17 March 2016

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

2. 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?

3. Macro-Economic Policy Factor Conditions Public Research For-Profit Market Firms & Industry Structure Institutions Government Public Goods Provision Informal Actors & Informal Economy Education & Supporting University Industries Systems Legal & Financial Systems

4. 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)

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

6. 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

7. Thank yougkruss@hsrc.ac.zaipetersen@hsrc.ac.za