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

The paper addresses the lack of a clear, context-specific definition of social innovation (SI) for post-secondary educational institutions (PSEIs). While PSEIs increasingly pursue a “Third Mission” of contributing to society, SI is often overshadowed by technology commercialization, and ambiguous definitions hinder strategy, recognition, and measurement of societal impact. Existing definitions of SI span products, processes, and principles, and often blur with social enterprise (SE), which differs in intent and economic focus. Traditional academic incentives prioritize publications and grants over social impact, discouraging engagement in SI. Prior reviews identify common SI elements (addressing social needs, innovation, implementation, improvement, and collaboration), but they are not specific to PSEIs and lacked a concept-analysis approach. The research question was: What is the underlying structure of the concept of SI for PSEIs? The study aims to deliver an empirically derived, transdisciplinary definition to support coherent measurement of SI outputs, outcomes, and impacts in PSEIs.

The authors synthesize extensive multidisciplinary literature, noting 222 prior SI definitions with recurring elements (addressing social need, innovation, implementation, improvement, collaboration) and dimensions (novel solutions, social value/community development, broader networks, challenging institutions). They highlight conceptual overlaps with social enterprise and inclusive innovation, and prior critiques of SI’s role in welfare state modernization. Previous reviews were general and not PSEI-specific, and often lacked a rigorous concept-analysis framework. The literature also identifies Quadruple Helix collaborations (government, business, academia, civil society), the importance of relationships, and evaluation challenges, including the paucity of agreed indicators to measure SI outcomes and impact. This background motivates a PSEI-specific concept analysis to refine definitional precision and operational usefulness.

The study employed Walker and Avant’s concept analysis procedure to: identify uses of SI in PSEIs; determine defining attributes; develop model, borderline, and related cases; specify antecedents and consequences; and articulate empirical referents. Searches followed PRISMA guidance across five multidisciplinary and education databases (Academic Search Complete, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, ERIC, Education Research Complete) without time limits, using keywords on social innovation, models/frameworks, and PSEIs, with proximity and truncation strategies. Inclusion criteria: English; literature review or conceptual paper; SI or SE in title/abstract/keywords; and focus on higher education/university/college/PSEI. Exclusions: non-English; editorials/letters/books/conference abstracts/dissertations; SI/SE solely in communities or corporate entities without PSEI involvement. Screening used Covidence with automated and manual de-duplication; two-step screening (titles/abstracts, then full text). A 100-record pilot achieved 94% inter-rater agreement (Fleiss’ kappa); disagreements resolved by consensus. Data extraction (Airtable) captured bibliographic and conceptual variables (concept/definition, uses, theory, antecedents, consequences). Definitions were deconstructed by color-coding terms aligned to five SI elements (Eichler & Schwarz) and then reconstructed to formulate a PSEI-relevant definition; two team workshops resolved coding uncertainties.

• Study selection: 2776 records identified; 946 duplicates removed; 1830 screened; 767 sought for retrieval; 10 not retrieved; 757 full texts assessed; 272 included.
• Article characteristics: Geographic distribution—Europe 43.6%, Asia 27.8%, North America 16.5%, Africa 3.7%, Australia/New Zealand 2.9%, South America 4.8%. Nearly all (97.8%) published since 2010. Many papers citing SI offered no explicit definition, leading to ambiguity in measurement and outcomes.
• Uses of SI: Described structurally (grassroots to outcomes; overlap with SE and hybrid forms), as processes (collaborative, relational, engagement/reciprocity), and as outcomes (new products/services for inclusive, cohesive societies). Some critiques positioned SI as compensating for retrenched welfare supports.
• Defining attributes for PSEIs (synthesized):
  1. Addresses a complex societal problem/need; 2) Novelty to the population or setting; 3) Novel relationships and capabilities; 4) Collaborative action; 5) Intentionality; 6) Transdisciplinarity; 7) Evidence-informed solutions.
• Proposed definition (PSEI-specific): SI is the intentional implementation of a transdisciplinary initiative to address a social challenge enabled through collaborative action leading to new or improved capabilities and relationships with community to generate evidence-informed solutions that are more effective, efficient, just, and sustainable.
• Antecedents (preconditions): Outer context (supportive policies/legislation, investment potential, engaged innovation ecosystem); inner context (leadership, strategic priority, culture, infrastructure, education/training, resources, incentives); characteristics of SI at PSEIs (education, infrastructure, resources, transdisciplinary collaboration, measurement approach); processes (common goals bridging institutional logics, simplified engagement processes, updated assessment metrics); stakeholder characteristics (competence and commitment among institutional leaders, faculty, students, and engaged communities).
• Consequences (outcomes): Diffused SI culture across the institution; reconfigured hierarchies in community collaborations; meaningful and sustained mutually beneficial relationships; PSEI growth (e.g., funding success, new programs); positive societal change in quality of life, well-being, prosperity, justice, and sustainability.
• Empirical referents: Few articles detailed measurement. Existing proposals include multi-dimensional indicator frameworks (e.g., six dimensions with 38 indicators), but no consensus. The study calls for brief, reliable, valid scales and institutionally relevant frameworks to capture SI outcomes and impacts in PSEIs.

By conducting a rigorous concept analysis, the study clarifies the underlying structure of SI for PSEIs and directly addresses the research question. It extends prior general SI definitions by adding PSEI-critical attributes—intentionality, transdisciplinarity, and evidence-informed solutions—aligning SI with institutional logics, accountability, and the Third Mission. Framing SI through a complex systems and institutional theory lens emphasizes the roles and relationships among Quadruple Helix actors and highlights how SI changes social power relations and collaboration patterns. This definitional clarity supports strategic planning, resource allocation, recognition and reward systems, and the development of robust evaluation frameworks. The authors underscore the ongoing challenge of balancing process evaluation with outcome/impact assessment and differentiating SI from related concepts (e.g., social enterprise, inclusive innovation) while recognizing SI’s inclusive scope within PSEIs (experiential learning, community engagement, environmental stewardship, entrepreneurship).

The paper advances a conceptual and theoretical understanding of SI tailored to PSEIs and proposes an empirically informed definition incorporating intentionality, transdisciplinarity, and evidence-informed solutions. It argues SI is an inclusive concept that can encompass social enterprise and technological innovation, provided the primary value accrues to society. The work lays a foundation for designing PSEI strategies, incentives, and measurement frameworks to evidence outcomes and impact. Future research should test and refine the definition across diverse PSEIs and contexts, develop and validate concise measurement tools and indicator sets, examine the relative importance of defining elements across cultures and ecosystems, explore Indigenous and other underrepresented epistemologies, and incorporate insights from gray literature to enhance practical applicability.

• Language restriction to English may omit relevant insights from other languages.
• No weighting of defining elements; their relative importance may vary across contexts, cultures, and ecosystems.
• Model, borderline, and related cases drawn from a single Canadian PSEI, limiting generalizability.
• Unclear maturity of SI as a concept across contexts; attributes identified may be PSEI-specific.
• Exclusion of gray literature may miss practical insights, especially given the evolving Third Mission.
• Limited attention to Indigenous ways of knowing conveyed through oral traditions, which may provide critical perspectives on SI.