17 March 2016 How do we conceptualise the role of universities and PRIs in a national system of innovation where the goal is inclusive and sustainable development? Glenda Kruss and Il-haam Petersen Indialics conference, Thiruvananthapuram, India Social science that makes a difference Innovation for inclusive and sustainable development: The southern perspective I

Social science that makes a difference Developmental challenge for universities and public research institutes Structural constraints, global inequalities – but optimism - spaces for national agency? Where can we intervene? Universities and public research institutes: potentially key actors in national innovation and inclusive development networks BUT how do we orient their scientific knowledge and technology to wide/r socio-economic benefit / social inclusion? Universities and PRIs in Southern Africa typically: Global science solutions to complex local problems Value academic and institutional reputations International agencies promote imitation of dominant models = entrepreneurialism and commercialisation, firm linkages, IPR ‘community engagement’ welfare oriented, student ‘service learning’, research= new low-cost energy/sanitation/water products - but with no/inadequate diffusion processes => How conceptualise their roles in national system of innovation where goal is inclusive and sustainable development?

Social science that makes a difference For-Profit Market Public Goods Provision Government Public Research Institutions Education & University Systems Supporting Industries Macro-Economic Policy Legal & Financial Systems Factor Conditions Firms & Industry Structure Informal Actors & Informal Economy

Social science that makes a difference Finding new ways to link to informal actors Universities should interact and build linkages with formal and informal actors, to benefit of for-profit markets and public good provision Multiple roles: strategic balance of financial, intellectual and social development imperatives in line with national/ organisational/ departmental goals Integrated into teaching and learning, research and outreach All disciplines: science, business and humanities BUT models for linking with informal actors: Unequal knowledge and power relations? Degree of agency and participation? Capacity to acquire and use knowledge?  How do we understand the nature of and build capabilities of universities and PRIs to interact with informal actors?  Extend concepts of interactive capabilities, from firms to knowledge organisations (von Tunzelman 2007, 2010)

Social science that makes a difference CAPABILITY BUILDING PROCESSES:UNIVERSITIES AND PRIS Embodied/tacit Skills in specialised areas Willingness/motivation to interact Leaderships skills (social skill) Organisational planning Disembodied/codified Organisational structures Institutional policies (formal) Diversified funding base Competencies Internal interface Feedback systems Incentives for academic excellence Functional integration External interface Research collaboration- centres Outreach campuses Science shops - Co-operative and service learning Technology platforms SMMES Training courses Social incubators / Agriparks Capability building mechanisms/strategies Interactive capabilities Sensing Learning Integrating Coordinating Dynamic interactive capabilities Environmental turbulence t Circumstance

Social science that makes a difference Conclusion: Towards alternative models Global and national macro-conditions constrain and limit universities and PRIs But such a model can promote capabilities for dynamic and strategic agency - rather than passive reaction – at the meso- and micro-levels… Grounded in and responding to context-specific developmental challenges – rather than importation and mimicry of ‘entrepreneurial’ models

Social science that makes a difference Thank you Thank you