Challenges and Barriers to Social Innovation at Spanish Universities

Abstract

Social innovation is relevant to meeting today’s grand challenges and the Agenda 2030 sustainable development goals. In recent decades, European universities have undergone a process of strategic modernization aimed at enhancing the productivity and efficiency of public spending. As a result, a trend toward centralization has emerged, driven by an emphasis on payment-by-results. The evolving nature of societal engagement in universities has shifted toward financial considerations, which has led to an increased emphasis on public engagement, particularly in the business sector. However, this shift has also resulted in a relative decrease in the visibility and perceived value of other social activities. While this trend reflects a broader reevaluation of priorities within higher education institutions, it remains important for universities to continue to balance financial considerations with their social responsibilities. Furthermore, the connection with communities has changed over the years to include more university-community engagement and co-creation of solutions. How the university identifies, prioritizes, and engages with its community reflects its evolution. This paper tries to provide a more systematic understanding of university-community engagement in terms of the university’s contribution to society, using social innovation to address unmet social needs, finding sustainable solutions to complex social problems, and developing a social economy.

1. Introduction

Over the last few decades, technology has been recognized as a crucial factor in promoting individual, organizational, and societal well-being. Innovative technology has opened up new employment opportunities, increased productivity, and driven economic growth [1, 2]. However, to tackle the grand challenges faced by contemporary societies and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set out in the Agenda 2030 [3], some authors call for a new type of innovation, such as social innovation [4, 5].

There is ongoing debate surrounding the concept of social innovation [6, 7]. Most definitions of social innovation lie in the concept of social embeddedness within interpersonal networks, highlighting the emergence of new social interactions among social enterprises, non-profit organizations, companies, civil society, and local authorities [8]. Others adopt a societal impact perspective, prioritizing the benefits of social innovation and emphasizing a utilitarian approach that centers on the societal impacts of innovative practices [9]. Others adhere to an interpretation that integrates a focus on social collaboration and societal change [10, 11].

In this context of societal transformation, universities are well-placed to engender a commitment to social innovation as they are rich in resources that can be mobilized to contribute to solutions to social problems [7]. However, since the mid of the twentieth century, universities worldwide have undergone strategic modernization to enhance their productivity and efficiency. This process has been driven by rankings and the desire to improve public/private spending. As a result, universities have become more centralized, with increased emphasis on payment-by-results and managerial autonomy. This has been particularly evident in the US, Asia, and Europe, where the first-reputation universities’ rankings have played a significant role in shaping the direction of higher education [12, 13]. This has influenced the interaction between universities and society by (i) quantifying the value of university endeavors in monetary terms, (ii) ranking university activities according to their reputation and monetary significance, and (iii) prompting universities to concentrate on a select few strategically relevant activities [14]. As a result, the university’s third mission of societal engagement has been increasingly viewed through a financial lens, amplifying the relevance of public engagement (particularly with business) and revenue-generating initiatives, often at the expense of other pursuits [15]. That is, emphasizing engagement with the business sector has led to diminished visibility and value of other social engagement activities while highlighting informal relationships, often with voluntary community groups, has expanded [16]. Therefore, the relationships with communities are evolving to encompass greater engagement between universities and communities, fostering collaboration and the co-creation of solutions. In this sense, universities should leverage their university-community relationships to elevate community engagement as a core mission [16].

This chapter seeks to offer a more structured comprehension of university-community engagement by examining the university’s societal contributions and employing social innovation as a means to address social needs. We study the Spanish context as social innovation has not received the attention it deserves compared to other EU higher education institutions [7]. While a national framework program for innovation does exist, it is worth noting that the most significant contributions in recent years have been made by actors within the social and solidarity economy and certain citizen-led initiatives [16]. For that purpose, we try to identify the challenges and barriers Spanish universities face in implementing social innovation activities. After this introduction, we describe the Spanish higher education system in Section 2; next, we describe the sample we use in Section 3; results are presented in Section 4, and conclusions and policy recommendations are presented in Section 5.

2. The Spanish higher education system

The Spanish higher education system primarily consists of universities. In 2022, there were a total of 84 universities, comprising 50 public and 34 private ones [17]. Nine of these universities were found in the sixteenth century. Between that and 1968, only six public universities and four private ones were set up. In contrast to many other countries, the nineteenth century and the Industrial Revolution did not witness the emergence of new institutions. It was not until the 1970s that a notable shift occurred, transitioning from an elite system to a mass higher education system. This expansion represented a fundamental change in the approach to higher education, making it more accessible to a broader segment of the population and reflecting broader social and economic shifts of the time [16].

In the early 1980s, Spain underwent a significant legal reform with the approval of the University Reform Act (Ley de Reforma Universitaria, LRU). This act aimed to democratize the internal structure of universities and move from direct state intervention to institutional autonomy, with the goal of enhancing higher education quality. However, it was not until the mid-1990s that a culture of assessment and quality improvements was introduced with the creation of the National Program for the Assessment of Quality in Universities by the Council of Universities [1]. In the new millennium, Spanish universities faced a different context with the legal framework (Ley de Ordenación Universitaria, LOU) formulated by the central government toward the end of 2001 and restructured in 2007. This legislative reform established universities’ main directions and strategic lines, thresholds for accreditation of programs (recognition by official qualifications), and certification for other university activities. The National Agency for Quality Assessment and Accreditation (ANECA) was created in 2002 to encourage universities to monitor their performance and contribute to improving the quality of Spanish universities [13]. Furthermore, the Spanish Strategy University Framework (Estrategia Universitaria 2015) was enacted in 2009 to encourage the exploitation of university knowledge by industry and the universities’ commitment to supporting their regions. These reforms aimed to enhance the quality of higher education in Spain and encourage the universities to play a more significant role in their respective regions [1].

In this framework, Spanish universities hold a strong commitment to the third mission, which encompasses the transfer of knowledge generated within the university to foster innovation, creativity, and cultural, scientific, and technological development. This mission also includes the transformation of such knowledge into economic value. Despite this strong emphasis, the concept of social innovation remains relatively unfamiliar within these institutions. At the institutional level, there is a notable absence of structures specifically designated to support social innovation actions. This includes the lack of a specific vice-rectorate service dedicated to social innovation, the absence of individuals assigned with direct responsibilities in the realm of social innovation, and the absence of specific funding support dedicated to these initiatives [7]. Therefore, analysis of the challenges and barriers faced by Spanish universities in the implementation of social innovation actions may enhance the university’s capacity to address the needs of both its internal and external stakeholders. This could lead to improving the performance of the institution and its impact on its community.

3. Methodology

We focus our study on the Polytechnical University of Valencia (UPV – Universitat Politècnica de València) as it was set up in 1970 and initially offered only teaching in technical disciplines but now offers courses in both traditional and technical disciplines. UPV is located in the Valencian region and includes around 30,000 students, 3500 lecturers and researchers, and 1500 administrators. UPV positions itself as a contemporary and forward-thinking institution dedicated to delivering structured, high-quality training programs designed to equip its students with the skills necessary to make meaningful contributions to the society. Additionally, UPV emphasizes the importance of conducting significant research and effectively transferring the outcomes of this research both within Spain and on the international stage. This approach underlines UPV’s commitment to innovation and its role in fostering educational and research excellence [7].

The data used for the analysis come from a representative survey administered online during 2021 as part of the Spanish Universities Involvement in Social Innovation Activities project [18] to 114 teachers in the UPV (57% male and 43% female). The respondents were selected using random stratified sampling according to the field of study.

The survey was designed based on ‘The Flexible Professional in the Knowledge Society: New Demands on Higher Education in Europe (REFLEX)’ questionnaire, which asked about HE graduates study experience, competencies acquired, and types of teaching-learning approaches [19]. The SUISIA teacher questionnaire was crafted to gather the following information: (i) socio-biographical information and teacher’s work experience (e.g. gender, age, educational background, professional category, teaching predominant field of study, etc.); (ii) social initiatives: both formal and informal actions (excluding COVID-19 initiatives); (iii) teacher’s opinion about the facilitators and the barriers for the promotion of social innovation inside the university; (iv) competencies and teaching methods linked to social innovation. Table 1 shows some of the socio-biographical characteristics and teachers’ work experience in our sample.

Item	Mean	Standard deviation	Minimum	Maximum
Teacher’s characteristics
Gender (1 = female; 0 = male)	0.43	0.49	0	1
Age (numerical variable)	51.32	7.95	32	70
Doctoral degree (1 = yes; 0 = no)	0.86	0.35	0	1
Teaching predominant field of study
Natural science	0.14	0.35	0	1
Social science (including education)	0.32	0.46	0	1
Humanities	0.21	0.40	0	1
Communication (including computation)	0.08	0.27	0	1
Engineering	0.25	0.43	0	1
Teacher’s professional category
Assistant professor	0.19	0.39	0	1
Associate professor	0.70	0.46	0	1
Professor	0.11	0.31	0	1

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics of UPV-teachers according to SUISIA sample in 2021.

Source: Authors, based on SUISIA data.

Teachers’ characteristics: we have identified gender as a key individual-specific characteristic and have operationalized it as a dichotomous variable, meaning it takes on one of the two possible values. Specifically, we coded females as 1 and males as 0. The teacher’s age is also considered a numerical variable ranging from 32 to 70 years old. As all the individuals in the data set are teachers in higher education degree programs, we have considered another education variable associated with the highest degree awarded, where holding a doctoral degree is coded 1 and a non-doctoral degree is coded 0.

Field of study: to evaluate the impact of different teaching fields of study, we have created five distinct dummy variables. These variables are categorized based on the predominant teaching field of study, namely, natural sciences (including health), social science (including economics, business administration, law, and education), humanities (including art), communication (including computation), and engineering.

Professional category: we have also considered the teachers’ professional category at the university using three dummies for assistant professor, associate professor, and full professor (see Table 1).

The following section presents the results of the social actions carried out by teachers according to their personal characteristics, along with the facilitators and barriers that teachers encounter when faced with a possible social action initiative.

4. Results

Some items from the SUISIA questionnaire are related to register the formal social actions made by teachers in their teaching practices and research activities. In particular, teachers were asked to rank in percentages to what extent their usual teaching activity was related to meet specific needs of people or social problems (excluding COVID-19 issues). Table 2 shows that, on average, 40.24% of teachers’ teaching activity was associated with meeting social problems. Females implemented more teaching activities associated with meeting social needs related to their male counterparts (42.61% with respect to 38.45%), as did teachers who have a doctoral degree (40.32%) with respect to those who do not (39.75%). By professional category, those who were assistant professors conducted a greater number of teaching activities aimed at addressing social needs (54.18%) compared to their associate counterparts (39.27%) and professors (21.08%). Regarding teaching the predominant field of study, those in the area of social science (50.30%) and humanities (44.08%) carried out a higher number of teaching activities focused on addressing social needs compared to those in engineering (35.68%), communication (31.33%), and natural sciences (25.06%) (i.e. those which percentages are below the overall mean).

Item	Teaching activity	Final degree projects	Final master projects
Teacher’s characteristics
Male	38.45	27.36	20.83
Female	42.61	28.90	31.13
Non-doctorate	39.75	16.13	10.08
Doctorate	40.32	29.90	27.34
Teacher’s professional category
Assistant professor	54.18	27.66	26.35
Associate professor	39.27	30.29	26.88
Professor	21.08	14.17	13.18
Teaching predominant field of study
Natural science	25.06	10.18	8.28
Social science (including education)	50.30	34.57	38.46
Humanities	44.08	29.68	26.00
Communication (including computation)	31.33	25.34	16.22
Engineering	35.68	29.92	18.65
Total	40.24	27.99	25.33

Table 2.

Teachers’ social actions formalized through teaching activity (percentage of overall teaching activity).

Source: Authors, based on SUISIA data.

In addition, teachers were asked, during the last 5 years, what percentage of the final degree projects or final master projects supervised by them or involved in them was oriented to address specific people needs or social problems. Table 2 shows that, for both final degree projects and final master projects, female teachers, those holding a doctorate degree, associate professors, and those teaching predominantly in social science were involved in more students’ works associated with meeting social needs compared to their counterparts (e.g. males, professors, and teaching in natural science).

Teachers were also asked about the percentage of their research activity related to social commitment for a better understanding of people’s specific needs or social problems, during the las 5 years, excluding COVID-19 issues. Teachers were requested to group their research activity by differentiating between research projects and contracts and between local/national and European/international scope. Table 3 shows that females were more involved in research activities addressing social problems compared to their male counterparts. In addition, those holding a doctoral degree exhibited higher engagement in research activities targeting social issues compared to those who do not, with the exception of being involved in European or international contracts (13.74% for those holding a doctor degree respect to 21.09% for those who do not). Assistant professors were more engaged in research endeavors addressing social issues at the local and national area compared to their counterparts’ professors. However, professors were more involved in European or international research projects (25.09%). Regarding the field of study, those teaching predominantly in social science were most engaged in research projects and contracts targeting social issues, followed by those in humanities. However, those in Engineering were more involved in European and International research contracts compared to their counterparts (22.37%).

Item	Local/national projects	European/international projects	Local/national contracts	European/international contracts
Teacher’s characteristics
Male	21.65	20.75	18.73	12.98
Female	49.09	22.39	36.72	17.52
Non-doctorate	20.00	10.00	14.10	21.09
Doctorate	35.32	23.18	28.44	13.74
Teacher’s professional category
Assistant professor	41.85	18.87	28.53	16.43
Associate professor	31.89	21.47	27.26	15.17
Professor	27.36	25.09	21.81	10.82
Teaching predominant field of study
Natural science	19.53	1.57	12.46	1.08
Social science (including education)	43.48	34.15	33.07	19.17
Humanities	41.36	23.81	34.94	14.86
Communication (including computation)	20.45	9.37	12.00	7.23
Engineering	26.22	21.16	26.84	22.37
Total	33.30	21.45	26.79	14.78

Table 3.

Teachers’ social actions formalized through research activity (percentage of overall research activity).

Source: Authors, based on SUISIA data.

Furthermore, SUISIA data provide information on 13 items associated with facilitators to social innovation activities. Teachers were asked to indicate the relevance of some institutional facilitators in promoting social innovation. Table 4 shows the 13 items. It is observed that the involvement of the university students in social innovation projects was the most promotional activity to foster social innovation (4.18 points), followed by the support in obtaining financial grants (4.08 points), getting funds for new initiatives (4.06 points), incorporation of social innovation activities in university strategic planning (4.05 points) as a signal of recognition, and fostering a culture of entrepreneurship and social innovation (4.02 points) (i.e., all items valued above four points). However, the initiatives to measure social innovations (3.68 points) and the use of social innovation as a public management tool (3.60 points) seems not so much relevant as facilitators in promoting social innovation activities. These results are similar to those found by Abdolhosseinzadeh et al. [20].

Item	Mean	Standard deviation	Minimum	Maximum
Involvement of the university student community in social innovation projects	4.18	0.96	1	5
Support in obtaining financial grants (projects, contracts) at the local/national/international level	4.08	1.09	1	5
Funding new initiatives (pilot tests, prototypes, etc.)	4.06	1.03	1	5
Incorporation of social innovation issues in university strategic planning	4.05	1.10	1	5
Fostering a culture of entrepreneurship and social innovation	4.02	1.06	1	5
Public-private partnerships for scaling up, replicating and applying successful social innovations	3.99	1.07	1	5
Funding mature initiatives (that have been successfully tested) for scaling up, replication, and implementation	3.98	1.16	1	5
Partnerships between different public institutions to scale up, replicate, and apply successful social innovations	3.95	1.06	1	5
The presence of social innovation topics in the teaching process	3.86	1.17	1	5
Recognition (hiring, promotion) and visibility initiatives (awards, specialized publications, etc.)	3.77	1.18	1	5
Encouragement of idea formulation that respond to social needs	3.75	1.08	1	5
Initiative to measure social innovations and their impact on society	3.68	1.12	1	5
Use of social innovation as a public management tool at the public policy level	3.60	1.08	1	5

Table 4.

Teachers’ perceptions about facilitators to promote social innovation activities (order from the highest to the lowest).

Source: Authors, based on SUISIA data.

SUISIA data also provide information on 11 items associated with barriers to social innovation actions. Teachers were asked to indicate the relevance of some institutional barriers in implementing social innovation activities. Table 5 shows the 11 items. According to teachers’ perspective, the overload of their daily work was most difficult to implement social innovation activities (4.54 points). This barrier could be considered as an administrative-structural barrier coming from the Spanish standard regulation, which set up the conditions of service for the academic staff working in higher education [16]. Other barriers are associated with the economic-financial barrier such as the lack of funding and the disconnection of the research activities and the social problems. These results are also found by Prantl et al. [21].

Item	Mean	Standard deviation	Minimum	Maximum
Teaching and research overload activities (including knowledge transfer, management, etc.)	4.54	0.82	1	5
Lack of funding for those initiatives in their early stages	4.01	1.10	1	5
Research activities disconnected with social problems or people’s needs.	3.98	1.13	1	5
Lacking support services for social innovation (bureaucratic-administrative difficulties)	3.97	1.05	1	5
Low appreciation of institutional recognition and low economic incentives	3.86	1.05	1	5
Lack of funding for mature initiatives to achieve scaling and replication	3.84	1.10	1	5
Low appreciation of the role of universities in solving social problems	3.81	1.08	1	5
The institutional and public policy framework generates a poor enabling environment	3.79	1.02	1	5
Low citizen and community participation in social innovation processes	3.75	1.01	1	5
Social innovation is not used as a tool for public management	3.54	1.10	1	5
Lack of discussion rooms that could facilitate interdisciplinary work	3.45	1.20	1	5

Table 5.

Teachers’ perceptions about barriers to implement social innovation activities (order from the highest to the lowest).

Source: Authors, based on SUISIA data.

5. Conclusions

This chapter examines the status of social innovation within higher education institutions, particularly in Spanish public universities. Our theoretical revision highlights that, to gain a comprehensive understanding of social innovation processes and practices in universities, it is imperative to consider legislative and political frameworks at regional, national, and European levels. While European policies are instrumental in promoting social engagement, it is important to recognize that member states have the autonomy to interpret and implement these policies in a manner that aligns with their national contexts and requirements. Universities also play a crucial role in this process, as they customize these policies to fit their interdisciplinary approach, their diverse range of activities, their specific areas of specialization, pedagogical traditions, and collaborations. By tailoring policies to meet their unique contexts, universities can more effectively promote social engagement and contribute to the broader European agenda. In this context, this chapter presents a case study of a public university in Spain, in particular, the Polytechnic University of Valencia (UPV).

Overall, our research shows that social innovation activities most frequently face lack of financing for those initiatives in their early stages, low motivation of academic staff to be involved in social activities due to low recognition of social impact at institutional and society level, passivity of university-student community and in society, and administrative and bureaucratic barriers. Although these barriers are common in other studies found in the literature (e.g. [20]), one of our main concerns, for the Spanish case, is the structural barrier associated with the teachers’ overload in teaching and research activities and the other is the one associated with the disconnection of university research activities with social problems or people’s needs. Regarding the former, university teachers are expected to regularly publish in high-quality scholarly journals, to get external research funds, to ensure students’ academic success for contributing to institutional prestige, to collaborate with administrative tasks, and with the technology advancements to design engaging online content, managing virtual classrooms, and be connected in virtual social networks for proper knowledge transfer [22]. Balancing all these teaching responsibilities produces heightened levels of stress, burnout, and job dissatisfaction on faculty members [23]. Consequently, this overwhelming workload diminished university teachers to engage in social innovation practices [16]. In this framework, addressing teacher overload would require a multifaceted approach that should involve institutional reforms, policy interventions, and cultural shifts within academia such as prioritizing the provision of adequate resources for both teaching and research activities and fostering a supportive work environment conducive to balance research productivity, knowledge transfer with the recognition of teaching excellence, and reconsider the promotion and tenure criteria to acknowledge and reward faculty members’ contributions to teaching, research, and social community service. The disconnection between research activities and social problems would require a relevant effort from researchers, policymakers, community stakeholders, non-profit groups, and funding agencies to collaborate in achieving appropriate institutional responses to changing internal and external conditions. Motivating faculty members to participate in non-economic activities that benefit society is critical to successfully addressing the Sustainable Development Goals. This effort requires a comprehensive approach that considers the diversity of societal challenges, the interdisciplinary nature of research, and the unique needs of each community. To achieve this, creating a framework that recognizes and rewards faculty members’ contributions to society is essential. This framework should consider factors such as research impact, community engagement, and knowledge transfer, among others. Additionally, it should provide support for faculty members to engage in meaningful activities that align with their research interests and expertise.

Finally, our study has certain limitations. We especially concentrate on a single young, dynamic university primarily oriented toward science and technology, which actively encourages societal engagement and endeavors to advance sustainable development and social innovation. This specification may impact the generalizability of our findings to other types of universities. It is possible that longer established universities could encounter greater challenges in adapting their teaching, research, and knowledge transfer activities to implement social innovation actions. More work is required to understand what shapes engagement in social innovation activities. Further research could examine the trends and developments of universities in answering social demands. Management scholars grapple with conflicting priorities between profit-driven and non-profit outcomes and results, although there is a growing effort to engage with and recognize the relevance of addressing local social issues, aiming to foster a more socially inclusive society.

Acknowledgments

This research has received funding from the National R&D Program, under the auspices of the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities. The project, titled “Spanish Universities Involvement in Social Innovation Activities (SUISIA),” is supported by grant number RTI2018-101722-B-I00. It is important to note that the opinions and conclusions presented in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding organization.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.