Teboho Pitso

By Teboho Pitso

The growth trajectories of innovation and entrepreneurship within higher education have largely followed discrete paths such that each developed independent of the other. The structural locations of innovation and entrepreneurship within higher education institutions have a lot to do with this strategic discrepancy. In some cases, entrepreneurship is mostly located within business schools and its focus is on teaching students’ business basics and entrepreneurship basics, while innovation is located within any of the variants of university innovation hubs and technology transfer units. Innovation is also used as a buffer to shield real change and transformation in higher education especially in reference to innovative teaching, innovative education and so on, which, in essence, can best be described as improvements rather than innovation. It is also important to note that one of the critical plinths of entrepreneurship—creativity—has generally been marginalised in the core activities of higher education. While entrepreneurship has, over the course of more than three decades, gained legitimacy traction within higher education, innovation has fairly been on the margins of core university strategies but is becoming increasingly pertinent in higher education albeit in ways requiring critical reflection. However, creativity remains largely on the margins of core higher education activities, and its explicit teaching has not yet gained strong academic legitimacy. It is not clear why creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship have assumed discrete growth paths within higher education when there is such a palpable mutual reinforcement amongst these concepts. In this chapter, I report on the study I conducted in purposively selected Scandinavian and South African universities, which was aimed at: (1) better understanding how innovation and entrepreneurship are nurtured and developed in these institutions as well as the role of creativity in all these endeavours (2) identifying the key drivers of this nascent interest in innovation and entrepreneurship within higher education and why creativity remains on the margins even when the academic legitimacy of innovation and entrepreneurship increases (3) developing a more integrated model that could better coordinate the differentiated activities of not only innovation and entrepreneurship units but also those of faculties so that there is greater mutual reinforcement and shared responsibilities that could optimise the social impact of higher education academic activities and those of innovation and entrepreneurship units. Five Scandinavian universities and three South African universities were selected, and fifteen Directors of innovation hubs and entrepreneurship centres were interviewed. While there are overlaps amongst faculty activities, innovation hubs and entrepreneurship centres, these overlaps are informal and poorly coordinated, which vitiates their total impact on society.

Part of the book: Innovations in Higher Education

By Teboho Pitso

This chapter reports on the exploratory study that aimed at better understanding the conditions under which the combined capabilities of intelligent technologies and human ingenuity could be harnessed to create new efficiencies. The study was conducted within a university setting as universities should model how future societies ought to look like and drive societal change. As the new digital society 5.0 takes shape, the time has come to critically probe one aspect of society 5.0, the leveraging of human-machine collaborations to generate unique ideas and convert them into tangible results. The sequential mixed methods’ approach together with a sociocultural lens was used to investigate the ideal university conditions that could foster human-machine collaborations in value cocreation. Nineteen Senior Scandinavian and South African managers were interviewed to elicit their views on how human-machine collaborations could be harnessed to cocreate value within complex university settings. Entrenched cultures, policies, systems, and multiple stakeholder interests which complex into rules and routines mostly define university mores. These university mores are often impervious to rapid newness and radical change. Fifteen advanced undergraduates at one South African university also participated in a quasi-experimentation that investigated team formation and team development within the context of human-machine collaborations.

Part of the book: Toward Super-Creativity