From Spinout Dissonance to Ecosystem Readiness: Scaling Democratic Innovation through Social Science Entrepreneurship-Journal of Sustainability Research-CSCIED科技核心评价数据库-手机版

From Spinout Dissonance to Ecosystem Readiness: Scaling Democratic Innovation through Social Science Entrepreneurship

From Spinout Dissonance to Ecosystem Readiness: Scaling Democratic Innovation through Social Science Entrepreneurship

ES评分 0 浏览量：48 下载量：0

全文阅读下载引用收藏

DOI	10.20900/jsr20250079
刊名	Journal of Sustainability Research JSR
年，卷(期)	2025, 7(4)
作者	Mikko Rask*,Camille Thibert,
作者单位	Centre for Consumer Society Research, University of Helsinki, Snellmaninkatu 10, Helsinki 00180, Finland ; Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Helsinki, Snellmaninkatu 10, Helsinki 00180, Finland ;
摘要	Contemporary sustainability challenges cannot be resolved solely through technological solutions. As democracy itself faces crises of legitimacy and capacity, the social sciences hold underused potential to renew the societal foundations of sustainable governance. Nevertheless, social-science-based spinout companies remain rare, revealing a persistent institutional blind spot at the intersection of research, business, and democracy. This study offers a transdisciplinary case analysis of an SSH-based spinout emerging from a Nordic university, situated within a landscape in which only a small fraction of invention disclosures and spinouts originate in SSH fields. Drawing on the amplification typology from sustainability transitions research and the Quintuple Helix framework, the analysis examines how internal structuring, external collaboration, and systemic reframing interact within an innovation ecosystem shaped by academic, governmental, and market logics. The findings identify recurrent institutional tensions that we conceptualise as spinout dissonance, which arise when normative, public-good-oriented ambitions confront institutional arrangements calibrated to technological and market-centred innovation pathways. Addressing these frictions requires rethinking ecosystem readiness through three interrelated shifts: reframing the legitimacy of SSH-based entrepreneurship, supporting hybrid academic–entrepreneurial roles, and designing purpose-fit instruments for early-stage, learning-oriented social-science innovation. The paper contributes to sustainable governance scholarship by demonstrating how reflexive, value-driven ventures can connect democratic renewal with sustainability transitions through institutional learning across the research–innovation interface. It further shows that strengthening the translational capacity of innovation ecosystems is essential for enabling SSH contributions to democratic and sustainability challenges amid global democratic erosion.
Abstract	Contemporary sustainability challenges cannot be resolved solely through technological solutions. As democracy itself faces crises of legitimacy and capacity, the social sciences hold underused potential to renew the societal foundations of sustainable governance. Nevertheless, social-science-based spinout companies remain rare, revealing a persistent institutional blind spot at the intersection of research, business, and democracy. This study offers a transdisciplinary case analysis of an SSH-based spinout emerging from a Nordic university, situated within a landscape in which only a small fraction of invention disclosures and spinouts originate in SSH fields. Drawing on the amplification typology from sustainability transitions research and the Quintuple Helix framework, the analysis examines how internal structuring, external collaboration, and systemic reframing interact within an innovation ecosystem shaped by academic, governmental, and market logics. The findings identify recurrent institutional tensions that we conceptualise as spinout dissonance, which arise when normative, public-good-oriented ambitions confront institutional arrangements calibrated to technological and market-centred innovation pathways. Addressing these frictions requires rethinking ecosystem readiness through three interrelated shifts: reframing the legitimacy of SSH-based entrepreneurship, supporting hybrid academic–entrepreneurial roles, and designing purpose-fit instruments for early-stage, learning-oriented social-science innovation. The paper contributes to sustainable governance scholarship by demonstrating how reflexive, value-driven ventures can connect democratic renewal with sustainability transitions through institutional learning across the research–innovation interface. It further shows that strengthening the translational capacity of innovation ecosystems is essential for enabling SSH contributions to democratic and sustainability challenges amid global democratic erosion.
关键词	democratic innovation; sustainable governance; social science entrepreneurship; spinout dissonance; innovation ecosystems; institutional learning; sustainability transitions
KeyWord	democratic innovation; sustainable governance; social science entrepreneurship; spinout dissonance; innovation ecosystems; institutional learning; sustainability transitions
基金项目
页码	-

参考文献
相关文献

1.Dewey J. The public and its problems
[Internet]. New York (NY, US): Henry Holt and Company; 1927. Available from: https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/71000/pg71000-images.html. Accessed on 30 May 2025.

2.Carayannis EG, Barth TD, Campbell DF. The Quintuple Helix innovation model: Global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. J Innov Entrep. 2012;1(1):2. Available from: http://innovation-entrepreneurship.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2192-5372-1-2. Accessed on 30 May 2025.

3.Etzkowitz H. The Triple Helix: University-Industry-Government Innovation in Action. New York (NY, US): Routledge; 2008. 180p.

4.Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Res Policy. 2000;29(2):109-23. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0048733399000554. Accessed on 30 May 2025.

5.Benneworth P, Jongbloed BW. Who matters to universities? A stakeholder perspective on humanities, arts and social sciences valorisation. High Educ. 2010;59(5):567-88. doi: 10.1007/s10734-009-9265-2.

6.Marques P, Morgan K, Richardson R. Social innovation in question: The theoretical and practical implications of a contested concept. Environ Plann C Polit Space. 2018;36(3):496-512. doi: 10.1177/2399654417717986.

7.Nord M, Altman D, Angiolillo F, Fernandes T, Good God A, Lindberg SI. 25 Years of Autocratization-Democracy Trumped? Democracy Report 2025. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5227625. Accessed on 30 May 2025.

8.Freedom House. Freedom in the World 2023: Marking 50 Years in the Struggle for Democracy
[Internet]. 2023. Available from: https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/FIW_World_2023_DigtalPDF.pdf. Accessed on 30 May 2025.

9.Dahl R. On Democracy. New Haven (CT, US): Yale University Press; 2020.

10.Held D. Models of Democracy. Third Edition. Cambridge (UK): Polity; 2006.

11.Weiss J, Shmelev S. UN environmental policy: Non-State Actors, trends, and the regulatory role of the state. J Polit Ecol. 2017;24(1):1013-37. Available from: http://journals.librarypublishing.arizona.edu/jpe/article/id/2039/. Accessed on 26 Nov 2025.

12.Shmelev SE, Gilardi E. Sustainable Business as a Force for Good in the Context of Climate Change: An Econometric Modelling Approach. Sustainability. 2025;17(4):1530.

13.Shmelev SE, Gilardi E. Corporate Environmental, Social, and Governance Performance: The Impacts on Financial Returns, Business Model Innovation, and Social Transformation. Sustainability. 2025;17(3):1286.

14.Lam DPM, Martín-López B, Wiek A, Bennett EM, Frantzeskaki N, Horcea-Milcu AI, et al. Scaling the impact of sustainability initiatives: A typology of amplification processes. Urban Transform. 2020;2(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s42854-020-00007-9.

15.Rask M, Mačiukaitė-Žvinienė S, Tauginienė L, Dikčius V, Matschoss K, Aarrevaara T, et al. Public Participation, Science and Society: Tools for Dynamic and Responsible Governance of Research and Innovation. London (UK): Routledge; 2018. 152p.

16.Rask M. Evaluating Citizen Participation in European Cities: From Hard Facts to Soft Competition
[Internet]. 2024. Available from: https://www.europenowjournal.org/2024/06/17/evaluating-citizen-participation-in-european-cities-from-hard-facts-to-soft-competition/. Accessed on 11 Mar 2025.

17.Helsinki Innovation Services. Research Commercialisation Activities: University of Helsinki H1 2025 report (1 January–30 June 2025)
[Internet]. 2025.

18.Santaoja M, Mertaniemi R. LUT University; 2021. Available from: https://www.lut.fi/sites/default/files/media/documents/LUT-Sustainability-report-2021-A4-FINAL.pdf. Accessed on 20 Dec 2025.

19.Wutscher W, Gumpenberger E, Berger M. Academic spin-offs: Framework for spin-offs for Austrian universities and research institutions. Vienna (Austria): New Venture Scouting; 2024. p. 7.

20.Bloch CW, Fuglsang S, Graversen EK, Norn MT, Schäfer Bak M, Pedersen AV. Commercialization of research from the social sciences, humanities and arts (SSHA) at universities: A scoping study: Existing insight and current practices. CFASR. 2024;15(2):1-33. Available from: https://tidsskrift.dk/cfasr/article/view/156125. Accessed on 28 Nov 2025.

21.Dwyer SC, Buckle JL. The Space Between: On Being an Insider-Outsider in Qualitative Research. Int J Qual Methods. 2009;8(1):54-63. doi: 10.1177/160940690900800105.

22.Schön DA. The Reflective Practitioner
[Internet]. London (UK): Routledge; 2017. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781351883160. Accessed on 30 May 2025.

23.Candy L. Practice Based Research: A Guide. Sydney (NSW, Australia): Creativity & Cognition Studios. 2006.

24.Yan L, Echeverria V, Fernandez-Nieto GM, Jin Y, Swiecki Z, Zhao L, et al. Human-AI Collaboration in Thematic Analysis using ChatGPT: A User Study and Design Recommendations. In: Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
[Internet]; 2024 May 11-6; Honolulu HI USA; p. 1-7.

25.Rask M. Innovating Urban Performance Measurement: The Advent of Third Generation Indicators. In: Proceedings of the XXXV ISPIM Innovation Conference; 2024 Jun 9-12; Tallinn, Estonia.

26.Ertiö TP, Tuominen P, Rask M. Turning Ideas into Proposals: A Case for Blended Participation during the Participatory Budgeting Trial in Helsinki. In: Panagiotopoulos P, Edelmann N, Glassey O, Misuraca G, Parycek P, Lampoltshammer T, et al., editors. Electronic Participation. Cham (Switzerland): Springer International Publishing; 2019. p. 15–25.

27.OECD. Evaluation Guidelines for Representative Deliberative Processes
[Internet]. OECD; 2021. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/evaluation-guidelines-for-representative-deliberative-processes_10ccbfcb-en.html. Accessed on 30 May 2025.

28.Gibbons M. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. 1st ed. London (UK): SAGE Publications; 2012. 1p.

引用本文

Mikko Rask*,Camille Thibert. From Spinout Dissonance to Ecosystem Readiness: Scaling Democratic Innovation through Social Science Entrepreneurship [J]. Journal of Sustainability Research. 2025; 7; (4). - .

文献评论

相关学者

相关机构