Understanding social innovation leadership in universities: empirical insights from a group concept mapping study

Abstract

PurposeRecently, social innovation (SI) has captured the imagination of a range of actors globally, including in the higher education (HE) sector. This study explores the conceptual domain of SI leadership in HE. Drawing on the insights of 22 experienced practitioners in Canada, it provides a concept map to help guide leadership practice and research.Design/methodology/approachThe study adopted Group Concept Mapping (GCM), a mixed methods approach that provides a structured way to map the “conceptual domain” of a topic from the perspectives of those with close knowledge of it. Using online GCM software, one group of participants generated statements in response to a prompting question about SI leadership. Another group sorted statements into conceptual groups, rating them for importance. The authors then produced a preliminary map using cluster analysis. A third group interpreted that map. The authors analyzed interpretation data to produce a final concept map, which is discussed in light of relevant literature.FindingsGCM methodology resulted in 108 statements about SI leadership, with the vast majority ranked as highly important. The analysis produced a map consisting of nine “clusters” of conceptually related ideas about SI leadership, encapsulated under three interacting areas of focus: individual, relational, institutional/system. Participants confirmed the map reflected key dimensions of practice, noting it indicated important tensions and paradoxes core to their practice. Their interpretations highlighted how the map represented iterative dynamics of leadership over time and across levels; and how different theoretical and practice traditions in SI communities affect conceptualizations of leadership.Research limitations/implicationsThe study suggests that an area ripe for study is the navigation of micro-level systems in pursuit of meso-level and macro-level systems change. The map provides an empirically derived set of dimensions for instrument development in future SI leadership studies. The context of conventional academic institutions bounds the results but helps to surface key considerations for researching SI processes in other mature institutions. Comparison of findings with extant leadership theories suggests that, to advance theoretical research on the topic of leadership in SI, bricolage or new theory development will be needed.Practical implicationsThe map paints broad themes with concrete, practice-level ideas. It can serve as a touchstone for reflection by experienced practitioners and offers a reference point to orient those new to leading SI.Originality/valueThe scholarly knowledge base about SI has been growing rapidly, but it is still an emerging field of study. There are only a handful of published studies offering perspectives on SI in HE, and none with respect to SI leadership in HE. This study offers original conceptual insights grounded in empirical data gathered through a method aligned with its exploratory purpose.

Sustainable leadership in higher education institutions: social innovation as a mechanism

“…Previous research on leadership in HEIs focused on the level of SL (Gerard et al , 2017), the factors which influence SL, the structure of SI leadership (Milley and Szijarto, 2020), and the practices undertaken for SL (Farooq, 2018). In turn, research conducted in business settings addressed the relationships between SL, innovation, and company performance, but focused only on environmental sustainability (Bahzar, 2019).…”

Defining social innovation for post-secondary educational institutions: a concept analysis

“…SI has been used to describe the positive relational aspects, nuances, and spaces of interactions among engaged actors (Villar Olaeta, 2017;Thomas and Pugh, 2020;Milley and Szijarto, 2022). Most articles described SI as collaboratively conceptualized and operationalised by community and academic researchers (Cunha and Benneworth, 2020;Păunescu, 2014;Milley and Szijarto, 2022) and the processes used to turn new ideas incrementally into products and services for social good. Output, outcomes, and impact aimed at profit for shareholders, company.…”

“…Transdisciplinary. PSEIs are inherently transdisciplinary, with a mandate for integration across research, teaching, and service (Milley and Szijarto, 2022). If the knowledge to respond to complex social needs lies at the boundaries of disciplines, then transdisciplinary collaboration must be a defining attribute of SI for PSEI.…”

The Increasing Need for Inclusive Leadership for Academic Loyalty in Higher Education Institutions

“…This further implies that HEIs or tertiary education are institutions that catalyze social innovation [8]. Moreover, while some studies have suggested that HEIs have a significant role to play in the quadruple helix to the realization of sustainable development, others have argued that these institutions should explore ways to improve and advance knowledge on the practice of leadership and management because it actively supports the promotion and generation of social innovation [9,10]. HEIs are made up of interpersonal teams that work together to deliver services and make decisions that are changing the world in a variety of ways.…”