayer, J.; Pel, B.; Weaver, P.; Dumitru, A.; Haxeltine, A.; Kemp, R.; Jørgensen, M.; Tom, B.;
Ruijsink, S.; et al. Transformative social innovation and (dis)empowerment. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.
2019, 145, 195–206. [CrossRef]
15. Adner, R. Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2006, 84, 98–107.
16. BEPA. Empowering People, Driving Change: Social Innovation in the European Union; Publications Office of the
European Union: Luxembourg, 2010.
17. Mulgan, G. The Theoretical Foundations of Social Innovation; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2012.
18. Mulgan, G. The process of social innovation. Innovations 2006, 1, 145–162. [CrossRef]
19. Phills, J.A.; Deiglmeier, K.; Miller, D.T. Rediscovering social innovation. Stanf. Soc. Innov. Rev. 2008, 6, 34–43.
20. Mulgan, G.; Tucker, S.; Ali, R.; Sanders, B. Social Innovation: What It Is, Why It Matters and How It Can Be
Accelerated; Said Business School: Oxford, UK, 2007.
21. Mulgan, G. Ready or not: Taking innovation in the public sector seriously. In Nest Provocation 03; NESTA:
London, UK, 2007.
22. Moulaert, F.; Mehmood, A.; MacCallum, D.; Leubolt, B. Social Innovation as a Trigger for Transformations—The
Role of Research; Publications Office of the European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2017. [CrossRef]
23. Voorberg, W.; Bekkers, V.; Tummers, L. Embarking on the social innovation journey: A systematic review
regarding the potential of co-creation with citizens. In Proceedings of the Paper for the IRSPM Conference,
Prague, Czech Republic, 10–12 April 2013.
24. Murray, R.; Caulier-Grice, J.; Mulgan, G. The Open Book of Social Innovation; The Young Foundation: London,
UK, 2010.
25. Sörensen, E.; Torfing, J. Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector. Adm. Soc. 2011, 43, 842–868.
[CrossRef]
26. Haxeltine, A.; Avelino, F.; Pel, B.; Dumitru, A.; Kemp, R.; Longhurst, N.; Chilvers, J.;
Wittmayer, J.M. A Framework for Transformative Social Innovation (TRANSIT Working Paper
# 5). TRANSIT: EU SSH.2013.3.2-1; Grant Agreement No.: 613169. 2016. Available online:
http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/content/original/Book%20covers/Local%20PDFs/240%20TRANSIT_
WorkingPaper_no5_TSI%20framework_Haxeltine%20et%20al_November2016_AH041116.pdf (accessed on
30 December 2019).
27. Herrera, M.E.B. Creating competitive advantage by institutionalizing corporate social innovation. J. Bus. Res.
2015, 68, 1468–1474. [CrossRef]
28. Jørgensen, M.S. Social Innovation as Spaces for Co-Creation; Center for Design Innovation Og Bæredygtig
Omstilling: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2018.
29. Pol, E.; Ville, S. Social innovation: Buzz word or enduring term? J. Socio-Econ. 2009, 38, 878–885. [CrossRef]
30. Adner, R.; Kapoor, R. Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological
interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategy Manag. J. 2010, 31,
306–333. [CrossRef]
31. Oh, D.S.; Phillips, F.; Park, S.; Lee, E. Innovation ecosystems: A critical examination. Technovation 2016, 54,
1–6. [CrossRef]
32. Autio, E.; Thomas, L.D.W. Innovation Ecosystems: Implications for Innovation Management. In Oxford
Handbook of Innovation Management; Dodgson, M., Gann, D.M., Phillips, N., Eds.; Oxford University Press:
Oxford, UK, 2014; pp. 204–228.
33. Oksanen, K.; Hautamäki, A. Sustainable Innovation: A Competitive Advantage for Innovation Ecosystems.
Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2015, 5, 24–30. [CrossRef]
34. Smorodinskaya, N.; Russell, M.; Katukov, D.; Still, K. Innovation Ecosystems vs. Innovation Systems in
Terms of Collaboration and Co-creation of Value. In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences, Waikoloa Village, HI, USA, 4–7 January 2017.
35. Jackson, B.D.J. What Is an Innovation Ecosystem? 2011. Available online: http://erc-assoc.org/sites/default/
files/topics/policy_studies/DJackson_InnovationEcosystem_03-15-11.pdf (accessed on 21 September 2019).
36. Valkokari, K. Business, innovation, and knowledge ecosystems: How they differ and how to survive and
thrive within them. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2015, 8, 17–24. [CrossRef]
37. Schaffers, H.; Turkama, P. Living labs for cross-border systemic innovation. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2012,
2, 25–30. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 307 19 of 21

38. Pellikka, J.; Ali-Vehmas, T. Managing Innovation Ecosystems to Create and Capture Value in ICT Industries.
Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2016, 6, 17–24. [CrossRef]
39. Valkokari, K.; Seppänen, M.; Mäntylä, M.; Jylhä-Ollila, S. Orchestrating Innovation Ecosystems: A Qualitative
Analysis of Ecosystem Positioning Strategies. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2017, 7, 12–24. [CrossRef]
40. Mercan, B.; Göktas, D. Components of Innovation Ecosystem: A Cross-Country Study. Int. Res. J. Financ.
Econ. 2011, 76, 102–112.
41. Iivari, M. Exploring Business Models in Ecosystem Contexts. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Oulu, Oulu,
Finland, 2016.
42. Salmelin, B. Engagement platforms and business modelling in Open Innovation 2.0 environments. In Open
Innovation 2.0 Yearbook; European Union: Luxembourg, 2016; pp. 9–15.
43. Bramwell, A.; Hepburn, N.; Wolfe, D.A. Growing Innovation Ecosystems: University-Industry Knowledge Transfer
and Regional Economic Development in Canada; Final Report to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2012.
44. Chin, T.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, P.; Yu, X.; Cao, L. Co-creation of Social Innovation: Corporate Universities as
Innovative Strategies for Chinese Firms to Engage with Society. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1438. [CrossRef]
45. Voorberg, W.; Bekkers, V.; Tummers, L. Co-creation and Co-production in Social Innovation: A Systematic
Review and Future Research Agenda. In Proceedings of the EGPA Conference, Speyer, Germany,
10–12 September 2014.
46. Oeij, P.R.A.; Van Der Torre, W.; Vaas, S.; Dhondt, S. Understanding social innovation as an innovation
process. Report based on data from SI-Drive. In Social Innovation: Driving Force of Social Change; TNO: Leiden,
The Netherlands, 2018.
47. Vargo, S.; Lusch, R. Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. J. Mark. 2004, 68, 1–17. [CrossRef]
48. Prahalad, C.K. The concept of Co-creation: C.K. Prahalad in conversation with Sarah Powell, “Spotlight”
Column Editor. Available online: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/02580540410567256/
full/pdf?title=the-concept-of-cocreation-ck-prahalad-in-conversation-with-sarah-powell-spotlight-
column-editor (accessed on 15 September 2019).
49. Nagore, M.; Bynon, R. How to Set Up a Process of Social Innovation; The Young Foundation: London, UK, 2018.
50. European Commission. Social Business Initiative: Creating a Favorable Climate for Social Enterprises.
Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/social_business/docs/COM2011_682_en.pdf (accessed
on 18 September 2019).
51. Adner, R.; Kapoor, R. Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution: Re-examining technology S-curves.
Strateg. Manag. J. 2016, 37, 625–648. [CrossRef]
52. Howaldt, J.; Kopp, R. Shaping social innovation by social research. In Challenge Social Innovation; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012.
53. Schröder, A.; Krüger, D. Social Innovation as a Driver for New Educational Practices: Modernising, Repairing
and Transforming the Education System. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1070. [CrossRef]
54. Blass, E.; Hayward, P. Innovation in higher education; will there be a role for “the academe/university” in
2025? Eur. J. Futures Res. 2014, 2, 41. [CrossRef]
55. Cunha, J.; Benneworth, P.S. Universities’ contributions to social innovation: Towards a theoretical framework.
In Proceedings of the Cities as Seedbeds for Innovation, Annual Conference of the European Urban Research
Association (EURA), Enschede, The Netherlands, 3–6 July 2013.
56. Chatterton, P.; Goddard, J. The response of higher education institutions to regional needs. Eur. J. Educ. 2000,
35, 475–496. [CrossRef]
57. Kezar, A.; Eckel, P. The Effect of Institutional Culture on Change Strategies in Higher Education. J. High.
Educ. 2002, 73, 435–460. [CrossRef]
58. Davis, S.N.; Jacobsen, S.K. Curricular integration as innovation: Faculty insights on barriers to
institutionalizing change. Innov. High. Educ. 2014, 39, 17–31. [CrossRef]
59. Bariakova, D.A. Systematic Review of Social Innovation in Higher Education Systems as a Driver of Student
Employability. In Innovate Higher Education to Enhance Graduate Employability-Rethinking the Possibilities;
Routledge, Taylor & Francis, UK Ltd.: Oxfordshire, UK, 2019. [CrossRef]
60. Cleverley-Thompson, S. The Role of Academic Deans as Entrepreneurial Leaders in Higher Education
Institutions. Innov. High. Educ. 2016, 41, 75–85. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 307 20 of 21

61. Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. The University and the Community: The Problems of Changing
Relationships; OECD: Paris, France, 1982.
62. Crets, S.; Celer, J. The interdependence of CSR and Social Innovation. In Social Innovation-Solutions for a
Sustainable Future; Osburg, T., Schmidpeter, R., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014.
63. Strasser, T.; Kraker, J.; Kemp, R. Developing the Transformative Capacity of Social Innovation through
Learning: A Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda for the Roles of Network Leadership. Sustainability
2019, 11, 1304. [CrossRef]
64. Alden Rivers, B.; Nie, M.; Armellini, A. University teachers’ conceptions of “Changemaker”: A starting point
for embedding social innovation in learning and teaching. In Proceedings of the 6th International Social
Innovation Research Conference, York, UK, 1–3 September 2014.
65. Alden-Rivers, B. Social innovation education: Designing learning for an uncertain world. In Innovation and
Entrepreneurship in Education; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2016; pp. 75–90.
66. Mezirow, J. Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1990.
67. Mezirow, J. On critical reflection. Adult Educ. Q. 1998, 48, 185–198. [CrossRef]
68. Taylor, E.W. Fostering transformative learning. In Transformative Learning in Practice: Insights from Community;
Mezirow, J., Taylor, E.W., Eds.; Workplace, and Higher Education, Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA,
2009; pp. 3–17.
69. Giroux, H.A. On Critical Pedagogy; Bloomsbury Publishing: London, UK, 2011.
70. Dirkx, J.M. Engaging emotions in adult learning: A Jungian perspective on emotion and transformative
learning. New Dir. Adult Contin. Educ. 2006, 109, 15–26. [CrossRef]
71. Scharmer, O.; Kaufer, K. Leading from the Emerging Future from Ego-System to Eco-System Economies; B.K.
Publishers Inc.: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2013.
72. Revans, R.W. The Origin and Growth of Action Learning; Chartwell Bratt: London, UK, 1982.
73. Dilworth, R.L.; Willis, V.J. Action Learning: Images and Pathways; Krieger: Malabar, FL, USA, 2003.
74. Huhtelin, M.; Nenonen, S. A Co-creation Centre for University–Industry Collaboration—A Framework for
Concept Development. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2015, 21, 137–145. [CrossRef]
75. Halbe, J. Governance of Transformations towards Sustainable Water, Food and Energy Supply
Systems-Facilitating Sustainability Innovations through Multi-Level Learning Processes. Ph.D. Thesis,
Universitäty Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany, 2016.
76. Senge, P.M. The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization; Doubleday Business: New York,
NY, USA, 1990.
77. Bertalanffy, L. General System Theory; George Braziller Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1968.
78. Seddon, J. Freedom from Command and Control: A Better Way to Make the Work Work; Vanguard Education Ltd.:
Buckingham, UK, 2003.
79. Porter, T.; Córdoba, J. Three Views of Systems Theories and their Implications for Sustainability Education.
J. Manag. Educ. 2008, 33, 323–347. [CrossRef]
80. Dzombak, R.; Mehta, C.; Mehta, K.; Bilén, S. The Relevance of Systems Thinking in the Quest for Multifinal
Social Enterprises. Syst. Pract. Action Res. 2013, 27, 593–606. [CrossRef]
81. Fullan, M. Leadership and Sustainability: System Thinkers in Action; Corwin Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
82. Shaked, H.; Schechter, C. Seeing wholes: The concept of systems thinking and its implementation in school
leadership. Int. Rev. Educ. 2013, 59, 771–791. [CrossRef]
83. Dhukaram, A.V.; Sgouropoulou, C.; Feldman, G.; Amini, A. Higher education provision using systems
thinking approach—Case studies. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2016, 43, 3–25. [CrossRef]
84. Walther, J.; Radcliffe, D. Engineering education: Targeted learning outcomes or accidental competencies?
In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Chicago, IL, USA, 18–21 June 2006; pp. 18–21.
85. Vorley, T.; Nelles, J. (Re) Conceptualising the Academy: Institutional Development of and beyond the Third
Mission. High. Educ. Manag. Policy 2008, 20, 119–135.
86. Lee, S.M.; Hwang, T.; Choi, D. Open innovation in the public sector of leading countries. Manag. Decis. 2012,
50, 147–162. [CrossRef]
87. Edwards-Schachter, M.E.; Matti, C.E.; Alcántara, E. Fostering quality of life through social innovation:
A living lab methodology study case. Rev. Policy Res. 2012, 29, 672–692. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 307 21 of 21

88. Boe, C.S. Have 21st Century Skills Made Their Way to the University Classroom? A Study to Examine the
Extent to which 21st Century Skills Are Being Incorporated into the Academic Programs at a Small, Private,
Church-Related University. Ph.D. Thesis, Gardner-Webb University, Boiling Springs, NC, USA, 2013.
89. Ottaviano, M.E. Assessing and Improving the Enablers of Innovation: The Development of an Innovation
Capability Assessment instrument. Ph.D. Thesis, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne,
Australia, 2004.
90. Hadjimanolis, A. The barriers approach to innovation. In The International Handbook on Innovation; Elsevier
Science: Oxford, UK, 2003.
91. Chalmers, D.M.; Balan-Vnuk, E. Innovating not-for-profit social ventures: Exploring the micro foundations
of internal and external absorptive capacity routines. Int. Small Bus. J. 2013, 31, 785–810. [CrossRef]
92. Vasin, S.M.; Gamidullaeva, LA.; Rostovskaya, TK. The Challenge of Social Innovation: Approaches and Key
Mechanisms of Development. Eur. Res. Stud. J. 2017, 20, 25–45.
93. Cipolla, C.; Serpa, B.; Afonso, R. Design for social innovation between university and the broader society:
A mutual learning process. Mix Sustentável 2017, 3, 109–118. [CrossRef]
94. Rosenberg, N.; Nelson, R.R. American Universities and Technical Advance in Industry. Res. Policy 1994, 23,
325–348. [CrossRef]
95. Mansfield, E.; Lee, J.Y. The Modern University Contributor to Industrial Innovation and Recipient of
Industrial R&D Support. Res. Policy 1996, 25, 1047–1058.
96. Zhu, C.; Engels, N. Organizational culture and instructional innovations in higher education: Perceptions
and reactions of teachers and students. Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh. 2014, 42, 136–158. [CrossRef]
97. Jensen, A.A.; Krogh, L. Re-Thinking Curriculum for 21st-Century Learners: Examining the Advantages
and Disadvantages of Adding Co-Creative Aspects to Problem-Based Learning. In Co-Creation in Higher
Education; Chemi, T., Krogh, L., Eds.; Sense Publishers: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 1–14.
98. Masters, K. A Brief Guide to Understanding MOOCs. Available online: http://ispub.com/IJME/1/2/10995
(accessed on 27 September 2019).
99. Cai, Y. From an analytical framework for understanding the innovation process in higher education to an
emerging research field of innovations in higher education. Rev. High. Educ. 2017, 40, 585–616. [CrossRef]
100. Baumol, W.J. The Free-Market Innovation Machine; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2002.
101. Schumpeter, J.A. The Theory of Economic Development; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1934.
102. Moore, J.F. Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1993, 71, 75–86.
103. Moore, J.F. Business ecosystems and the view from the firm. Antitrust Bull. 2006, 51, 31–75. [CrossRef]
104. Rucker Schaeffer, P.; Fischer, B.; Queiroz, S. Beyond Education: The Role of Research Universities in
Innovation Ecosystems. Foresight STI Gov. 2018, 12, 50–61. [CrossRef]
105. Clark, B. Creating Entrepreneurial Universities; IAU Press-Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2004.
106. Hong, W. Decline of the center: The decentralizing process of knowledge transfer of Chinese universities
from 1985 to 2004. Res. Policy 2008, 37, 580–595. [CrossRef]
107. Youtie, J.; Shapira, P. Building an innovation hub: A case study of the transformation of university roles in
regional technological and economic development. Res. Policy 2008, 37, 1188–1204. [CrossRef]
108. Singaraju, S.; Nguyen, Q.; Niininen, O.; Sullivan Mort, G. Social media and value co-creation in
multi-stakeholder systems: A resource integration approach. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2016, 54, 44–55. [CrossRef]
109. Smith, A. Social Innovation, Democracy and Makerspaces. Available online: www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/
swps2017-10 (accessed on 11 September 2019).

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).