| 11. |
- McKelvey, Maureen, 1965, et al.
(författare)
-
Co-delivery of social innovations: exploring the university’s role in academic engagement with society
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Industry and Innovation. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1366-2716 .- 1469-8390. ; 25:6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The paper provides a tripartite definition of social innovations, a type of public good involving collective action by multiple stakeholders. This public good can be regarded as a service, as it is co-delivered based on the development of multiple network and partner relationships. In explaining what social innovations are and how they are delivered, much research emphasises the role of NGOs and community-based collective action. This article starts by observing that universities can play various roles in social innovation, then theoretically explains how and why universities are involved in providing this public good. These roles have been neglected with the recent emphasis on university commercialisation, for example, via patents and start-ups. We use this insight to propose a conceptual framework for understanding how and why universities can organise the co-delivery of social innovations through education. This framework is illustrated with a case study, leading to propositions for later research.
|
|
| 12. |
|
|
| 13. |
|
|
| 14. |
|
|
| 15. |
- McKelvey, Maureen, 1965, et al.
(författare)
-
Governance of medical research and innovation - Lessons from a recent crisis in regenerative medicine
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Third Nordic STS (Science, Technology, Society) Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, 31 May - 2 June 2017.
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Within the field of regenerative medicine radical steps are taken, by combining knowledge advances in engineering and medicine, in an attempt to relieve human suffering and save lives. However, such an approach is not without risks and crisis that lead to questions about its legitimacy are common, especially in prestigious and fast-moving fields (The Lancet 2014, van Hoorden 2011). A recent Swedish television documentary tells the story of the thorax surgeon Paolo Macchiarini at the Karolinska Institute and his attempts to develop a new procedure for replacing parts of the trachea by growing stem cells on both biological and synthetic scaffolds. Originally presented as a groundbreaking achievement documented in prestigious medical journals and hailed by the press, it is now seen by many as a reckless and unethical experimentation supported by research fraud. Four members of the Nobel Prize committee in Physiology or Medicine have resigned. The Vice-Chancellor of the Karolinska Institute has resigned. Police investigation is in process A former minister and head of Swedish police is investigating whether unethical research practice can be verified. At the same time The Lancet (Horton 2016) has published a comment on why they have not retracted his article. While the Maccchiarini crisis is not unique it raises many interesting questions about the governance of medical research and innovation in general, and regenerative medicine in particular. The purpose of this paper is to identify and conceptualize the governance challenges related to major advances in medical research and innovation. Based on a previous conceptual model to explain technological collaboration (McKelvey et al 2015), this paper uses the case of regenerative medicine and of the crisis surrounding Macchiarini and the Karolinska Institute to identify three challenges facing policy makers and researchers. This paper is framed through theories of the specific site of medicine as an area for innovation. Recent research on medical innovation has focused on explaining how and why medical innovation emerges through heterogeneous and dispersed actors, such as hospitals, firms and universities, interacting through sequences of problem-finding, and problem-solving, processes (Metcalfe et al 2005). In this research special attention has been given to the role of clinical practice and its mutual interaction with biomedical science, but at the same time noting the role of the physician in mobilizing and guiding industrial innovation (Blume 1992, Hopkins 2006). In this particular setting, we then apply and develop theories of governance and co-evolution of knowledge in medicine to describe the system challenges (McKelvey et al 2015). Our conceptual model of the governance of technological collaboration recognizes that different types of organizations are involved in the production and use of knowledge, where each has a different set of incentives and networks. However, the governance requires the development of common norms and institutions for the collective action. In other words, the collective action is mediated by interacting, where common norms and institutions are developed that regulate behavior and help create a common good. The challenges that we identify and will describe in this case are: Firstly, role of research funding, especially the concentration of funding into strategic areas. The hiring of an internationally acclaimed researcher, Macchiarini, coincides with a strategic investment in regenerative medicine by the Karolinska Institute supported by large government grants for research excellence in selected fields. High concentration of research funds, strong pressures for success, and global competition for talent put strains on existing systems of governance of research and innovation for which it was not designed. Secondly, the specific nature of interface between medical research and practice. The close connection between research and practice is commonly believed to be one of the strength of medical innovation. In many cases university departments and university hospitals employ the same people, which means they are involved both in research and practice. However, there are different rules within medical research and clinical practice in terms of experimentation. How should procedures, and knowledge, by transferred from research to practice and how should the results transferred back to research? Furthermore, these issues play out in a larger context, which involves development of stem cell technology and intellectual property rights to commercialize the technology. Thirdly, the emergence of medical innovations also leads to systemic problems due to the rapid development of knowledge. Due to their evolutionary nature medical knowledge and innovations may give rise to irreducible systems based on how bottlenecks direct the focus of attention in order to solve critical problems. Furthermore, as the search for new medical knowledge has a strong ethical dimension, is sought for the common good, and to a large degree funded by public funds, oversight is required for what bottlenecks should be attended to and how. This oversight is proved by a governance regime, which includes both formal and informal elements. Given the nature of the current discussion about the Macchiarini crisis the most likely response is to strengthen the oversight and regulation, including monitoring, related to the interface between medical research and practice. The focus will be on universities and hospitals without consideration of other actors involved in the production and use of medical knowledge. We argue, based on our conceptual model, that this may have the adverse effects of introducing bottlenecks in the system. The main challenge for policy makers and researchers is to understand what actors are involved in the system, at regional, national and international levels, and how best to interact in order to create mechanisms of self-regulation that benefit each type of actor and the system as a whole.
|
|
| 16. |
- McKelvey, Maureen, 1965, et al.
(författare)
-
Governance of Regional Innovation Systems: An Evolutionary Conceptual Model of How Firms Engage
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Academy of Management proceedings, Vancouver, Canada. - 0065-0668. ; 2015:2364, s. 1-25
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper draws upon insights from social science, in order to propose a conceptualization of the governance of a regional innovation system. We are specifically interested in ones initiated through public policy and aiming to stimulate the competitiveness of firms through developing new technological knowledge through collaborative research involving different organizations. We are assuming firms choose whether, when and how to collaborate. This paper proposes a conceptual model, which focuses upon the governance processes at the regional level of this translation of knowledge into innovation and entrepreneurship. The underlying argumentation for the model is built from existing research. We interpret that regional innovation governance depends upon capacity building among three heterogeneous organizations – namely university-government-industry. This represents a case of a polycentric, adaptive, complex and self-organizing system, whereby collective action is supported by norms and institutions in order to develop a region resource pool. Hence, our expectation is that our conceptual model will help explain why different outcomes are possible. The concluding section discusses a future research agenda, by going further to explore how to define and analyze the attributes (mechanisms) enabling governance of a regional innovation system as well as to analyze how public policy and firms engage.
|
|
| 17. |
|
|
| 18. |
|
|
| 19. |
|
|
| 20. |
- McKelvey, Maureen, 1965, et al.
(författare)
-
Inledning
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Sveriges entreprenöriella ekosystem : företag, akademi, politik / redaktörer: Maureen McKelvey, Olof Zaring. - Stockholm : Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research Institute. - 9789197772846
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)
|
|
