4.8 Article

Social innovation governance and the role of universities: Cases of quadruple helix partnerships in Italy

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120518

关键词

Social innovation governance; Quadruple helix partnerships; Alignment and barriers to partnership; University community engagement; EU Urban innovative actions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the governance of social innovation in quadruple helix partnerships, highlighting the importance of a common nexus between partners for smooth collaboration. A conceptual framework with four key phases is developed to guide governance processes and understand alignment pathways and barriers. The University plays a pivotal role in understanding mechanisms and facilitating successful partnerships.
This paper explores the governance of social innovation throughout quadruple helix partnerships between civil society, business, government, and academic actors. Particular attention is given to the participation of universities in such partnerships as an expression of public and community engagement under broad third mission goals. Quadruple helix partnerships may favour the governance of projects aiming at social innovation, but conflicts and drawbacks can hinder the alignment of partners' contributions. To tackle this issue, we develop a conceptual framework that points out four key phases in such governance processes: i) identification of a common nexus, ii) building of shared strategies, iii) implementation, and iv) learning feedbacks. We apply this framework to three Italian projects under the new EU Urban innovative actions' program. Different alignment pathways and barriers in the governance process emerge and are discussed. The results show that quadruple helix partnerships for social innovation work smoothly if a solid common nexus between partners is in place. The University is used as a focal actor to understand the mechanisms underpinning each phase and the role it may play in such partnerships.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据