**Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management**

Carmen Păunescu Katri-Liis Lepik Nicholas Spencer  *Editors*

# Social Innovation in Higher Education

Landscape, Practices, and Opportunities

## Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management

#### Series Editor

Elias G. Carayannis, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

This series highlights emerging research and practice at the dynamic intersection of innovation, technology, and knowledge management, where individuals, organizations, industries, regions, and nations are harnessing creativity and invention to achieve and sustain growth. Volumes in the series explore the impact of innovation at the "macro" (economies, markets), "meso" (industries, firms), and "micro" levels (teams, individuals), drawing from such related disciplines as finance, organizational psychology, R&D, science policy, information systems, and strategy, with the underlying theme that in order for innovation to be useful it must involve the sharing and application of knowledge.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8124

Carmen Păunescu • Katri-Liis Lepik • Nicholas Spencer Editors

## Social Innovation in Higher Education

Landscape, Practices, and Opportunities

Editors Carmen Păunescu School of Business Administration Bucharest University of Economic Studies Bucharest, Romania

Nicholas Spencer School of Design Northumbria University Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom Katri-Liis Lepik School of Governance, Law and Society Tallinn University Tallinn, Estonia

ISSN 2197-5698 ISSN 2197-5701 (electronic) Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management ISBN 978-3-030-84043-3 ISBN 978-3-030-84044-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84044-0

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2022. This book is an open access publication.

Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.

The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

## Foreword

As Professor of Information Technology, with an academic experience of more than twenty-five years, my whole career was dedicated to pursuing the vision of transformation in higher education. My recent experience as Dean of the Faculty of Economics of Sapienza University of Rome during the pandemic helped me to deeply understand the tools that can be used for digital teaching and to understand the fundamental role that these tools can play in a normal situation, too. My hope is that, as soon as we will return to a normal situation, this digital heritage will not be lost, and we will understand how to exploit its potential to improve the learning process and transform existing educational models and practices for greater use by society.

The recent innovations in products, processes, and business models, doubled by the unprecedented impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, are reshaping the higher education approach to entrepreneurship, emphasizing the greater relevance of the social and local dimensions of innovation. In the last decade, innovation and entrepreneurship were boosted by digital technologies, connecting people to the Internet of Things, big and open data, and crowd sourcing platforms. Thanks to new ICT instruments or to a more efficient, sustainable, and fair use of existing ICT tools, higher education institutions are stimulated by new ways of collaborating, creating, and sharing knowledge and resources with the outside world that ultimately lead to innovation and growth.

Globally, two important trends seem relevant now: first, the 2030 Agenda of the United Nations, adopted in 2015, with its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and second, Education for Sustainable Development as one of the key enablers of all the other SDGs. The most relevant link between both approaches is through SDG 4 on quality education, calling us to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.

My experience taught me that social innovation in higher education is a lifelong process. It is about actively shaping the future that ultimately leads to the creation of a democratic, healthy, and culturally diverse society. Higher education institutions are expected to ensure that learners of all ages acquire knowledge and skills to be able to live and act in the interests of innovation. This book captures that philosophy and shows how universities can follow those practices in their daily activities.

Developing the key competences for social innovation generates a challenging transformation agenda for higher education in Europe. This book is one of the responses to the required transformation. Society needs new educational models that will strengthen the capacity, skills, and entrepreneurial mindsets of students and learners from all backgrounds, ages, and cultures, aimed at creating future social innovators and change agents of Europe.

To my joy, this book provides a wide variety of works related to social innovation in higher education. It fosters an analysis of spaces, strategies, practices, and methods that support social innovation in higher education. The overarching goal of this book is to instruct, educate, and provide best practice examples of social innovations in higher education.

The book documents and reflects the experience of multiple experts, researchers, and academics from varied countries of Europe in transforming their educational practices with local living labs, innovative pedagogical methods, multiple actor constellations, and mixed audiences. It was an enriching experience for me to be given the opportunity to collaborate in various projects with some of the editors and authors of this book and take part directly in these experiments.

I believe that this book contains materials valuable both for the actors inside the academia, whether they are students, faculty, researchers, or administrative bodies, interested in contributing as social innovators, and for non-academic external stakeholders willing to join the universities' co-creation efforts for the benefit of society.

I hope the editors and all contributors will hold more conventions and conferences to make both academic and non-academic stakeholders aware of what needs to be done to bring about these social innovations in the university campuses.

Dean of Faculty of Economics, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

Fabrizio D'Ascenzo

## Acknowledgements

This book is based on the research conducted within the framework of COST Action CA 18236 "Multi-disciplinary Innovation for Social Change". The completion of this undertaking could not have been possible without the participation and contribution of many reviewers who devoted their time and energy to providing feedback and sharing knowledge. Their contributions are sincerely appreciated and gratefully acknowledged. The editors would like to express their deep appreciation and indebtedness, particularly to the following: Dr. Shane O'Sullivan from Limerick Institute of Technology in Ireland, Dr. Peter Meister-Broekema from Hanze University of Applied Sciences in Netherlands, and Dr. Inga Narbutaité Aflaki from Karlstad University in Sweden.

This publication is based upon work from COST Action "Multi-disciplinary Innovation for Social Change", supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology).

COST is a funding agency for research and innovation networks. Our Actions help connect research initiatives across Europe and enable scientists to grow their ideas by sharing them with their peers. This boosts their research, career, and innovation.

www.cost.eu

## Contents

x Contents

## Chapter 1 Introduction: An Overview of the Research

Carmen Păunescu, Katri-Liis Lepik, and Nicholas Spencer

Abstract The ambition for this book is to demonstrate how higher education institutions (HEIs) can respond to societal challenges, support positive social change and influence the international public discourse on social innovation. It attempts to answer the question, 'how does the present higher education system, in different countries, promote social innovation and create social change and impact'. In answering this question, the book identifies factors driving success as well as obstacles. The book offers suggestions about how the present system can be improved both based on existing data and international literature on social innovation in higher education. The book presents a selected set of peer reviewed chapters presenting different perspectives against which relevant actors can identify and analyse social innovation in HEIs.

Keywords Societal challenges · Higher education innovation · Context · Third mission · Higher education institutions

#### 1 Introduction

Social innovation has been receiving growing attention from policy makers, international institutions, non-governmental organizations, researchers and the business sector around the world. Despite a growing belief that social innovation represents

C. Păunescu (\*)

K.-L. Lepik School of Governance, Law and Society, Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
N. Spencer Nortumbria University, Newcastle, UK e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
#### © The Author(s) 2022 C. Păunescu et al. (eds.), Social Innovation in Higher Education, Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84044-0\_1

School of Business Administration, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
one of the key solutions to solving current societal problems, the field of social innovation research in higher education institutions (HEIs) provides disparate discussions of this phenomenon. This situation severely impedes the advancement of social innovation practice and research in its policy area. A macro-lens regarding the awareness of relevant actors about the social innovation landscape in academia, and connectivity with the reality of today, is needed. The book's ambition is to demonstrate how HEIs in the different countries promote social innovation and contribute to creation of positive social change. It also aims to discuss success driving factors and obstacles, if any, that influence generation of social innovations. The book seeks to present the perspectives against which relevant actor personnel should identify and analyse social innovation in HEIs. Also, it examines how higher education innovation assists societal challenges and investigates the benefits of effective social innovation engagement by HEIs. Moreover, the book contributes to understanding about how to further develop the third mission of the universities and enhance their role as a driver of social change towards the paradigm of purpose-driven universities (Haski-Leventhal, 2020). The discussion held in the book is meant to explore the common ground where more actors can sustain social innovation.

#### 2 Context and Goal

In recent years, sharing knowledge and know-how between science and society through a consistent dialogue and open collaboration between researchers and societal actors became critical for developing products, services and processes that are useful, sustainable and ethically acceptable (Morrison et al., 2020). Continuous experimentation and learning exchanges according to an open innovation community model (Zhou & Qi, 2018) must be a priority for generating concrete solutions to sustainability problems in real-world settings (Trencher et al., 2014). Usually, higher education institutions do not have an agenda for capitalizing on the local assets and knowledge that surrounds them in the community environment where they are embedded. Communities are expecting the HEIs to actively engage with them and take responsibility by transferring their competence to the direct local context to stimulate social innovation and sustainable development (Westley et al., 2014; Jordaan & Mennega, 2021). Universities can help communities by channelling the expertise, skills and work of their academics and students to critical problems and opportunities facing communities (Schlossberg et al., 2018).

One of the greatest challenges faced by higher education institutions is the effective management of their efforts to solving societal problems, such as the sustainable development goals (SDGs), in an increasingly complex and competitive global environment. This environment evolved dynamically to include numerous aspects that HEIs should carefully consider (Whittle & Rampton, 2020):

– Cooperation with actors from surrounding ecosystem for the transfer of knowledge and talents.

HEIs, particularly in Inclusiveness Target Countries (COST–European Cooperation in Science and Technology, n.d.), lack the ability to exploit effectively their innovation capabilities for the benefit of the communities in which they are embedded. Also, there are a lack of systemic approaches to involving stakeholders in the HEIs' innovation ecosystems. The overall change from Triple Helix to Quadruple Helix philosophy includes focus on smarter use of resources and demands greater inclusiveness of different actors and stakeholders. Therefore, HEIs need to partner with other institutions and organizations, and demonstrate research impact, efficiency, and innovation throughout. Academics and business representatives should work together to achieve sustainable development goals in an integrated way. Also, students, along with teachers, have an important role in adopting social and environmental elements through interdisciplinarity, with an impact on daily life. Therefore, the development of constant societal dialogue and targeted communication between HEIs, government, the private sector and civil society plays a key role in achieving greater social impact.

Scope The current book is an opportunity for HEIs to boost the collaboration in sustainable social innovation and learn from each other. The current crisis offers an opportunity to better prepare HEIs around the world to deal with society and sustainability challenges. Also, it raised the need to look for more effective interlinkages that would connect their talents, spread best practice, increase their interoperability and encourage a higher degree of coordination in their efforts to solving societal problems.

Aims The book ambition is to demonstrate how HEIs can respond to societal challenges, support positive social change and contribute to the development of international public policy discourse. It seeks to present the perspectives against which relevant actor personnel should identify and analyse social innovations in HEIs. Also, the book ambition is to inform interested actors how to further develop the third mission of the universities and enhance their role as a driver of social change.

Core Arguments, Themes, and Issues Addressed In an increasingly complex and rapidly changing world, discussions about how best to educate and prepare graduates for the new challenges of the twenty-first century abound. Knowledge Alliances between HEIs and businesses which aim to foster innovation, entrepreneurship, creativity, employability, knowledge exchange and/or multi-disciplinary teaching, learning and research are therefore becoming increasingly necessary and relevant. The changing nature of contemporary society highlights that social issues are often highly complex and multi-faceted. As we enter an era where cooperative and creative skills, competencies and attitudes are recognized as significant in responding to societal challenges, developing graduates capable of operating effectively in multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary environments is critical. The challenge of equipping students with relevant skills and knowledge in the future employment markets can only be achieved by working globally and collaboratively and learning from the wide variety of partners and their networks about the various ways to prepare graduates across disciplines. Higher education includes a set of systematized knowledge and practical skills, which allow to solve theoretical and practical problems on a professional profile, using and creatively developing modern achievements of science, technology and culture. Consequently, higher education aims to ensure that their graduates, by realizing their acquired knowledge in the process of working life, benefit society and the State as a whole, ensuring its constant development.

To draw possible solutions to the complex challenges mentioned above, the core themes discussed in the book include:

Questions Raised by the Book and Solutions Provided Following aims of the Cost Action 18,236 Multi-Disciplinary Innovation for Social Change the following research questions emerge:

The overall research questions that incorporate the above are two-fold: What is the HEIs' role in creating social change, transformation and impact? And how to strengthen the HEIs' social innovation efforts in order to be sustainable? Answers provided in the book include:

#### 3 Distinctiveness and Primary Contributions

Distinctiveness The book offers unique and novel discussions of social innovation landscape, tools, practices, pedagogies and research with impact in the context of higher education. It brings together international, multi-disciplinary academic and industry leaders in the respective fields of social economy, community development, public health, governance and public policy, to inform the development of social innovation in HEIs. This work supports the sharing of international research evidence and practice expertise across academic and professional disciplines and multicountries in Europe.

Primary Contributions to the Field The most compelling and provocative contributions of the book are:

#### References

Carmen Păunescu, PhD is a Professor of Entrepreneurship at the UNESCO Department for Business Administration at Bucharest University of Economic Studies (ASE), Romania. Her research interests lie in the areas of social entrepreneurship, innovation, business continuity, sustainable entrepreneurship and higher education. Since 2011, several doctoral theses were completed under her supervision, covering topics that concerned the development of social entrepreneurship across all sectors. Carmen is an expert and local coordinator of the Erasmus+ project "CLLC—Community Learning for Local Change" and Erasmus+ project "VISEnet—Village social enterprise: learning material, guidance and networking. She leads also the WG2 Higher Education Institutions (HEI), social change and transformation as part of the COST Action CA 18236 Multidisciplinary innovation for social change. Carmen published over 50 peer-reviewed articles, books and book chapters. Carmen is an Editor of the Management and Marketing. Challenges for a Knowledge Society journal.

Katri-Liis Lepik, PhD is an Associate Professor of Management at Tallinn University, Estonia. She is a lecturer in the global Master's programme of Social Entrepreneurship and a mentor in the online Social Entrepreneurship Incubation Program. Katri-Liis is the Chair of the international COST network "Multi-disciplinary innovation for social change" covering 40 countries. Having worked for public, private and non-profit sector, she possesses competences relevant for international collaboration and management consultancy. Katri-Liis is a board member of The Skill Mill Limited—an award-winning Social Enterprise dedicated to the employment of young ex-offenders by providing environmental maintenance services in the UK using Social Impact Bonds. Her research interests focus on social entrepreneurship, public sector and social innovation, as well as quadruple helix cooperation.

Nicholas Spencer, PhD is an Associate Professor of Design Innovation and Head of the Industrial Design Subject in the School of Design at Northumbria University. His research is interested in the application of design to navigate contested futures within complex social and organisational situations contributing to our understanding of Design for Social Innovation. Spencer leads a network of researchers and practitioners as part of the COST Action (CA18236) investigating design approaches to Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship. He has also helped to establish new practices that support the creative exploration of innovation readiness in small to medium sized businesses and is regularly consulted to support larger organisations to develop the structures, cultures and practices that enable inclusive approaches to design-led strategic change.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

## Chapter 2 Facets of Social Innovation in Higher Education

Mary McDonnell-Naughton and Carmen Păunescu

Abstract Emphasis on social engagement and innovation for the higher education sector is a priority, despite the various challenges that have arisen as result of Covid-19, for third level providers. It is a conversation that continues to evolve of how the higher education providers can prepare students for global citizenship and societal innovation. There are specific concerns regarding best practice and the contribution of higher education to teaching, research and ultimately public policy. Universities are embedded in teaching and research whereby the onus is to engage collaboratively with outside organisations to develop competences and create products for greater use by society. This chapter aims to explore how the higher education institutions can contribute to transforming teaching and research so that the student, and ultimately each academic community member, experiences the full value of contributing to a successful society, reflecting on sustainable partnerships, engagement, whilst reflecting the whole idea of societal innovation. Its ambition is to define spheres of influence for enhancing social innovation in higher education.

Keywords Social innovation dimensions · Higher level education · Social and community engagement · Teaching and learning · Society

#### The Key Points of the Chapter Are the Following

M. McDonnell-Naughton (\*) Athlone Institute of Technology, Athlone, Ireland e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
C. Păunescu

© The Author(s) 2022

School of Business Administration, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
C. Păunescu et al. (eds.), Social Innovation in Higher Education, Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84044-0\_2

#### 1 Introduction

Higher education is going through a great deal of change worldwide. The world pandemic because of Covid-19 has highlighted the importance of active engagement by its citizens and social innovation by all public, private, and governmental actors. The catalyst for social change and innovation is to ensure and sustain an economy that benefits everyone in society. One response to these challenges is the development of the entrepreneurial university model, which adds a strong third mission to Higher Education Institutions (HEI's) (Stolze, 2021). Within this structure there is an implied commercial orientation and a required social engagement. Stolze (2021) suggests that there are exogenous and endogenous forces which determine how HEI's can engage with community and innovate. Schröder and Krüger (2019) highlighted the necessity of new governance structures in universities for enabling and fostering social innovations and a more active role of HEI's in exchanging social innovations that contribute to enhancing education and realizing societal impact. Hunt's (2011) report on various challenges that are facing higher education acknowledged that "higher education will need to innovate and develop if it is to provide flexible opportunities for larger and more diverse student cohorts." (Hunt, 2011, p. 10). In agreement with this, Thomas (2012) highlighted the importance of students having a sense of belonging to the third level education sector and spoke about nurturing students to have a clear academic purpose. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) pointed to several variables that influence the transition of students to third level education, one of which is social involvement. The social involvement needs to be extended to the concept of community engagement (Machimana et al., 2020). As per Hunt (2011), "higher education institutions need to become more firmly embedded in the social and economic contexts of the communities they live in and serve" (p. 77). This philosophy is meant to underpin the ethos of higher education institutions and within its action plan to support campus-community volunteering and innovation opportunities.

The chapter aims to explore how the HEI's can contribute to transforming teaching and research so that the student, and ultimately each community member, experiences the full value of contributing to a successful society. It also seeks to answer the question of how social innovation in higher education can contribute to realizing educational change and societal impact and evaluates enablers that can contribute to the higher education providers to act. Moreover, the chapter argues the need for a more active and a new role for universities in fostering social innovation and in recognizing its multiple facets within their educational system.

#### 2 Role of Higher Education in Society

#### 2.1 Need for New Roles for Higher Education Institutions

The 2020 global pandemic began a period of enormous change and created unparalleled societal challenges. Many HEI's had to embrace digital technology in order to meet its obligations to students. Teaching remotely become the norm for HEI's. It transformed the whole concept of education and placed enormous emphasis on community wellbeing and engagement. Many HEI's helped by contributing to civic society organisations, frontline workers, and policymakers in an endeavour to address societal challenges and support the emergency response in every way possible. The health and wellbeing of students and staff were of enormous importance to the higher education sector. Avenues were exhausted providing support and in most cases the use of technology was shown to be so important in assisting students to accomplish their programmes of study.

The current worldwide pandemic has worldwide economies counting the costs. Governments all over the world are endeavouring to tackle the spread of the virus. Despite the development of new vaccines, many are still trying to visualise a global recovery. Epidemics of infectious diseases are occurring more often across the globe. Planning and preparation for epidemic prevention and control is essential (World Health Organization, 2018). Education equitably will be pivotal to the recovery from the pandemic. Efforts to fund this equitably needs to be at the heart of the recovery with emphasis on building robustness in educational systems (Global Partnership for Education, 2020). Reducing inequities in education will be the norm and there will be a positive societal impact which will benefit from a reimagination of our educational systems (García & Weiss, 2020a, b).

Education has a critical role in restoring human and social capital. A decrease in learning will have negative long-term impacts on productivity and economic growth (Global Partnership for Education, 2020). It cannot be underestimated the importance of education within this sphere and ensuring that certain members of society do not get left behind in relation to third level access. This may occur due to demand for places and changes in admission criteria of HEI's. Students may have encountered challenges in completing final examinations prior to commencing tertiary level. This maybe because of poor digital infrastructure due to their personal circumstances.

Educational planning in this pandemic requires the recognition of Maslow's hierarchical of needs placing safety and survival first before formal education (Doucet et al., 2020). The pandemic has provided an avenue for third level education delivery systems to be tested to see if they are fit for purpose. Nations that endorsed public health guidelines promptly have managed to keep their communities safe, with less harm to their citizens. Valuing and developing innovation partnership and collaboration with communities is paramount. Collaboration with national and local agencies can enhance inclusion and agility of a community that will benefit all citizens. It is important that we learn from history and follow these steps to develop a broader, deeper reimagination of our society (Walker, 2020). Enabling leadership

within cultures will be essential for ensuring that innovation spreads and becomes a cultural norm (West et al., 2017). Compassionate leadership, seen as ability to take institution to a higher level of performance and wellbeing, is central and fundamental as an enabling factor that will create a culture of improvement and radical innovation across health care (West et al., 2017). This analogy can also be applied to higher level education as it also helps to promote a culture of learning. Compassionate leadership is seen as an enabling condition for innovation across sectors (Amabile & Khaire, 2008; Worline & Dutton, 2017). Compassionate and collective leadership encourages individuals to respond to challenges by innovating, and this is focused on working together across boundaries (West et al., 2017). All leaders need to model authenticity, openness, and transparency, and, above all, compassion (West et al., 2017). This is now of paramount importance in education. The United Nations proclamation of 2005-2014 focussing on sustainable development has been pivotal in driving higher education institutions in integrating sustainability into their system (UNESCO, 2005). It placed emphasis on partnering with civil society. A modern university produces numerous interrelated effects that affect several social factors and focuses on the quality of university management, considering its applicability to local communities (Belov et al., 2020).

Education must be a priority in post Covid-19 recovery as it is one of the most protective mechanisms to inequalities and lends itself to responsible citizenship and innovation. Our world needs it now more than ever before. The pandemic has placed enormous emphasis on the impact of technology on learning and teaching within education. Covid-19 has put an impetus on educators to reflect on the tools that will best serve their students and reflect pedagogical practice (Doucet et al., 2020). Consideration must be given to what is accessible and fit for purpose, along with devising routes that will bring connectivity, relationality, and humanity into a distance learning model. Some countries were able to respond expediently to the pandemic because of their prior stance on technology access for education (see for example the International Council of Education Advisers Report 2018-20, published by the Scottish Government in December 2020). Society needs graduates that are fit for purpose, with a talent pipeline that can deliver services. Lifelong learning is very important, this also needs to be made available in an easily accessible environment. Leadership educators recognise community engagement for the purpose of developing civic and socially responsible leaders (Purcell, 2017). Community-engaged scholarship and teaching as "pedagogy of practice" can be advantageous (Ganz & Lin, 2011). A great deal of universities is committed to engaging their campuses in their surrounding communities, whilst place-based community engagement helps to creatively connect with the community to foster positive social transformation (Yamamura & Koth, 2018). Sustainability has made inroads into HEIs, with only a few universities implementing it holistically (Menon & Suresh, 2020). Initiatives adopted by institutions have been successful in incorporating sustainability in education, research, campus operations and outreach programs (Menon & Suresh, 2020). Experiences of community partners with higher education qualifications highlight the importance of the third level education providers in promoting social justice, recognising that community challenges are not confined to a lack of material resources, but a dearth of knowledge about the local resource (Machimana et al., 2020). Universities can partner with communities to address critical twenty-firstcentury challenges and LaDuca et al. (2020) reflected on an innovative initiatives that provided for transdisciplinary community engagement in pursuit of social justice.

There are drawbacks associated with neo-liberalisation in higher education (del Cerro Santamaría, 2021). What society needs for the future cannot rely on what evolved in the past as there has to be a bridge between the academic and the global economy. Planning for higher level education needs put in place a strategic plan to ensure that societal needs are met, and employment opportunities created. Strategic plans of HEI's need to endorse, develop, and foster spin out companies within the academic world. Most HEI's have research offices and innovation centres built into their physical campuses. Policies on intellectual property are built into HEI's protocols which is important to nurture innovation and give support to companies that can develop and employ people. The development of entrepreneurial activities incorporating a third mission proved to be a complex matter (Almeida et al., 2016). Almeida et al. (2016) showed that when commercial entrepreneurship was beginning and when patenting, technology transfer, and spin-offs were new and untested, although embodied in university proposals, it was difficult to see the evidence in practice. Change takes time and investment. It must be reflected in the ethos of the university and the scholarship of research innovators requires nurturing. The entrepreneurial university focussing on initiatives and endorsing the commercialization of technology and appropriation of knowledge, will ultimately create social value within a society.

#### 2.2 Community Engagement in Higher Education

The Irish National Strategy for Higher Education 2030 highlights civic and community engagement as one of the "three core roles of higher education" (Hunt, 2011), with the Higher Education Authority's devising a tool to measure indicators in relation to civic society engagement. Hall et al. (2010) described community engagement in higher education as a cluster of activities that includes servicelearning programmes and research that addresses some aspects of social, economic, and political needs. Community engagement is also about bringing together new knowledge through research and improving teaching with a centrality of the relationship between community, goals, and respect (Wynsberghe & Andruske, 2007; Vickers et al., 2004). Jacob et al. (2015) urged HEI's to engage with their local community where they are geographically located so that they would have a sustainable impact on society showing that engagement activities between communities and higher education can be either formal or informal. This can lend itself to certain members of society availing of an opportunity in third level education. They may be the first in their family to embark on that journey.

Over twenty years ago, Remenyi (1999) spoke about placing emphasis on information sharing to an increased understanding of development issues and their significance for good citizenship. Freire's Pedagogy of the oppressed (1972) spoke about hearing those with the least voice and he also placed emphasis on the reflective, experiential, activist, and the worldview of affairs. This contrasted with only the elitism in society that were afforded the opportunity to be educated. This has changed within Europe. However, the concept of social and community engagement, although not new, needs further development in line with progress for the twenty-first century. The educational process that is necessary must be embedded in the learner and must also include interactive methodologies. Universities are morally accountable to society (Cooper, 2005). Putman (2000) spoke about the concept of social capital and highlighted in 2000 that trends of civic disengagement would lead to a crisis in society. The concept of the American dream is now becoming more of a dream than reality as education costs in the US places a serious financial burden on families. The concept of working hard leaves very little room for younger people to engage in voluntary activities, thus they need to ensure that it is placed firmly in their undergraduate degree programmes. Putman (2000) argued that society needed to renew civic engagement by creating new structures and policies.

The process of engaging the community to act centres around building commitment to a common set of values and principles that motivate community's members to act. International comparisons of community engagement in higher education varies as the concepts can be completely different in each country with different understandings. Bernardo et al. (2012) showed that the role of university leadership was found to have a critical role in embedding community engagement. The application of both leadership and management is needed to ensure sustainable and effective community engagement (Bernardo et al., 2012). Krčmářová (2011) defined the "third mission" of the university as extending the role of the universities beyond the traditional roles of instruction and research, to encompass community engagement and in principle opening HEI's to external partners. Elements such as cultural, social, political are often missed within the realm of community engagement (Winter & Wiseman, 2008; Sandmann et al., 2009). The breadth of community engagement spans across all levels of university leadership inclusive of both academic, administration and support staff. Watson (2011) speaks of universities on their evolution embracing community engagement, with specific cultures and historical events having an influence.

Third level embodies the intellectual independence and critical thinking that engages students during their studies. That engagement now must lend itself to policy development, thus improving society, embracing the concept of digital transformation. The onus is to engage collaboratively with outside organisations to develop products for greater use by society, in an efficient manner. This may involve multi-nationals working alongside interdisciplinary teams, to create an impact. It also places emphasis on the critical evaluation of the various dimensions of education to ensure that knowledge is shared, which now can have a global impact due to technology. The value system of individuals who are educated in a reflective way emerge with a vision and capacity to make a difference to society. Harris (2005) echoed the sentiments that the process of schooling is more orientated towards producing communities which are "obedient" as opposed to critically engaged individuals in society. Education needs to foster the ethos of critical engagement. Tackling social inclusion amongst a community group where members are encouraged to engage in exercise can be a very simple way of innovation which can be supported by HEI's especially where there are sports facilities available. This can be intergenerational and can also assist in family dynamics, such as the parent participating with their child, both benefiting from exercise leading to greater wellbeing.

Promoting social engagement and retention is one of the aims within the National Higher Education Stem programme in the UK (Jones & Thomas, 2012). They found that students benefit both academically and personally from social engagement with peers and staff. This social engagement extended to collaboration with appropriate communities which enabled the student in acquiring the skills that are needed to benefit society including the ecosystem. All third level educational programmes leading to an award needs to embed the concept of social and community engagement. Curriculum integration of community engagement across the teaching and learning processes is vital to instil the infusion of social values (Bernardo et al., 2012). Bernardo et al. (2012) on "institutional advocacy" encourages social activities regarding information on social and political activities as critical to national development and projects that are prioritised are those that have a direct impact on poverty alleviation and the promotion of justice and peace. Managers in education need to review curricula so that there is a platform for a commitment to civic engagement (Spiezio et al., 2005).

Bernardo et al. (2012) clearly articulated that there would not be single community engagement framework "where everyone should fit" and it is more crucial to generate understanding that could lead to collaboration "where everyone has a space to be". Essentially it is a philosophical belief that can help evolve, shape and progress higher education for local national and international communities. Marston et al. (2020) showed how digital technology has played an integral role during Covid-19, assisting various sectors of the community and highlighting that smart cities can provide opportunities to respond to many future societal challenges. Higher level education institutions have an enormous role here to ensure that students are best prepared to engage in this infrastructure and plan accordingly. Hoof and Marston (2021) place emphasis on all members of the wider scientific community, local, regional, and national governments along with social enterprises and industry leaders working together can afford citizens various opportunities for active engagement within age-friendly cities and ecosystems. This is an example of excellent community engagement with the development of educational pathways which can be provided by higher level institutions. It is an intergenerational, interdisciplinary approach to enable a better quality of life for the older person and thus enhancing society. In essence, it is the sharing of knowledge, expertise, and skills to make a difference. This is an opportunity for academics, stakeholders, policymakers and governments, and other personnel within industry to ensure that the adjoining facets associated to the quality of life for both younger and older people are met (Hoof & Marston, 2021). All of this can positively benefit wider communities.

Integral to the development and growth of HEI's is research. Companies who wish to develop their research capacity can enhance the connection with the university in their area. Centres can grow through collaboration and bringing together academics, researchers and innovators who can develop an innovative solution that can transform an area and enhance economic growth. Health and wellness are areas constantly expanding and the sharing of knowledge from academia can assist in building capacity, all of which has a positive impact on the community. Digital health is an area that is growing and has been accelerated by Covid-19. This will become the normal in the future so it is essential that HEI's play their part by investing in resources that can enable the infrastructure around the development of technology that can assist in the development of innovative digital solutions to address societal issues. The partnering with key stakeholders in this area is essential. Most HEI's will have a digital strategy, this will need to include community partners.

#### 2.3 Leading Innovation through Community Engagement

Citizenship is multidimensional (Khoo, 2006). Civic duty instils in the individual a desire to participate and engage positively with public matters. How this engagement occurs varies from one individual to another (Ward, 2005). The concept of elective placements by health professionals is one of the ways that higher education students can embody civic and community engagement. Those who are undertaking professional degree accredited programmes may through their higher education institution be afforded the opportunity to explore the concept of social and community engagement by choosing to participate in a relevant elective module. This can also provide an opportunity for one to whet their appetite in this area and provide very valuable experiences that can underpin their lifelong career(s). A network for the promotion of civic engagement activities in Irish higher education already exists and is known as Campus Engage. It is open to all higher education institutions and community organisations in Ireland. It aims to strengthen the relationship between higher education and wider society, through civic engagement activities (Campus Engage, 2014). Existing community knowledge initiatives place emphasis on student's civic engagement through "service learning". Kanj (2003) spoke about service learning as a continuum in life which includes various life skills including social responsibility, ethical and moral development and professionalisation. It implies the whole area of professionalisation, upskilling, greater accountability, outcome driven approaches within the concept of ethics and community engagement. In terms of social responsibility, community engagement increases understanding of the facets of community service, social justice, diversity, empathy, and social responsibility (www. campusengage.ie). Examples exist that are wonderful and highlight very clearly the area of social engagement. In Trinity College, Dublin, students are encouraged to participate in "Foodcloud" which aims to reduce food waste, reducing food poverty and bringing communities together, with two of the university students siting on the board. Another example in Letterkenny Institute of Technology is students helping to evolve culture and attitudes towards sexuality. In National University of Ireland Galway another example is students promoting positive mental health, this reflects other colleges as emphasis on mental wellbeing is of paramount importance and is nurtured in all third level colleges.

As managers of HEI's, there is a discussion that is warranted on sociallyconstructed meanings, their implications, and the institutional factors that influence the extent to which faculty members engage in innovation projects. The theoretical foundations of interdisciplinarity and collaborative research is paramount to developing new insights and modern methods of operating that will enhance society. Collaborative research is supreme and potentially beneficial to students however, it can also be institutionally challenging and often incongruent to the dominant culture of teaching within a university. Technology transfer is there which assists industry to link in with academia which can enhance collaboration and lead to greater developments. The management of this is vital to ensure there is gain for all concerned. Autonomous decision making is essential ensuring there is fairness and processes need to ensure that transitions due to digital transforming is available which benefits all in society.

It is important to engage with communities and society to identify what their specific needs are and therefore HEI's can then, through their innovation centres, develop what is required that can assist people and ultimately, if the idea is good enough, can create employment. Knowledge sharing is pivotal with community engagement and collaborating with various institutions. In essence, third level educators and universities must ensure that social and community engagement is endorsed and linear collaborations developed. The concept may assist in creating partnerships that are of value to society, in essence the sharing of knowledge. Flexibility will allow for people to engage with potential benefits and build up resources that can be trialled within the academic environment and may have the potential to be commercialised. Universities linking in with the local community can enrich development through education, focused research, volunteering, and activities specific to that region. Local government organisations coming on board for the greater good is also an example of serving the community and may provide financial resources to assist in the sharing of knowledge and upskilling individuals. There are government backed organisations which assist greatly in these endeavours such as Enterprise Ireland as an example (www.enerpriseireland.ie). Innovation and sustainability are the keys to the future and technology will be so important in assisting societies to live better. Remote delivery of healthcare is another example of developments that will be utilised much more in the future. Trust has to be in place so that patients can trust the technology and that the results from monitoring of their conditions can be picked up accurately and managed professionally by the healthcare experts.

When students see the benefit of those structures, they may replicate this altruism in their careers later. One of the leading volunteering educational programmes within higher education UCD Volunteers Overseas (www.ucdvo.org) enhances the student's awareness of key international developments and encourages them to reach their potential to bring about positive global change. Ensuring that higher education

level staff are given the recognition and the training that is needed to develop civic engagement is vital (Thomas, 2012). Collaborative learning and teaching, involving joint intellectual efforts by students and faculty, needs recognition and be visible on timetables and modules. Vaughan (2016) reflects on students with a range of disabilities and difficulties, endorsing the concept that they are accommodated appropriately to ensure they have access to curricula that addresses socio-cultural capital in third level and higher education. This may influence communities and is reflective of communities of learning and building upon a learner's experience and knowledge (Henson, 2003). Bourdieu (1986) in reviewing social capital visualized it as something that can be used by those in position of power or dominance to exclude people from various social groups or structures. Pedagogical action enables Bourdieu's (1986) culture and replicates itself based on vested interests of groups or classes within society. This results in the distribution of social capital amongst those groups only. Therefore, it is necessary that students are facilitated through their university education to participate in activities outside of mainstream academia. This will heighten social mobility occurring within certain circles and change the habitus. There is an ethical imperative that the students through their own development and acquisition of knowledge become part of the systemic change that can positively impact on society (Thomas, 2012). The benefits to the economy and society cannot be underestimated.

Social research on resilience often takes on a macrolevel systemic perspective and it may be adopted as a systemic characteristic (Capano & Woo, 2017). Due to Covid-19, resilience has become of great importance to governments. It may not always apply to policy (Duit et al., 2010; Duit, 2015). Resilience is of enormous concern during the policy formulation phases of any public developments. This is where all concerned need to have a voice at the table. Policy makers are often reluctant to take on new developments due to the fear of existing policies being perceived as failure (Capano & Woo, 2017). This subscribes to the dichotomy of 'dynamics without change' (Woo & Howlett, 2015, p. 1).

Covid-19 has shown how communities and HEI's can be very resilient despite adversary. Facilities including access to technology must deliver to all. The question remains as "to whether a policy system that has encountered shock should aspire to become resilient or whether it should seek to adapt or transform into something different" (Capano & Woo, 2017, p. 5). It may not always be possible to embed resilience within policy, nevertheless the harsh lessons that have been learned from Covid-19 must not be lost. The development of technology such as the Covid Tracker app helped to combat the disease. This was an innovation that no one could have foreseen the need for two years ago. Yet, it was developed by an Irish company developing technology that had enormous capability (www.NearForm.ie), which was tasked by the Irish Health Service Executive with coming up with a contact-tracing app prototype in just five days. This is an example of innovations through technology which has made an enormous difference to the quality of life of people worldwide.

Narbutaite-Afaki & Freise, 2019 reflected on how Sweden and Germany reacted to the unprecedented increase in unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in 2015. Their work showed that this triggered transformative policy changes, however it also led to reduction of the legal rights of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, demonstrating the importance of proper consultation and integration of various viewpoints especially those who are in a minority. Refugee children have a greater complexity for social inclusion that necessitates specific skills (Elikaksoy & Wadensjo, 2017). This vulnerable person has other requirements such as legal, psychological and pedagogical needs (Narbutaite-Afaki & Freise, 2019). The question is who takes responsibility to ensure that they are cared for appropriately and that they can integrate into society and participate fully into age specific activities. Public policies need to be in place to address these specific needs, however those needs may change thus necessitating a review of the policy. Public-sector policies may have an impact on users which varies from the macro or policy level to the micro or service level (Windrum, 2008). This can vary depending on time and place.

#### 3 Higher Education and Social Innovation

#### 3.1 Concept of Social Innovation in Education

The experience of Covid-19 teaches us that as a society it is imperative that we all work together. Social and community engagement is an educational goal of the higher education institution along with teaching, learning and research, all integral in defining the role of higher education, in the wider social context. There is a role for universities situated in a region to ensure there is economic growth and opportunities created for innovation and sustainable development of communities. A wide variety of initiatives such as engaging diverse communities in health, education and environmental sustainability projects are excellent, however social responsibility and sustainability development is still far from being fully integrated into the core activities of the HEI's (Symaco & Yee Tee, 2019). Engagement with the community can have various interpretations in the academic world and integrates amongst teaching and research to reinforce drivers and outcomes of the academic work (Renwick et al., 2020).

There is an abundance of research into innovation in higher education, whether in curriculum, pedagogical approaches, support service mechanisms or governance and networking (Carayannis et al., 2012; Kolleck et al., 2017). Most of these studies, however, tend to overlook the dimensions of innovation that generate educational change and societal impact (Hasanefendic et al., 2017; Schröder & Krüger, 2019). Higher education plays a significant role in creating better youth employment opportunities, reducing societal disparities, ensuring better inclusion of vulnerable and marginalized groups, and creating impactful research that generates sustainable socio-economic returns. As per Kapoor et al. (2018) social innovations in education are regarded as "novel solutions addressing social challenges in education contributing towards newer and better practices" (p. 190). In line with this definition, Schröder et al. (2018) regard social innovations as ways of identifying and addressing the deficits, constraints and limitations of an educational system. Social innovations take part in all core and organizational processes and involve several groups of actors who are expected to take responsibility for initiating entrepreneurial actions which address social challenges. The Stanford Business Centre for Social Innovation (2018) defines social innovation "as a process which utilizes effective solutions to challenging, complex, and systemic social issues." Therefore, social innovators identify a problem, which can be a social demand or an unmet social need, and, by using creative tools and novel approaches, create a novel way (solution) to filling the gaps in service design and provision (Chowa et al., 2019). Given the complexity of social problems, the overall process of social innovation requires a multidimensional approach to developing effective solutions (Chowa et al., 2019).

Loogma et al. (2013) conceptualized a model which describes social innovation as a process that aims at "facilitating educational change or innovation" by taking into consideration several elements: social problem or need, concrete logic of steps, social change agent, social mechanism, basis of legitimacy, social outcome, or gain. According to Conrad (2015) various challenges in education, such as students dropout and disengagement, school violence, digital learning and technological advancement, social integration, and diversity, can be resolved by determining sustainable innovative solutions. Conrad (2015) highlighted "social innovation in education has a wider scope to create influence for ensuring innovative learning environment, organizing and managing schools, discovering new ways of teaching, learning and collaborating with local communities" (p. 5). As such, social innovations can be found in all organizational processes top-down or bottom-up and horizontally in the education organization. In line with the social mission orientation of Mazzucato (2018) (cited in Schröder & Krüger, 2019, p. 20), the social innovation in education could build-up new capabilities, knowledge and expertise for public administrations, enriched curricula which are better linked with local market demands, new or connected governance forms. This will further lead to changing current routines and practices as well as the building of a more dynamic capacity for the development of new governance structures of higher education institutions.

#### 3.2 Practical Dimensions of Social Innovation in Higher Education

Social innovations can take place across the higher education ecosystem. Schröder and Krüger (2019) discuss four types of social innovation in education which can lead to educational transformation: learning through diversity, facilitating digital and virtual learning (for instance, for disadvantaged groups), offering home schooling (particularly for groups with special needs) and separating with the provision of alternative learning opportunities. Social innovations can happen through governance, teaching and learning, research, knowledge transfer, social and community engagement, cooperation and collaboration, funding, impact, diffusion and transfer (Table 2.1). These practical dimensions are not necessarily representing the only possible classification of social innovation in higher education. They are an instrument for building the framework of social innovation in higher education for educational change and further societal impact.

Social innovation through governance takes place when innovation is institutionalized and embedded in all HEI's organizational structures across all management layers, participation of multiple actors and stakeholders in the decision-making process is expected, and various communication channels are used (Schröder & Krüger, 2019). There are overarching and connected governance structures of multiactors and multi-stakeholders from policy, economy, civil society, environment, and academia—quintuple helix—(Kapoor et al., 2018; Schröder & Krüger, 2019), established to resolving societal problems. The institution can benefit from digitalized systems and technology assisted processes, and strategies are developed to demonstrate flexibility, sustainability orientation and impact achievement. HEI's performance is monitored by an advisory board against society relevant KPIs, and priorities regarding for example industry cooperation, community engagement or international rankings are jointly decided. A culture of diversity is nurtured to sustain multi-sector, multi-nations, and multi-disciplinary learning and research. The HEI's strategic plan extends to incorporate a social integration strategy concerned with ensuring access to quality education and offering equal opportunities to employment for disadvantaged groups, including low-income groups, immigrants, ethnic groups, refugees, mature groups, and people with disabilities.

Social innovation through governance also means developing a culture of volunteering and continuously nurturing it. Training and counselling offered by faculty and staff in collaboration with professional associations or private companies, mentoring and training offered by students in exchange, for example, for tuition fee or rent subsidy are a few examples of widely spread volunteering practices. Moreover, HEI's networks are extended to include not only alumni network (entrepreneurs and investors), but also research network (corporate and industry) and other professional networks (local, regional, national, and international level). Local networks with actors and stakeholders coming from outside of the formal systems are also carefully established (Kolleck et al., 2017).

Social innovation through teaching and learning can happen through building quality education that develops talented human capital (graduates, teachers, researchers, and academic entrepreneurs), through the spread of knowledge and intellectual exploration (Kim et al., 2020) and in close connection with the market changing demands (Tyumaseva et al., 2020). Innovation through teaching and learning also means implementing modern pedagogies and alternative forms of education. The ambition to comply with new educational standards pursues HEI's to promote creativity as a learning tool in a multi-disciplinary setting, by bringing together academics, scientists, entrepreneurs, designers, artists, teachers and students, and linking arts, music, technology, businesses and sciences (Kapoor et al., 2018; Schröder & Krüger, 2019). Investments in digital learning through development of online learning platforms, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC)

Table 2.1 Social innovation dimensions in higher education

#### Table 2.1 (continued)

Table 2.1 (continued)

(Dargaud & Jouneau-Sion, 2020) and blending learning is of extreme importance. A blend of on-line learning and work with hours of volunteering and internships at different community agencies, companies, and other organizations for the direct practice and work experience is gaining more and more ground currently (Archer-Kuhn et al., 2020). Innovation through digital learning also integrates tailored support and resources meant to enhance learning, offered by instructional designers and technology coaches to faculty and staff in the form of consultation, training, joining sessions, and workshops (Archer-Kuhn et al., 2020; Morley & Clarke, 2020).

A broad range of innovative pedagogies, which proved their value in society, have been adopted by the HEI's to different extents to enhance their students' learning experiences. Some examples include mentoring, coaching, consulting, and guidance, where volunteers of all types—retired faculty, business professionals, community actors, artists, and even students—act as mentors and coaches (Tyumaseva et al., 2020). Other methods have shown their merits as well: teaching through enterprise projects and real work with local employers; teaching through which learners receive something for themselves personally and know how to develop from here (Tyumaseva et al., 2020); and story-crafting that enables sharing and listening (Kapoor et al., 2018). Alternative and new forms of education have gained momentum recently. For example, learning communities, collaborative projects, service learning, capstone learning (Vught & Ziegele, 2012), (overseas) experiential learning trip (Kim et al., 2020), remote student learning and work and self-directed field practicum (Archer-Kuhn et al., 2020), entrepreneurship education are a few of them. Supervision and engagement of students with clients, organisations and stakeholders via remote/distance placements (Morley & Clarke, 2020) have received a strong attention recently. In all these situations, alternative assignments, requirements and expectations, rigorous enough for student learning and accreditation standards, should be developed (Archer-Kuhn et al., 2020).

Lately, education for sustainable development has shaped new curricula to create learning that addresses the SDGs and societal challenges for the local and regional environment, including climate change, skill shortage, ageing population, and integration of migrants (Kolleck et al., 2017). Also, it included cases of innovative solutions that utilize cutting-edge technology for a broad spectrum of social problems (Kim et al., 2020). HEI's are also concerned with development of new strategies and structures for lifelong learning to support the local development and innovation. Some common practices include building up a lifelong learning system beyond the borders of educational institutions and areas and arranging lifelong learning possibilities in a more flexible way, especially at the local level (Mazzucato, 2018 cited in Schröder & Krüger, 2019).

Social innovation in higher education can also happen through research. Research on sustainability development is of paramount importance. One stream of research can be directed towards problems or technologies that can potentially contribute to improving sustainability and wellbeing (Kapoor et al., 2018). Research driven by social demands and societal challenges, including climate change, skill shortage, ageing population, integration of migrants, energy supply, health and social care, transport and mobility, poverty reduction (Schröder & Krüger, 2019), receives big interest in the society. Also, research directed towards environmental problems fine dust, food waste, diaper waste, clothes waste, CO2 from excessive meat consumption (Kim et al., 2020)—raises a broad interest.

Social innovation takes also place through community engagement and happens through creation of structures for collaboration and support extended with local and regional communities. Collaboration within and beyond the faculty, leading to invitation of regional, provincial and national partners to listen, share, learn and vision together for increased innovation and local development, is a good way to engage with communities (Archer-Kuhn et al., 2020). Social innovation through cooperation and collaboration can happen, for instance, through building co-creation platforms where multi- actors from various sectors embrace technology, join resources, rethink practices, and create environments to support the intense work circumstances for faculty and staff and their external partners (Archer-Kuhn et al., 2020). A sign of social innovation in higher education through collaboration are also partnerships and alliances developed with professional associations, governmental agencies, corporate, research institutions, environmental organizations, and other NGOs to addressing societal problems at the local, regional, national, or international level. Various channels and networks are used to develop communication and improve collaboration with media and culture-based public (Kim et al., 2020). Academic planning meetings, check-ins with staff, regional meetings with field staff, and faculty meetings are common management tools used to improve cooperation and collaboration.

Social innovations can also happen through sustainable funding for teaching, learning, research and innovation. In many European countries, public funding of universities has indicated declining trends. Identifying and attracting new and creative sources of funding is of paramount importance for modern HEI's. Therefore, searching for multi-funding opportunities is critical: local governments, private companies, philanthropic foundations, royalty income from intellectual property, student fees, alumni fundraising, and more recently social impact bond funding (Katz et al., 2018), a form of capital provided through public-private partnerships for better social outcomes in certain areas.

Social innovations take also place through the HEI's knowledge transfer mechanisms, dissemination practices and impact evaluation. Various channels for dissemination and transfer of knowledge in society are used and different spheres of impact are identified. For example, innovation through teaching and learning is measured through the capacity of HEI's to develop talents and unique skills and to engage businesses and communities in the educational act. It is also measured through the absorptive capacity of workforce on the local or regional market, higher education mobility and HEI's positioning in the international rankings. Innovation through research is measured through the new knowledge created, innovation partners engaged and innovative products delivered (Păunescu & McDonnell-Naughton, 2020). Innovation through the social integration strategy is measured through cooperation with local groups with specific societal relevance, including persons with disabilities, ethnic groups, disadvantaged/marginalized groups, and abandoned children. Innovation through community engagement is measured through the service to humanity (Archer-Kuhn et al., 2020), civic engagement, citizenship role and the leading roles of universities in the community agenda. Innovation through emotional support and interactions can happen through opportunities for virtual connections and celebrations, structures meant to support the intense work circumstances for faculty and staff (Archer-Kuhn et al., 2020) and mind-sets, attractiveness and relevance of social innovation itself (Schröder & Krüger, 2019).

Table 2.1 summarizes the forms of manifestation of social innovation in higher education and its spheres of influence

#### 4 Conclusions and Recommendations

This chapter has highlighted some of the concepts of social and community engagement in relation to their manifestations in practice. It has sought to identify enablers and to encourage development and growth in enabling social innovation in higher education. The heart of social and community engagement resides in supporting HEI's to achieve their goals. The understanding of the importance of embedding social innovation in higher education is central to the research agenda of the new modern higher-level sector. There is a critical need to acknowledge and engage fully with all members of society to enhance and nurture the capabilities of everyone and facilitate more nuanced conversations around the multiple facets of social innovation in higher education. Governmental and European policies need to emphasize and support the responsible action by higher education institutes in their navigation to ensure that they are empowered to meet these criteria. Leaders can promote conversations amongst communities, academics, and the wider stakeholders to place emphasis on how they can incorporate best practice in this area. Educational approaches that recognise the unique geographical location of the higher educational institute can pay enormous dividends with reference to community and social engagement. Challenges to addressing specific issues for equitable educational access will be a priority. The conceptual complexity of the notion of 'equity' adds to the challenges. There is impetus for implementing and evaluating important various community engagement strategies, their tendency towards deficit-based portrayals risks overlooking positives of engagement. Encompassed in these socially constructed approaches may involve dealing with the complexity of competing interests. By identifying these interests and creating a space for ongoing dialogue a positive outcome can be ensued.

Higher education providers are expected to encourage the members of their wider scientific and academic community to promote conversations amongst communities, governments, and businesses, at local, regional, national, or international level, leading to various opportunities for active community engagement, educational change, and social innovation. These areas, where social innovations can take place in higher education and priorities should be as follows:

Progress has been made in higher education with regards to developing competences and creating knowledge for greater benefit by society. However, emphasis must continue to ensure that its populations are inclusive and reflective of the diversity and dynamics of society. Talents if appropriately nurtured will become visible in the economy by having graduates who are critical thinkers by their innovative and creative ways of addressing challenges. Digital and remote access to education will provide opportunities for learners to engage and complement their development. The opportunity is now to review processes which embeds and has at its core inclusivity. HEI's can now transform and build on its reputational history so that the future is bright for all potential learners by having a transparent and open access for people to build and develop new careers. This can be achieved by having clear and effective pathways to nurture talent so that it is fit for purpose and has at its core the concept of rigorous scholarship and the development of new ideas through its innovative approaches.

#### References

Putman, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. Simon & Schuster.

Remenyi, J. (1999). The role of the tertiary sector in development education in Ireland: An evolving agenda. UCD/NCDE.

Mary McDonnell Naughton, PhD is a Registered Nurse, Midwife, and Registered Nurse Tutor, and is currently a Senior Lecturer and Chairperson of the College's Research Ethics Committee. She holds a PhD from the College of Medicine, (University College Dublin, Ireland) and has extensive research experience with members of the interdisciplinary team and has been involved in collaborating international research across disciplines. Mary has supervised students and engaged in various areas of research from Child Health, Smoking, Alcohol and Learning Disability to various aspects associated with the Older Person, especially the centenarian. She has also been a member of various European COST actions such as Old-Age Social Exclusion and Ageism. Along with an interest in Ethics, Mary also has an interest in innovation, social and community engagement work and has engaged in various community research projects. Presently, she is involved in supervising PhD students in various areas from Centenarians and Factors Contributing to Successful Ageing, through to novel ICT enabling technologies that enhances quality of life to cross generational changes in relation to food preferences.

Carmen Păunescu, PhD is a Professor of Entrepreneurship in the UNESCO Department for Business Administration at Bucharest University of Economic Studies (ASE), Romania. Her research interests lie in the areas of social entrepreneurship, innovation, business continuity, sustainable entrepreneurship and higher education. Since 2011, she supervised ten doctoral theses to completion and other nine theses are under completion, all of them covering topics in the areas of social innovation and entrepreneurship. Carmen is an expert and local coordinator of the Erasmus+ project "CLLC—Community Learning for Local Change" (localchange.eu) and Erasmus+ project "VISEnet—Village social enterprise: learning material, guidance and networking (ruralsehub.net/ visenet-overview). She also leads the WG2 Higher Education Institutions (HEI), social change and transformation under the COST Action CA 18236 Multidisciplinary innovation for social change (socialchangelab.eu). Carmen published over 50 peer-reviewed articles, books and book chapters. Carmen is an Editor of the Management and Marketing. Challenges for a Knowledge Society journal.

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

## Chapter 3 Pathways towards Enhancing HEI's Role in the Local Social İnnovation Ecosystem

#### Danijel Baturina

Abstract Social innovation as a potential way of looking for new ways to combat the most challenging social problems is underdeveloped in Croatia and Europe. This chapter assesses the contribution of specific Higher education institute (HEI) to developing a social innovation ecosystem in the Zagreb agglomeration area (and beyond) in several dimensions: (a) research and evidence that informed social innovations (SI) and wider policies; (b) education; (c) creating networks and advocating, and (d) community engagement. Additionally, the introduction of the service-learning program is presented to illustrate that contribution. The capacity of the higher education institutions in fostering the development of the social innovation ecosystem is discussed through the prism of the local and national education, science and public (social) policy development in Croatia.

Keywords Social innovation · Social innovation ecosystem · Higher education institutions · Croatia

#### The Key Points of the Chapter Are the Following

D. Baturina (\*)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84044-0\_3

Department of Social policy, Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<sup>©</sup> The Author(s) 2022

C. Păunescu et al. (eds.), Social Innovation in Higher Education, Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management,

embeddedness in local context) and obstacles that can relate to the overall conditions of the specific educational system or national innovation culture.

• Service-learning programs are one of the innovative ways to connect HEI's and the local community.

#### 1 Introduction

The former economic crises that have stricken Europe in recent years have prompted many discussions on the search for new paths, creating new approaches and concepts of social and economic policies (Crouch, 2011). The current COVID 19 pandemic has put significant new challenges in organizing social and economic life. Social innovation generally is discussed at the international level (BEPA, 2010) with the notion of looking for new ways to combat the most challenging social problems.

On the other hand, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are key institutional players within their localities since they have been shown to have significant economic and social impacts on their communities (Glasson, 2003). The goal of higher education should not be to acquire only those skills that will enable permanent employability, but also those that will equip students for active citizenship, resulting in social cohesion and reduced social exclusion of the individual and social groups. Public and the private sector as well as the civil society are relevant for social innovations, but science and research are so far only taking a minor role in social innovation initiatives (Domanski & Kaletka, 2018).

Therefore, the goal of the chapter is to assess the contribution of the Institute of Social Policy, Study Centre of Social Work, University of Zagreb (from here on the Institute) to developing a social innovation ecosystem in the Zagreb agglomeration area (and beyond). The ecosystems are considered to be institutional, cultural, political and socio-economic aspects that operate in various combinations to support or restrict social innovation activity (more specifically formulated in TEPSIE, 2014).

After defining social innovations and presenting characteristics of a social innovation ecosystem in Croatia, we will look into different aspects of the Institute's work: (a) research and evidence that informed social innovation (SI) and wider policies, (b) education, (c) creating networks and advocating, and (c) community engagement. We will use specific case, the introduction of the service-learning program, to additionally highlight HEI's contribution. It demonstrates the capacity of the HEI in fostering community-based learning that leads to social innovation and inclusion. The methodological approach will be based on the secondary data analysis and researcher own critical reflection as part of HEI as well as an illustrative case of the specific service-learning program.

Challenges and scope of this specific HEI case capacity in enabling social innovation will be key aspects of the discussion. They will be connected it wider local and national education, science and public (social) policy development in Croatia. The conclusion will focus on the recommendations on how to further developing the HEI third missions and enhancing their role as a driver of social change towards the paradigm of purpose-driven universities.

#### 2 Social Innovation: Short Introduction

The concept of social innovation is not new as the writings of both Durkheim and Weber stressed the importance of social innovation in the creation of social order, especially in the context of social and technological change. Historical development of the notion of social innovation is developed in Godin (2012) and Moulaert et al. (2017). However, social innovation has become "fashionable" relatively recently. Some analysts consider social innovation to be no more than a buzzword or passing fad that is too imprecise to be usefully applied to academic scholarship. It should be noted that social innovations are by some viewed as a quasi-concept (European Commission, 2013; BEPA, 2014; Anheier et al., 2014).

There have been numerous attempts to define social innovation. More on the history of definition of social innovation can be found in Edwards-Schachter & Wallace, 2017.Social innovations can be defined as new ideas (products, services, and models) that simultaneously meet social needs (more effectively than alternatives) and create new social relationships or collaborations. In other words, they are innovations that are not only good for society but also enhance society's capacity to act (BEPA, 2010). Stanford Social Innovation Review (Phills et al., 2008) defines social innovation as "a novel solution to a social problem that is more effective, efficient, sustainable or just than current solutions, and for which the value created accrues primarily to society as a whole rather than private individuals." (p. 36). Social innovation can be a product, production process, or technology (much like innovation in general), but it can also be a principle, an idea, a piece of legislation, trends in governance, a social movement, intervention, or some combination of them.

Some core elements are highlighted (Caulier-Grice et al., 2012; BEPA, 2010; Howaldt and Schwarz, 2010; Mulgan, 2007; Baturina & Bežovan, 2015). The first is a novelty. Social innovation needs to be new in some way (either new to the field, sector, region, market or user), or to be applied in a new way. Secondly, social innovation meets a social need and is explicitly designed for these purposes. The main goal is to find solutions to social problems. Social innovation should be effective, at least more so than the existing solutions. In the end, it enhances society's capacity to act by empowering beneficiaries, creating new roles and relationships, developing assets and capabilities and/or better using assets and resources. They leave behind compelling new social relationships between previously separate individuals and groups which matter greatly to the people involved (Mulgan, 2007). Social innovation often comes from the bottom up, are geographically dispersed and local (Caulier-Grice et al., 2012) and therefore can have a significant impact on the local level. They are often locally rooted and guided by demand, not supply, tailored because most solutions must be adapted to local circumstances and individuals. In a wider context, the Atlas of social innovations captures different context and cases of social innovations around the world (Howaldt et al., 2019) and Terstriep et al. (2015) give a comparative report on social innovations across Europe.

There are different examples fostering social innovations to address social challenges in Europe, especially and the local (urban) level (Brandsen et al., 2016). They call for policy recognition of social innovations that are occurring today and wider support but acknowledge that social innovations are context depended. Moulaert et al. (2019) highlight bottom-linked governance' as central to the analysis of social innovations initiatives. Moulaert (2009) gives a perspective of social innovation in integrated area development, which is close to the community development process. He notes their possibilities in urban areas in developing new types of social relations and being drivers of alternative agendas.

On the other hand, understanding of social innovation in community-led local development initiatives in rural areas of Europe was studied by Bosworth et al. (2016). In considering local social innovation action within social and institutional networks authors found that incorporating social innovation goals into policy was seen to be highly subjective and dependent upon the support of local communities as well as the networks and human capital attached to key actors.

Putting social innovations into practice involves cutting across organisational, sectoral or disciplinary boundaries. One of the inherent characteristics of social innovation is that it is taking place across the boundaries between public, private, civil society and households. Their resources can come from academic research, political campaigns, civil society, the public sector, social entrepreneurship, new technologies and many other domains. People and organizations involved in them are diverse and HEI's have their important role.

Universities are increasingly expected to facilitate economic development and societal welfare (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000), especially today in times burdened with complex societal problems. Universities are seen as in heart of innovation ecosystems (Rucker Schaeffer et al., 2018) but their role in social innovation ecosystems is rarely researched. The current research suggests that academia (and universities) have an underdeveloped role in the social innovation ecosystems (Domanski & Kaletka, 2018; Schröder & Krüger, 2019). Kumari et al. (2020) introduced key issues for social innovation in HEIs; how to integrate social innovation in the function and working model of HEIs, how to integrate societal needs into HEI activities and solve real-life societal challenges with generated knowledge. A systematic review of knowledge on the role of the university in enabling social innovation (Bayuo et al., 2020) is noting growing interest in the topic and consider three important domains teaching, research, and universities third mission.

HEI's are usually considered as a part of the helix model of social innovation or the institutional entrepreneur perspective focuses on the role of HEIs as a change agent (Leydesdorff, 2012; Kumari et al., 2020). Social innovations can be discussed in the concept of the third mission of the university (Bayuo et al., 2020), going beyond research and teaching, towards contributing to society. Other examples are specifically mentioning the role of HEI social innovation concerning some of the social problems (as SI's based on youth-related problems in Terstriep et al., 2015).

A specific aspect of looking at social innovations in HEI's is analysing social innovations within the educational system. In their analysis of numerous cases across the globe Schröder and Krüger (2019) found that new social practices are developed incrementally mostly with relation to the formal education systems, structures, frameworks, and policies, serving local demands and using leeway on the regional/local level. Loogma et al. (2013) similarly analysed educational changes by implementing the concept of social innovation. From recent developments, the intersection of higher education and social innovation in higher education institutions (related to research, teaching and community engagement) is studied comparatively in East Asia (Hazenberg et al., 2020).

Schuch (2019) recognized obstacles in the lack of material and immaterial professional structures available within higher education for supporting social innovation. The author also notes (Schuch, 2019) that neither social innovations initiated by higher education institutions nor practices and systems how to monitor, measure and promote their way from universities to society are regularly documented. Therefore, our goal is to contribute to those efforts with a specific Croatian perspective and enhance understanding of the role of the HEI's in developing the local social innovation ecosystem.

#### 2.1 Social Innovation Ecosystem in Croatia

Croatian experience and understanding of the development of social innovations (Bežovan et al., 2016) suggest that social innovation is a neglected topic, the concept relatively unknown in the creation and implementation of public policy. On the other hand, taking about innovations generally analysis that looked at Croatian innovation system suggests that values like statism, paternalism and traditionalism make innovation system week and inefficient (Švarc, 2006; Švarc et al., 2011; Švarc, 2017). The concept arose more prominently from the academic community and it is relatively unknown to key stakeholders in designing social or other programs or policies (Bežovan et al., 2016). Previous research recognized some characteristics of social innovations in Croatia. Bežovan et al. (2016) recognize three types of social innovations in Croatia. First, there were social innovations from the public sector, which were often developed with the support of experts from outside the sector. Social innovations that come from abroad were second. They are often results of international financial opportunities related to specific projects. Problems of sustainability and embeddedness were recognized. Social innovations coming from civil society was the third type. Research has shown that they, in some cases, develop the social capital needed to produce visible positive social change.

Other research recognizes the third sector/civil society as the main source of social innovations. Respondents in the mapping exercise (Jelinčić et al., 2016) also saw that the greatest number of innovations comes from the civil society as well as OECD Social Innovation Competition (OECD, 2016). Third sector social innovations impact was studied by Baturina (2016) and impact was recognized in several aspects such as modalities of action, social services, local community, social entrepreneurship and (social) governance. The local community is seen (Baturina, 2016) as a domain for innovative action as it is the one in which organizations are closer to the needs of citizens and where the impact can be more immediate.

Regarding strategic documents, the concept of social innovations was slowly introduced in the policy area but it became part of some documents, especially related to the third sector. In the Strategy for the Creation of an Enabling Environment for Civil Society Development 2012–2016 (Government of Republic of Croatia, 2011) social innovation and social entrepreneurship emerge as concepts described as one of the ways how civil society organizations can contribute to social and economic development. New Strategy (for the period 2017–2021) dedicates one measure to tenders for the development of new models of socio-economic development through social innovations. However, the Strategy is still not delivered due to political challenges. Strategy for development of social entrepreneurship 2015–2020 (Government of Republic of Croatia, 2015) mentions the concept in the sphere of stimulating the financial mechanisms for social innovation, the development of educational programs for social entrepreneurship and social innovation in the field of the public good. The Strategy of Education, Science and Technology entitled 'New Colours of Knowledge' do not mention social innovations, although mentions innovations in several aspects (Government of Republic of Croatia, 2014a).

There are a couple of institutional actors that shown interest in the topic of social innovations (Baturina, 2019; OECD, 2016). Among them is the Ministry for Work, Pension System, Family and Social Policy, the Ministry of Entrepreneurship and Crafts, and the Ministry of Regional Development and EU Funds. They made social innovations (in wider notion) eligible for financing in different tenders. However, generally funding for social innovations is sporadic as it usually goes through rare tenders, competition, and awards. EU funds were an important source of financing social innovations in different spheres (Baturina, 2019). Some academic institutions cover the topic related content in their research and teaching. National Foundation for Civil Society Development promoted the concept and organized the Social Innovation Award (in period 2012–2014). Government Office for Cooperation with NGOs advocates the concept and promotes it in strategic documents. Croatian Chamber of Economy is also becoming increasingly involved with social entrepreneurship (and social innovations) as a theme. International stakeholders had some impact too. For example, OECD South-East Europe Regional Programme organizes OECD Triple Helix Competitions and has published Social Innovation Policy Framework for Croatia. NESsT work was important for the introduction and development of social enterprises and initiatives. Overall, we can conclude that the social innovation ecosystem is in the initial phase of development, especially in comparison to some other European countries, with some recognized cases but underdeveloped institutional recognition and support (Baturina, 2019).

#### 3 Institute for Social Policy as Space for Fostering Social Innovation Ecosystem

First, we will give a short introduction to the University of Zagreb and Faculty of Law in which the Institute for Social Policy operates, before zooming into the Institute of Social Policy role in fostering social innovation environment, especially at the local level.

Trends in the last two decades in higher education in Croatia are reflected in the strong growth in the number of higher education institutions and the number of enrolled students and the main institutional changes in the implementation of the Bologna process and principles (Babić, 2019). The 2005 higher education reform brought the Croatian higher education system in line with the Bologna principles (University of Zagreb, 2021). The University of Zagreb, founded in the second half of the seventeenth century, is the oldest continuously operating university in Croatia and one of the oldest in Europe (Agency for Science and Higher Education, 2021a). The University of Zagreb accounts for 44 per cent of students in Croatia (OECD, 2019) and employs about 40 per cent of academic staff. It has thirty-four constituents—thirty faculties, three academies and one university department—each with its own autonomy and governance (World Bank, 2019). In the academic year 2018/ 2019 it had 65,178 students. The Faculty of Law is one of the oldest institutions of the University of Zagreb and the only one with uninterrupted continuity. It was founded in the year 1776. In the academic year 2018/2019 it had 6931 students (Agency for Science and Higher Education, 2021b).

The beginnings of education for social workers in Croatia go back to 1952 when a vocational college for social workers is established, the first of the kind in the socialist world (Puljiz, 2008). Since 1972, a parallel system of education for social workers has been organized, one lasting two and the other lasting four years. Since the academic year 1982/1983 the study of social work was organized at the Faculty of Law in Zagreb (in the Study Centre for Social Work) for a duration of four years.

Following the changes within the Bologna Process, since 2005 the study centre has been organized for four years of undergraduate study and one year of graduate study. There are also two university graduate studies, social work and social policy. Postgraduate and doctoral studies are organized related to these topics. Study centre has two institutes, Institute for Social Work and the Institute for Social Policy. Both are engaged in teaching and scientific research. The two institutes of study centre for social work are in a way a "natural" place where students develop solidarity for social problems and groups affected by different social risks in the local community.

Through the lenses of the Institute for Social Policy of the Study Centre of Social Work, the University of Zagreb, we will highlight potential contributions to the dimensions a) research and evidence that informed SI and wider policies, b) education, c) creating networks and advocating and d) community engagement. Research and evidence that informed social innovation and wider policies are the first aspects in which the Institute of social policy contributes to social innovation ecosystems.

Regarding research and evidence, we may state that first relevant research project in Croatia on the topic of social innovations was FP7 project WILCO-Welfare Innovations at the local level in favour of cohesion (2010–2014) in which three members of the Institute participated. The project tried to understand innovations in local welfare to strengthen social cohesion and lower social inequalities. Institute members studied six social innovations in two Croatian cities and published the first social innovation typology in Croatia (Bežovan et al., 2016). TSI-Third Sector Impact (2014–2017) was the second FP7 project related to social innovation research. It was aimed to understand the scope and scale of the third sector in Europe, its current and potential impact, and the barriers hindering the third sector to fully contribute to the continent's welfare. Several scientific articles were published about the third sector and social innovation challenges in Croatia (for example Baturina, 2019; Bežovan & Matančević, 2017). Project produced the report "Social Innovation Impact—Unlit Road" (Baturina & Bežovan, 2015). These two research projects introduced the notion of social innovations in the research and policy context. Also, at the same time, from Croatia, organization Social innovation Lab participated in the FP7 project SI-DRIVE (2014–2017).

Currently, Institute members participate in several COST actions two of which are specifically orientated towards social innovations. First one is CA18236—Multidisciplinary innovation for social change (SHINE) which aims to demonstrate, through the adoption of Multi-Disciplinary Innovation methods, how we can respond to social problems. The second one is CA16206—Empowering the next generation of social enterprise scholars (EMPOWER SE) which aims to foster evidence-based policy from local to European levels and to support the development of SEs and their eco-systems in synergy with main industry representatives and stakeholders.

Additionally, Institute members contribute to two other projects that are connecting them to a variety of stakeholders thought Europe and have partly research dimension. Some are Danube Interreg project "D-Care Labs-Developing Labs to Facilitate Home Care Innovation and B WISE- Blueprint for Sectoral Cooperation on Skills in Work Integration Social Enterprises is Erasmus + project which will, among others, study innovative WISE's in 13 European countries.

Besides, Institute members are editor and parts of the editorial board of the Croatian Journal of Social Policy, only one related to that topic in Croatia. The journal is also a valuable for informing policy and practice on topics related to social innovations and new development in social policy.

Education is the second important aspect. In the social policy master level studies social innovation is topic that is discussed extensively and is part of several courses (for example, Methods of analysis in social policy and Social economy and social entrepreneurship). In addition, students study case studies of social innovations and as course assignments develop a project that is encouraged to be social innovative. In the development of the project, they use a template from tenders that are related to the topic: such as Social Impact Award, European solidarity corps, or European social fund tenders in Croatia. Other courses like Civil society and social policy, Croatian social policy or Social policy and social development also give examples and introduce students to social innovations.

Student practice fosters continuous engagement through bachelor's and master level studies with different actors in social sector, welfare institutions, centres for social care and civil society organizations. Evaluations (Sušac et al., 2015) show that when there are adequate support and guide student practice can be sources of new knowledge and expertise.

Creating networks in the social innovation area is a third important aspect of the work of the Institute fostering social innovations at the local and national level. Researchers are active in direct research networks that promote social innovations and innovative thinking in the wider third sector like ESSI- European Schools of Social innovation, EMES- International research network, CIRIEC International scientific network, International Society for Third Sector Research (ISTR), or ARNOVA-Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action. Institute members are part of different research networks like European Social Policy Network (ESPN), which provide high quality and timely independent information, advice, analysis and expertise on social policy issues in the EU, or the International Network for Social Policy. This membership and their active role enabled them to create variety of networks throughout the world and gather relevant knowledge that can be used for the transfer of knowledge and development of innovative projects at national and local level. Institute members are also active in variety of the national and local research and civil society organizations.

For the development of networks within the country, it is important to mention that Institute researchers, in wider partnership with civil society organizations and research institutions, are currently partners in two projects within European Social Fund Tender: Thematic networks for socio-economic development and the promotion of social dialogue in the context of improving working conditions. One is "SUSTINEO- Collaborating, participating, researching and educating for sustainability" and the second one is "A new perspective for homelessness". The researchers also participate in wider policy bodies at national and local policies related to social innovation. Some examples are local partnership for employment, Zagreb's Social plan 2014–2020, Urban agglomeration development strategies Zagreb for period till 2020 or working groups like was one related to the development of Strategy of development of Social entrepreneurship in Croatia 2015–2020.

Community engagement beyond the work of the Institute is importantly done by CERANEO-Centre for development of civil society. It is a civil society organization that was founded in 1996 and whose president and several members are part of the Institute. CERANEO is oriented toward research and development of social services and innovations in the areas of social policy and civil society. It is a relevant stakeholder in Zagreb and at the national level in research and education and development of new services for vulnerable groups. CERANEO currently leads the Social Council of the City of Zagreb. An important outcome is a Social picture of city of Zagreb (first done in the year 2000, CERANEO is leading it since 2013).

The goal of establishing the Social Council of the City of Zagreb is the quality systematic planning of effective social interventions and social policy measure based on realistic indicators of the situation and needs of the citizens of the City of Zagreb. Social picture establishes new relevant topics in the local social policy are contributed to modernization and Europeanization of local social policy. For example, the Social picture for 2014 was named "Good governance and social innovation in response to new social risks" (CERANEO, 2015). Besides, Institute's researchers cooperate and support numbers of other smaller community initiatives.

#### 3.1 Service-Learning Program: Exemplary Case

Service-learning is a type of experiential learning which provides an opportunity for learners to enhance their understanding of concepts and theories in a practical environment. Experiential learning theory by Dewey (1938) provides a theoretical foundation for service-learning pedagogy. Service-learning can be seen as a teaching method by which students apply the knowledge and skills acquired through study to the development of a project that addresses a specific social problem (Mikelić Preradović, 2009). Service-learning connects academic expertise with social needs to deepen the learning process, develop long-term solutions to specific problems in the community, and to create new knowledge and build a knowledge society. Service-learning is very close to the third mission of the university concerning the integration of the university into the local community, the mutual partnership and interaction of the university and the wider non-academic community, the useful exchange of knowledge and resources and the integration of basic academic activities and needs of the (local) community (Ćulum & Ledić, 2010; Čulum & Ledić, 2011).

Development of a Service-Learning Program for Active Student Engagement in the Field of Homelessness Prevention and Social Inclusion of Homeless is the project which we will use as an exemplary case. Total funded with 672,827 HRK (around 90 thousand EUR) the project lasted 18 months. Project was funded by the ESF Call for Proposals for Supporting the Development of Partnerships between CSOs and Higher Education Institutions for the Implementation of the Program of service learning, which is the first tender aimed at developing service learning. The project leader was CERANEO and partners in the project were the Croatian Homeless Network and Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb.

The project consisted of two elements: Element I: Development and preparation of community-based learning programs, in which stakeholders were trained to prepare and implement community-based learning and developed mentoring programs and methodologies for systematically organizing student engagement in the local community. Element II was: Implementing mentoring programs that involve students in the direct activities of civil society organizations services in addressing the needs of the local community, which included implementing projects in the local community. Community service-learning projects were conducted in two courses Methods of Analysis in Social Policy at the Graduate Study of Social Policy and Civil society and social policy, also in the graduate study of social policy. Thematic

units within the services learning courses were preparation and implementation of homeless social integration projects, policy analysis in the field of homelessness, civil society and active citizenship and social innovation and social entrepreneurship. Implementation of this project corresponds to the field/discipline-based service-learning model (as one of the six service-learning models identified by Heffernan 2001, cited by Modić Stanke, Mioković, et al., 2019), which is created by replacing part of the teaching with community work/service.

The evaluation of the project (CERANEO, 2019) showed that students were very satisfied with the introduction of the service-learning principles and the innovative organization of classes in the course. Although this was the first time that they encountered these types of work, they recognized their importance. Besides, they were satisfied with activities within the course and with relationship and collaboration that they had with partners/community organizations. Students evaluated integrating the principles of service-learning as a step forward in the ways of teaching at the Study Centre for Social Work. It is recommended that it be continued and expanded to other courses (CERANEO, 2019). It also, according to the students 'experiences from the project (CERANEO, 2019), strengthened the specific students' skills to better integrate into the labour market. Service -learning can also be a framework for strengthening the student practice, this time in a more innovative and meaningful way than practices that often involve going to relevant social policy institutions or other organizations for a more passive approach.

#### 4 Discussion: That's One Small Step for HEI, One Big Leap for Social İnnovation Ecosystem?

Universities can play important role in the social innovation ecosystem. Benneworth and Cunha (2015) establish three kinds of university-provided inputs, which could contribute to social innovation processes. The university could provide knowledge that helps progression between the stages in helping move the process forward, it might make its resources available, or support the social innovation process, either through advising social innovators how to access external knowledge resources or persuading others to support participation in social innovation. Knowledge sharing and experimentation in a social context is the important way through which HEIs can participate in the development and implementation of social innovation activities (Kumari et al., 2020).

Institute's example is aligned to those typologies with different demonstrated contributions in several dimension of education, research and evidence, creating networks and advocating and proactive community engagement. Institute introduced the social innovation as concept in the policy and research context, developed a wider network of collaborations and transfer of knowledge and developed innovative education as well as community advocacy and projects.

Social policy is in Croatia the most prominent area to develop social innovations. Advantages of social innovations seen in research (Jelinčić et al., 2016) are that they mostly fit to fill the gap in the market and satisfy social needs. Findings of mapping exercise (Jelinčić et al., 2016) showed that the majority (51%) of respondents see a high potential of social innovations´ contribution to society. It can be argued that the Institute for Social Policy is therefore an appropriate space for supporting the social innovations ecosystem in Zagreb and Croatia.

Some strength and weaknesses of the Institute in developing a social innovation ecosystem can be identified. Strengths are mostly internal related to, "pioneer" status in research, deep embeddedness and cooperation with local stakeholders, openness to new initiatives, and solidarity as the principle of "work". Academics who innovate in higher education have some characteristics such as motivation to change institutionalized practices, interest in change, experience in the field, multi-embeddedness, the authority to act, and the strategic use of social networks (Hasanefendic et al., 2017). That is in a way similar to characteristics that were found in Croatian social innovations (Bežovan et al., 2016) and work that Institute does. Researchers at Institute can be considered scholar-practitioners with multiple roles (Carton & Ungureanu, 2017). In that, they adopted a boundary spanning roles that involve communication of knowledge across boundaries within and external to an organization orientated toward the local community.

Weaknesses in Croatia are perceived as external in areas such as support to social innovations or enabling environment (Bežovan et al., 2016; Baturina, 2019), (very) gradual transformation of the education system in Croatia (World Bank, 2019), or lack of entrepreneurial spirit in the University. Constraints posed by institutional factors can delimit the level of success for innovation in higher education (Campbell & O'Meara, 2014). Becoming more flexible and deviating from silo thinking within bureaucratic structures is a relevant precondition for developing social innovations in wider context (Schröder & Krüger, 2019). In Croatia, several systemic factors limit innovation like the underdeveloped human resources management in HEIs, the strong autonomy at a faculty-level which goes hand in hand with the limited steering power of HEI leadership in non-integrated universities, and the sporadic funding availability for innovation and entrepreneurship (OECD, 2019).

Additional challenges related to the development of social innovations are that the public sector in perceptions of stakeholders is rather inflexible and puts more than needed administrative burden on the innovative organization (Bežovan et al., 2016; Baturina, 2016). Social intrapreneurs are not the usual phenomenon (Bežovan et al., 2016) and the concept of an entrepreneurial university is still an odd idea in Croatia (Dabic et al., 2016).

Putting weaknesses in national innovations context, Croatia is lagging behind EU countries measured by European Innovation Scoreboard. With Innovation Index score of 54. For example, the EU average is 102, and the best-placed Switzerland has a score of 164.6 (European Commission, 2020). Croatia is assessed as a moderate innovator. Global Innovation Index 2017 places Croatia on 41 place from 127 observed economies (Cornell University, INSEAD, & WIPO, 2017). Attractive research systems and finance and support parts are seen as weak dimensions. Research and development expenditure is way below EU 27 average (Eurostat, 2021). The Strategy for Innovation Encouragement of the Republic of Croatia 2014–2020 (Government of Republic of Croatia, 2014b) states as crucial problem nonexistence of systemic innovation policy which is more than a relevant for the social innovation field. There are other strategies: like Croatian Smart Specialisation Strategy 2016–2020 but in general innovation policy has a status of an unwanted child among policymakers which means that was poorly understood, not a priority and mainly discussed within a narrow circle of experts (Švarc & Lažnjak, 2017). On the other hand, Croatian HEIs have been modestly improving their capacity to collaborate with external stakeholders to exchange knowledge and promote innovation (OECD, 2019). Strengthening public opportunities in the field of research and innovation is one of the key recommendations of the Croatia RIO report (Račić et al., 2018).

Similar to wider findings (Bosworth et al., 2016) we should consider are social innovations in each social innovation ecosystems driven by opportunity or necessity and how is that influencing their trajectories. Our analysis has shown the combination of both, but highlighting the opportunity as a driver. That can be instructive for other local communities (especially in post-socialist countries) with a focus on realizing different available opportunities in research, education, networks and community engagement (and funding). However, special attention should be given to other more general elements of the ecosystem already recognized as of key importance across Europe (Terstriep et al., 2015) like institutional context and resources.

Contextualizing results in the local Zagreb area we can say that compared to other agglomerations, the City of Zagreb is an above-average developed local selfgovernment in Croatia. The City of Zagreb, the area of this research, as the capital of the Republic of Croatia, has a special status as a city and county and is significantly more economically developed than the rest of Croatia. For example, according to the development index of 117,758, Zagreb ranks first in Croatia (Ministry of Regional Development and EU Funds, 2021).

Zagreb has a particularly generously developed social policy. Researchers consider it a local welfare state (Babić and Baturina, 2019). The City of Zagreb is also developing numerous social services and programs, especially those at a disadvantage (City of Zagreb, 2014; Babić and Baturina, 2019). Social innovations in the Zagreb area are recognized in various strategic documents. The vision of the Development Strategy of the Urban Agglomeration of Zagreb is harmoniously developed metropolitan area of common innovative concepts (City of Zagreb, 2017). The connection with the academic community and a wide range of professional staff for the development of innovative services following the specific needs of individual user groups is stated as a strength is a local area (City of Zagreb, 2017). In addition, the Social plan of the city of Zagreb recognizes the necessity of social innovations in dealing with a high concentration of people who need help, often to overcome multiple problems. City of Zagreb is also a rare positive example of continuous financing of social entrepreneurship. Similar to social policy, we can say that the Zagreb area provides a more favourable infrastructure for the development of social innovations. Part of the local advantages is related to being the business and education centre of Croatia and having a higher level of human capital (City of Zagreb, 2017; Babić and Baturina, 2019). As such, we may state that it represents a receptive context for the Institute's work and additionally highlight opportunity as a driver in developing social innovation ecosystem.

More generally, in the HEI context, different conceptual frameworks have been applied recently to descriptions of the role of academic research in "post-modern" industrial societies and stress new kinds of relations between universities and economic development. Some of them are Mode 2 concept (Mowery & Sampat, 2006), triple helix model (Leydesdorff, 2012), open innovation (Cai et al., 2020), socially responsible entrepreneurial university (Cai, 2018) or entrepreneurial university (Dabic et al., 2016). From the innovation spectrum besides social innovations recently the concept of inclusive innovation has become widely used (Brundenius et al., 2017).

Social innovation challenges universities in terms of the desirable outcomes, delivering socially innovative organisational forms and delivering social justice, which is socially desirable, but not universities' core missions (Benneworth & Cunha, 2015). Being part of and fostering social innovation ecosystem is therefore close to HEI third mission (Brundenius & Göransson, 2011). The third mission has different characteristics. Authors (Ćulum & Ledić, 2010; Čulum & Ledić, 2011) see it as a university contribution to economic development (economic, technological or commercial third mission); as a contribution of the university to the development of civil society and democracy (civilian mission); as an integrative concept of crosssectoral cooperation in the contribution of (local) community development; and as the foundation of the academic profession and the responsibility of university teachers for university and local community development.

Croatia still faces significant challenges in creating an enabling environment for the integration of the third mission into universities. They are: incorporating a civic mission as an integral part of key legal and strategic documents, developing collaborative teacher relationships with experience in such projects, a space for education and training, and linking teacher performance evaluation and community engagement activities (Ćulum & Ledić, 2011). That also influenced the development of service-learning. Research (Ćulum et al., 2015) show that the interconnection of teaching and community engagement is absent which can be a burden for the development of social innovations.

Besides role on HEI in developing social innovation ecosystem, we reflect on service-learning as an exemplary case of social innovation in education. It is in its infancy phase of development in Croatia. For example, Modić Stanke, Mioković, et al. (2019) recognizes (in the year 2013/2014) 13 courses with a component of service learning in higher education institutions throughout the country. Besides, service-learning has become it became one of the measures of the National Youth Program (2009–2013) but without further policy recognition. Some other strategies have a broader perspective because they emphasize the importance of connecting higher education institutions and civil society organizations for the purpose of educating socially responsible and active citizens.

Service-learning, demonstrated by the exemplary case, can be considered as part of contemporary education that emphasizes the importance of critical thinking and practical experience in education. It can foster innovative thinking and provide social policy and social work students with leverage in the ongoing and future work to address important social problems and as such is considered social innovation in education. Social work/social policy students have a motivation to achieve social benefit in the community. This is, in our example, evidenced by their evaluations, which partly speaks to the character of the study centre itself (CERANEO, 2019). Implemented service-learning project is close to the "critical" approach to servicelearning (Mitchell, 2008) with its explicit social justice aim. Service-learning can take a social structural approach looking for root causes of problems (Kronick & Cunningham, 2013). In that perspective project showed a notion of enabling students to be agents of social change.

Public and the private sector as well as the civil society are relevant for social innovations on a more or less equal footing, with science and research only taking a minor role in social innovation initiatives" (Domanski & Kaletka, 2018). In the end, the question that can be posed is how can HEI in Croatia (and in Europe) be a more significant part of the social innovation ecosystem? Promoting co-creation for social innovation is an important aspect. 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 (Kumari et al., 2020). The central role of (cross-sector) networks and collaborations from emergence to the diffusion of social innovations is highlighted (Krlev et al., 2019) and HEI could direct their efforts towards fostering and developing new networks and collaborations. Giving institutional visibility to knowledge exchange and collaboration is also recognized as a recommendation for Croatian HEI's (OECD, 2019). It is also important to reconnect the social dimension of education with the economic as social innovation in higher education stimulates and sustains diversity, social inclusion, citizenship, and local learning communities and partnerships (Elliott 2013).

The second question is what is needed for the more relevant ecosystem of social innovations in the Croatian (and European) context? The sustainability of social innovations can be guaranteed by new relationships that come into force, mediated by socio-economic factors in which sectors are increasingly referred to as co-operation, changing how things are done (Baturina, 2016). For the promotion of social innovation, further inclusion of social innovations in education programs, especially at the university level is crucial (Baturina, 2019) and a recent systematic review (Bayuo et al., 2020) is giving evidence that universities are increasingly doing so.