Valorisation is at the centre of many debates on the future of academic research. But valorisation has largely become narrowly understood in terms of universities’ economic contributions through patenting, licensing, spin-off formation and technology transfer. This emergent restrictive definition of universities’ societal impacts is a worrying development, overlooking the potential of universities’ knowledge in the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (HASS). Our hypothesis is that HASS disciplines’ disadvantage compared to the hard sciences (lesser policy attention and funding for commercialisation) arises because HASS stakeholders are not sufficiently salient as stakeholders to universities. Using case studies of three policy experiments, we argue that universities’ responsiveness to stakeholders does not evolve simply and functionally but in response to the networks of relationships in which they are situated. This has important implications for how stakeholder research is used in higher education research, and for the design and implementation of policies to improve universities’ societal contributions.

Strategic agency and institutional change: investigating the role of universities in regional innovation systems (RISs). Regional Studies. Past analyses rooted in the thick description of regions successful in constructing regional innovation systems have given way to analyses more focused on the intentionality in these processes, and how actors in regions with their own wider networks can shape these high-level changes in regional fortunes. As part of this, place-based leadership has emerged as a promising concept to restore both agency and territory to these discussions, but it remains under-theorized in key areas. This paper contributes to these debates by arguing that there remains a reduction of agency to organizations, and that place-based leadership research needs to take into account organizational dynamics and interests in for bettering our understanding of the dynamics of place-based leadership in regional innovation systems.

Universities are important players in the global development of knowledge economy, alongside being significant contributors to the economic development of their host cities. They are both significant knowledge enterprises and the suppliers of the human and intellectual capital on which the knowledge-based economy depends. What seems under-explored is how deliberative partnerships between universities and city authorities can develop around projects of mutual benefit, especially based on campus development. In this paper, with the help of five case studies (QUT, MIT, Harvard, Twente and Newcastle universities), we investigate how the spatial development of universities can be one of the main meeting points between the city and university and how it can be used for stimulating economic development and managing growth. These cases show that university—city collaborative initiatives focused on the university properties represent a desire to produce creative and competitive new urban spaces, which reinforce the position of the university and the city in global economy. They also show that these developments need to be jointly managed to avoid undesirable impacts on either side.

In this discussion paper, we outline and reflect on some of the key challenges that influence the development and uptake of more inclusive and responsible forms of research and innovation. Taking these challenges together, we invoke Collingridge’s famous dilemma of social control of technology to introduce a complementary dilemma that of ‘societal alignment’ in the governance of science, technology and innovation. Considerations of social alignment are scattered and overlooked among some communities in the field of science, technology and innovation policy. By starting to unpack this dilemma, we outline an agenda for further consideration of social alignment in the study of responsible research and innovation.

Universities are increasingly seen as potential contributors to regional innovative capacity by serving as local knowledge conduits, bringing global state-of-the-art science and technology into the region. In practice, however, more active university engagement with their regional innovation systems is not as straightforward as it may seem. The article uses examples from a successful case by which less successful regions could be inspired. Our analysis considers how various forms of technological learning intersecting within Lund University around three distinct sectoral engagement efforts have been built up and how this created new structural regional innovation capacity.