A GUIDE TO SOCIAL INNOVATION AND THE CURRICULUM

CONTACT USDomestic Enquiries

13 27 86 (within Australia)

+61 7 4930 9000 (outside Australia)

International Enquiries

03 9616 0606 (within Australia)

+61 3 9616 0606 (outside Australia)

www.cqu.edu.au

CRICOS Code: 00219C | RTO Code: 40939

Edition 1, May 2019

Published by CQUniversity Australia Rockhampton, Queensland.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Copyright Regulations 1969

WARNING

This Material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of CQUniversity

Australia pursuant to Part VB of the Copyright Act 1968 (the Act).

The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further

reproduction or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright

protection under the Act.

Do not remove this notice.

CQUniversity CRICOS Provider Codes: QLD - 00219C; NSW - 01315F; VIC - 01624D

Author: Dr Tobias Andreasson, Dr Linda De George-Walker, Veronika Simic, Bastian Thomsen

Internal Reviewer: Dr Nadine Adams, Dr Sherre Roy

External Reviewer:

Design/Desktop Publishing: Rolley Tickner

Acknowledgements: Lara Carton, Robin Dick, Shirley Boon (Case study work)

ISBN: 978-1-921047-76-3

CONTENTSINTRODUCTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4

The Office of Social Innovation ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4

WHAT IS SOCIAL INNOVATION? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

Social innovation definitions ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

Social innovation is a mindset and a process --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

Social innovation as an action focused process ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 6

Social innovation is not bound to any discipline ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 8

Social innovation and the growing demand to be innovative --------------------------------------------------- 8

SOCIAL INNOVATION AT CQUNIVERSITY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10

CQUniversity Strategic Intent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10

Ashoka U -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11

Ashoka U and CQUniversity --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11

Ashoka U’s Impact Spectrum as a framework for curriculum development ------------------------ 12

United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs) -------------------------------------------------- 14

SOCIAL INNOVATION EDUCATION AT CQUNIVERSITY ----------------------------------------------------------- 16

Unit design and course development ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 16

Questions to consider when addressing social innovation --------------------------------------------------- 19

When a unit has limited or no focus on social issues and social change ------------------------------ 19

When the unit has a focus on social issues and challenges -------------------------------------------------- 20

SOCIAL INNOVATION CASE STUDIES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22

Supporting Articles ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23

Bibliography ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24

CQUNIVERSITY

4

INTRODUCTIONThis Guide explains CQUniversity’s reasons for embedding social innovation in the context of a well-

established and comprehensive engagement agenda and Ashoka U Changemaker Campus accreditation.

It aims to assist and inspire academics to see themselves as key partners in CQUniversity’s broad social

innovation agenda and to feel more confident (and we hope, excited) about embedding social innovation in

their teaching practice and the curriculum.

CQUniversity does not expect every student to become a social innovator, instead the goal is to equip

them with practical skills, knowledge and experiences, so that they can realise and apply their potential for

implementing social change and impact now or in their future lives, careers and community – no matter

how big or small this may be, and no matter what they study.

In this Guide we define the term social innovation and provide some context to social innovation as

an activity that is already well established around the world and then how it links with the University’s

strategic intent, Ashoka U and CQUniversity’s Change Maker status and the Sustainable Development

Goals (SDGs). This background information is helpful when thinking about how to address and embed

social innovation skills, knowledge and experiences into courses and units, which is required to meet the

graduate attributes.

This Guide is a dynamic work-in-progress that we envision to be collaboratively enhanced in later editions

to reflect feedback, research and practical experiences from across the University. It is not a stand alone

document but will be supported by additional resources developed by us at the Office of Social Innovation.

If you are asked to embed social innovation and feel unsure or confused, reach out to us. We are seeking

any feedback or comments about this Guide or additional information and training you would like.

Please note, this guide contains several hyperlinks, which means it is best viewed as an online document.

THE OFFICE OF SOCIAL INNOVATIONIf you’d like to reach out to us, visit our website or email us and we will get back to you.

https://www.cqu.edu.au/industry-and-partnerships/

engagement/social-innovation/office-of-social-innovation

socialinnovation@cqu.edu.au

A GUIDE TO SOCIAL INNOVATION IN THE CURRICULUM

WHAT IS SOCIAL INNOVATION?

SOCIAL INNOVATION DEFINITIONSCQUniversity defines social innovation as “Engaging with our communities to address entrenched social

issues”. It builds on the University’s engagement agenda and it is an important part of its vision and

values.

There are many other definitions of social innovation. Two commonly referred to definitions explain it in the

following ways:

“Social innovation is . . . a novel solution to a social problem that is more effective, efficient, sustainable,

or just than current solutions. The value created accrues primarily to society rather than to private

individuals.” (Phillis, Deiglmeier, & Miller, 2008)

“Social innovation is about new ideas that work to address pressing unmet needs . . . innovations

that are both social in their ends and in their means. Social innovations are new ideas (products,

services and models) that simultaneously meet social needs and create new social relationships or

collaborations.” (Murray, Calulier-Grice & Mulgan, 2010)

Even though innovation is often understood as something novel or new, Associate Professor Ingrid

Burkett, (Yunus Centre, Griffith Business School and Associate at The Australian Centre for Social

Innovation), clarifies that social innovation can also be something that is better than what was before:

“Social innovation… [is] the design and implementation of better ways to harness assets and meet

needs, for the benefit of people and the planet” (Ingrid Burkett)

SOCIAL INNOVATION IS A MINDSET AND A PROCESSWhilst the above definitions are useful, when trying to understand or explain social innovation, it can

be helpful to clarify that it is a methodology or process to identify and solve entrenced social problems,

often with the people who are facing the problems directly (TEPSIE, 2014). The philosophy, or mindset,

underpinning the process is driven by the simple intent to improve the lives of people, their communities,

and natural ecosystems; creating positive change within the world around us. A ‘social innovation’ is

therefore the outcome of this process, as identified in the above definitions.

The assumption behind or justification for social innovation, is that to identify and solve many of the

world’s complex, or so-called ‘wicked problems’ or ‘grand challenges’, we require an innovative and

collaborative approach, with people who can think creatively and differently about how to explore problems

and address the underlying causes.

Mindset

believing we

can do better

together

Process

nurturing and

encouraging

innovation

Social

Innovation

5

CQUNIVERSITY

6

SOCIAL INNOVATION AS AN ACTION FOCUSED PROCESSBecause it is focused on finding new or better solutions to problems, social innovation, as a practice,

is action focused. When we ‘do’ social innovation, as an activity, we engage in a strategic and iterative

process with other people; we develop the habit to try, test and learn through practice and failures.

What this process looks like may change depending on the people involved, the theories informing our

practice, the context we work in and what outcomes we are trying to achieve. Over time, CQUniversity

students will have the opportunity to experience the different steps in the process and build up their skills,

knowledges and experiences.

The common steps or stages in the social innovation process (as a practice):

(Adapted from Nesta, n.d., https://www.nesta.org.uk/feature/innovation-methods/)

Even though the spiral looks neat and linear, it fails to convey how the processes is often messy and

iterative with different parts of the steps requiring either divergent or convergent thinking, i.e. thinking

that is broad and open (e.g. brainstorming) or sharp and focused (designing a prototype). A social

innovation project does not have to go through all of the steps, instead NESTA’s spiral or process should

be understood as an analytical framework that can be used to unpack, but also demystify, what social

innovation is all about.

The steps are sometimes called different things, or some are conflated, but their purpose and intent are

usually the same:

1. This is the discovery step. The aim is to explore and understand the challenges or problems that exists and what the unmet needs are (the opportunities). This step can involve the people who face the problem, whose unmet needs we will focus on. This step can use ethnographic research methods, generative design research, human centred design, sensemaking, Big Data and/or academic research.

2. This is the ideation and designing step. The aim is to respond to the problems and explore different ways we can meet the needs of those facing the problem. It can start with ‘wild’ ideations, where all ideas are welcomed and end with a more focused design concept. This step can use different creative ways to spark and generate ideas and tools to develop and design solutions.

2

13

4

5

6

7Generating ideas and designing

Developing and testing

Opportunities and challenges

Making the case

Delivering and implementing

Growing and scaling

Changing systems

A GUIDE TO SOCIAL INNOVATION IN THE CURRICULUM

7

3. This is the trialling and prototyping step. The aim is to develop the test the proposed solutions in context, with people. It is a trial and error step, with a lot of iterations and tweaking. This step can use different prototypes, which can be used to test assumptions held by all involved.

4. This is the development and evaluation step. The aim is to start making the case that the solution will have desired benefits for those who face the problem initially, but also that it is financially viable and practically feasible. This step can use more developed prototypes and pilots, but also an economic model, a program logic, a theory of change, and/or service blue prints.

5. This is the implementation step. The aim is to plan and manage what is required to deliver and implement the solution. It can build on previous steps, but with a focus on what inputs, activities and resources will be needed to deliver it.

6. This is the scaling step. Even though it may not be part of all projects, or appropriate for all projects, the aim would be to identify how the solution can be scaled so that it can have more significant impact. This step may focus on developing the economic or growth model to identify how the solution can be spread and implemented more widely.

7. This is the transformational step. The ultimate aim for social innovation is systemic change (or framework change, see Ashoka U’s Impact Spectrum). For example, a solution that have enough cultural or social impact to influence policy or legislative changes. This is not easy and few social innovation projects can claim they do this. It requires a good understanding about the systems that the problems exist within and the dynamics that keeps those systems in place. Even though it is difficult to change systems, systems thinking is becoming more and more important in social innovation practices and should inform the first steps.

For each step, there are many methods and tools that can assist us in being more innovative or creative

when engaging with people in our communities or thinking about new ideas and solutions (see below:

How to be innovative).

Even though social innovation, as a practice, is action focused, there is a growing body of research (both

theoretical and empirical) about social innovation and social enterprises (which may or may not be social

innovations). For example, see The European Public & Social Innovation Review (EPSIR). There is, however,

no distinct or agreed upon, ‘social innovation theory’, instead different theories often inform the different

steps or elements of the practice. As a standalone discipline or well-articulated pedagogical practice, it

is therefore in its early days. The steps above, however, can be used to guide exercises, assignments

and research for students by making the process more tangible and identify that it is often a disciplined

practice, requiring a lot of work and planning.

HOW TO BE INNOVATIVE? In order to be innovative, or think differently about a social problem, many people use approaches, methods and tools that have links to the design discipline. It can be Design Thinking, Design Research and Generative Research Tools, Service Design, Human Centred Design, Systems Design, Co-Design, Scenarios, Personas, and Prototyping. What they all share is a focus on the doing and testing with people. They are iterative and creative ways of working that can be used in any discipline, with a bit of support and training, to help us re-frame a problem, explore it from different perspectives and come up with ideas and solutions that we (or the community) didn’t see initially.

Please contact the Office of Social Innovation to find out when training is provided using these approaches or if you need any support with this in your teaching practice.

CQUNIVERSITY

SOCIAL INNOVATION IS NOT BOUND TO ANY DISCIPLINESocial innovation is not bound to any specific discipline, since they can all play a part in creating positive

social outcomes. It is an activity that all students can be involved in, requiring many of the 21st century

skills (see quote below) that are identified as becoming more and more essential for graduates. Therefore,

it can be embedded into any course and contribute to graduates who are capable and passionate about

creating a better world, as ‘Change Makers’ (see Ashoka U).

It is worthwhile to note that social innovation doesn’t have to be transformative or disruptive, even though

the ultimate aim is to change or improve a system that is persistently producing negative outcomes. In

fact, social innovation, like the definitions allude to, can be as simple as a tweaked or improved service

that will lead to better outcomes for those using it, it can be a new way for a community to engage and

make decisions that matters for them, a new social enterprise that empowers people with a disability or it

can be a new tool that improves people’s health. Systemic changes can happen when many of these small

levers are intentionally changed across a system or when new policies are introduced (Ashoka U’s Impact

Spectrum, explored later, provides a framework for understanding social impact).

21ST CENTURY COMPETENCIES“The changing global landscape of work and lifestyle ushers in a mass demand for new individual and collective skills. Knowledge becomes contextualized and collectively constructed, therefore specific skills become less relevant than the meta-skills necessary to construct knowledge, including the diversity of thinking styles, collective intelligence, empathy, etc. “Soft skills”, such as collaboration, communication, or creative thinking, are increasingly needed for employability and successful career-building and vocational satisfaction as well as higher quality of life and deeper levels of citizenship participation and contribution. These shifts are amplified by accelerated structural changes of global markets and supply chains, massive job destruction and job creation driven by the influx of technological and social innovations, and proliferation of new global technological, financial and environmental standards.” (http://www.globaledufutures.org/images/people/GEF_april26-min.pdf)

SOCIAL INNOVATION AND THE GROWING DEMAND TO BE INNOVATIVE

“The field of social innovation is now beginning to gather momentum, with significant investment from

foundations, governments and business, as well as the efforts of grassroots organisations and ordinary

people in their everyday lives.” (TEPSI 2015)

Social Innovation is now a term used across the world in a range of sectors and contexts. It can be helpful

to understand that it is a term that is used by a diverse range of people and groups, influencing policies

and Governments globally. For examples, see:

» Policy Lab UK,

» the Finnish Government’s Innovation Policy,

» CITRA Sri Lanka’s first Social Innovation Lab, and

» Canada’s Social Innovation and Social Finance Strategy.

8

A GUIDE TO SOCIAL INNOVATION IN THE CURRICULUM

Australian examples include:

» South Australian Public Sector Innovation Lab,

» NSW Government’s Innovation Strategy, and

» the Federal Government’s $96.1 million Trial, Test and Learn fund.

Innovations to tackle societal challenges is also being pursued by the European Commission with:

» Horizon 2020, which is the biggest EU Research and Innovation programme ever,

» the 2018 Lisbon Social Innovation Declaration advocating for social innovation among EU’s member states, and

» Social Innovation Competition (now in its seventh year).

Social Innovation is also a growing focus for philanthropists and funders, see for example:

» McConnell Foundation’s work in Canada

» Vincent Fairfax Family Foundation and the Dusseldorp Forum’s work with The Australian Centre for Social Innovation.

It has been adopted by international non-governmental organisations:

» BRAC

» Oxfam

Innovation is a focus for local service providers, universities across

the world (see Ashoka U section below), cities (such as Seoul’s Social

Innovation Strategy), political organisations and social enterprises.

For a brief overview of how social innovation has spread around the work in the last 10 years, see Geoff Mulgan’s (CEO of innovation foundation Nesta in the UK) 2017 piece, Social Innovation – the Last and Next Decade.

9

CQUNIVERSITY

10

SOCIAL INNOVATION AT CQUNIVERSITY

CQUNIVERSITY STRATEGIC INTENT At CQUniversity, engagement and social innovation have been at the core of our strategic vision for some

time and will continue to be prominent in the new strategy developed by Professor Nick Klomp, Vice-

Chancellor and President at CQUniversity. CQUniversity thus strives to empower its students, staff, and

alumni to make a difference, create impact, and influence the world in which we live, for the betterment of

society.

In mid-2018, CQUniversity launched the Changemaker Strategic Directions document. This document

is aspirational in nature and reflects the University’s desire to evidence the impact of the work that it’s

undertaking in various research and project activities to making genuine social impact. The document

outlines five broad thematic areas of Bright Youth Futures; Healthy and Connected Communities;

Partnership with First Nations’ People; Sustainable Regional Development; and Caring for Our Planet under

which much of the University’s expertise and ongoing and emerging projects can be grouped.

The document links these activities to the underpinning initiatives of the Office of Social Innovation –

namely region-based initiatives, student-led initiatives and curriculum and internship opportunities for

students.

Finally, the Changemaker Directions also link to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (UN

SDGs), allowing the work of the University to be aligned with that of other institutions and individuals

striving for a more just, equitable and sustainable world.

The illustration below visually demonstrates the links between the Changemaker Directions, current

University projects, the work of the Office of Social Innovation and the United Nations’ Sustainable

Development Goals.

CHANGEMAKERS, CQUNIVERSITY, AND UN SDGs

A GUIDE TO SOCIAL INNOVATION IN THE CURRICULUM

11

The CQUniversity Social Innovation Strategy 2016-2021 provides an overview of the short, medium- and

longer-term activities the University is pursuing to develop and strengthen its position as thought and

practice leader for social innovation tertiary education in the areas of: Teaching and Curriculum, Community

and Culture, Research, Leadership, Applied Learning, and Strategy and Resources.

ASHOKA UAshoka U is a global group of member colleges and universities recognised for their leadership in social

innovation education. It is an initiative from Ashoka, the world’s largest network of social entrepreneurs

and works with universities, students, and communities to promote and catalyse social innovation and

nurture social entrepreneurs within higher education across the world (see Ashoka U’s Vision). It is

important that all staff understands what Ashoka U is about, how it is shaping the social innovation agenda

at CQUniversity, and how it should be seen as a resource and point of difference that CQUniversity and all

staff can continue to learn and draw from.

ASHOKA U’S VISIONAshoka U believes that colleges and universities play an important role in serving the needs of students, employers, communities, and the world. We ultimately envision a day when every college and university have changemaking embedded into their DNA and:

» Cultivate students as changemakers with broad-based skills in systems thinking, empathy, collaboration, and creative problem-solving.

» Employ problem-based and experiential learning approaches. » Invest in new structures and norms that increase multi-disciplinarity, cross-campus collaboration, blending of theory and practice, and integration with local communities.

» Are adaptive, resilient, innovative, and collaborative organisations, increasingly breaking down traditional silos and hierarchies.

» Create positive social and environmental impact by leveraging knowledge, assets, and resources to address local and global challenges

Taken from: https://ashokau.org/about/what-we-do/

ASHOKA U AND CQUNIVERSITYIn 2016, CQUniversity successfully gained formal Ashoka U designation as a Changemaker Campus.

CQUniversity is the first, and at the time of this publication, only Australian university to be part of

Ashoka U Changemaker Campus initiative. This formal recognition extends far beyond what may seem

at first glance to be an additional regulatory body: Ashoka U is not only a socially innovative non-profit

organisation, but more importantly, a partner for CQUniversity to share social innovation expertise

globally, with more than 40 universities participating. The process to call oneself a Changemaker Campus

is rigorous and CQUniversity’s embrace of social innovation at the institutional level means it is one of

the leaders when it comes to social innovation in global higher education. Ashoka U and CQUniversity’s

alliance is expanded in greater detail under the strategy section of this document. Feel free to contact the

Office of Social Innovation if you want to discuss how you may leverage our connections at Ashoka U.

CQUNIVERSITY

ASHOKA U’S IMPACT SPECTRUM AS A FRAMEWORK FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT The Ashoka U Impact Spectrum is a guide for all social innovators (organisations, employees, students,

government workers, academic staff, etc.) that can be used to understand and to be clear about different

levels of social impact. It can also help to contextualise what social innovation means in practice.

The four levels Direct Service, Scaled Direct Service, Systems Change, and Framework Change, empower

social innovators to decide what type of social impact they want to engage in, and ideally, what steps

are necessary in order to have more significant impact. As shown in the Ashoka U Impact Spectrum, it is

typical to start thinking of social innovation and impact in a local, person-to-person atmosphere in a direct

service model. This can be initial goal for a new local social enterprise. To move down to the subsequent

level of impact, the service has been scaled and the expected level of impact increases; more people

are positively impacted by the service (Scaled Direct Service). Systems Changes are more disruptive and

require an understanding about an entire system, the impact is beyond the service and goes to the core of

an issue, while Framework Changes have an even larger transformative impact and go beyond a singular

system. Both systems changes and framework changes are rare and difficult in practice, but should be

considered by all social innovators when deciding how to impact the most people possible in his or her

endeavour, if appropriate. A systems change or framework change is often what is required to tackle some

of the so-called wicked problems that exists in our world.

Academic staff can assist students to critically evaluate a social innovation through this framework,

by using case studies (examples below), organisational modelling and development, project-based

assignments, in-class discussions, etc. To better understand the ‘big picture’, or ‘why’, the Ashoka U

Impact Spectrum should ideally be considered in relation to the United Nations Sustainable Development

Goals (UN SDGs), discussed in the following section.

12

A GUIDE TO SOCIAL INNOVATION IN THE CURRICULUM

13

ASHOKA U IMPACT SPECTRUMhttps://ashokau.org/blog/rethinking-the-impact-spectrum/

Level of Impact Description Examples

Direct Service Work in populations needing

services, food, and/or a direct

benefit to their wellbeing.

Direct service has a clear and

concrete feedback loop – you can

see hungry people being fed;

students are gaining skills and

confidence through mentorship;

or the clients getting legal help.

Soup kitchens, small-scale

mentoring programs for

students, legal services for

community members.

Scaled Direct Service Models that unlock efficiency and

impact through well-managed

logistics of an intervention or

solution. Scaled Direct Service

benefits large numbers of

individuals.

The Red Cross, AmeriCorps, or

large-scale refugee resettlement

programs.

Systems Change A new model that is addressing

the root cause of a problem. It

often involves policy change,

widespread adoption of a

specific methodology by leading

organisations in a sector, or

creates new behaviors within an

existing market or ecosystem.

Micro-credit was a fundamentally

new innovation for women

to lift themselves out of

poverty. B-Corporations rethink

corporate responsibility.

Wikipedia democratises the way

information is shared online.

Framework Change Framework Change affects

individual mindsets at a large

scale, which will ultimately

change behaviors across society

as a whole. While Framework

Change is not a specific field-

level or country-level intervention,

it compounds the work of many

individual organisations to create

a paradigm shift.

Universal Human Rights,

Women’s Rights, Civil Rights,

Democracy, or the idea of Social

Entrepreneurship.

CQUNIVERSITY

14

UNITED NATIONS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS (UNSDGs)

“The Sustainable Development Goals are the blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable

future for all. They address the global challenges we face, including those related to poverty, inequality,

climate, environmental degradation, prosperity, and peace and justice. The Goals interconnect and in

order to leave no one behind, it is important that we achieve each Goal and target by 2030.”

(UN SDGs https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/).

Because the SDGs are linked to persistent, complex, wicked or grand global challenges, social innovation

can be understood as an activity and process we can engage with in order to address these challenges. In

this regard, the SDGs can be used to inspire and encourage conversations about social innovation and its

importance across our world.

The SDGs are the successors of the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which ran from 2000-

2015. The MDGs were largely considered a success as they promoted basic human rights for every citizen

of the globe. The SDGs expanded from eight MDGs to 17 SDGs, in an attempt to redress the complexities

of poverty and environmental degradation such as climate change. If three or more goals are worked on in

any given project, all 17 goals are impacted either directly or indirectly. The scope of the SDGs pertains to

most social innovation issues; see link here: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/why-the-sdgs-

matter/. The link provides an overview of each goal.

A GUIDE TO SOCIAL INNOVATION IN THE CURRICULUM

At CQUniversity, staff, with support from the Office of Social Innovation, are encouraged to develop

courses and units that start to equip students with a kit of skills to make a real, and sustainable

development impact that can not only make a positive difference in a local community, but also contribute

to a greater cause. Social innovation, therefore, has the potential to ameliorate negative socio-economic

and environmental conditions that, despite some positive improvements, persist. Incorporating the Ashoka

U Impact Spectrum framework and the SDGs should provide the ‘big picture’ context of social innovation

within and across various disciplines.

For an insight into work CQUniversity is doing in relation to the SDGs, see United Nations Principles of

Responsible Management Education (UNPRME). CQUniversity has been a member of the UNPRME since

2015.

15

CQUNIVERSITY

16

SOCIAL INNOVATION EDUCATION AT CQUNIVERSITY

“Social innovation education, if embedded into any subject area, enhances the core curriculum through

a focus on creative social problem solving”

(Rivers et al. 2015, p, 5)

The embedding of wide-scale access to social innovation education for all CQUniversity students through

curricular and extra-curricular learning opportunities and programs will provide students with skills,

knowledge and experiences for active citizenship, tools for collaborative problem solving, critical and

creative thinking, and entrepreneurial and innovative practice necessary for activating social innovation

in community or career. In addition to contributing to long term and sustainable development in our

communities and society, all of our students will benefit through the strengthening of 21st-century

employability skills and opportunities that socially innovative mindsets and skills bring.

In 2017, Academic Board approved the inclusion of a new graduate attribute that embeds a social

innovation ethos firmly within the University undergraduate curriculum. This new graduate attribute comes

with a procedural mechanism for staff to incorporate and document social innovation at unit and course

level where appropriate. The following details the current suite of graduate attributes and how the new

graduate attribute for social innovation has been integrated.

CQUNIVERSITY SOCIAL INNOVATION UNDERGRADUATE GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES UG Graduate Attributes Category 1: Generic Skills » Communication » Information literacy » Team work » Information technology competence

Category 2: Intellectual Nurturing » Problem solving » Critical thinking » Cross-cultural competence » Ethical practice » Social innovation mindset

Social Innovation Mindset » Introductory level – Explain social issues and the attributes, motivations, skills, roles and actions that underpin positive social change and impact.

» Intermediate level – Engage in reflective self-evaluation to identify ones’ own social changemaker capacities and growth areas.

» Graduate level – Articulate the potential for positive social change and impact in one’s discipline and career futures.

UNIT DESIGN AND COURSE DEVELOPMENTAs a result of the new social innovation graduate attribute, staff will need to consider the following when

creating a new undergraduate unit or course proposal, or adjusting existing ones:

» How will the proposed course enable students to develop a ‘social innovation mindset’?

» How is social innovation (or elements of SI) addressed in the proposed unit?

As identified above, there is a requirement that all undergraduate courses offered at CQUniversity are

enabling a social innovation mindset among its graduates.

A GUIDE TO SOCIAL INNOVATION IN THE CURRICULUM

17

In order to embed social innovation into courses and units, CQUniversity has three minimum targets

for undergraduate students, providing options depending on course requirements (see CQUniversity

undergraduate program requirements). It is encouraged that even units that appear to have little to do with

social innovation consider ways they can contribute to the graduate attributes and address elements of

social innovation.

CQUNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM TARGETS TARGET - By Term 1, 2021 RECOMMENDED ACTION

TARGET 1 – for Introductory Level of Social Innovation Mindset All first-year students have the opportunity to complete an orientation to SI at CQUniversity as required component of course curriculum.

Schools to embed the CQUniversity iChange program in one first-year unit in each course (Term 1 preferable), with the iChange program replacing content for one to two modules of study and assessed (e.g., iChange quizzes).

TARGET 2 – for Introductory to Intermediate Levels of Social Innovation Mindset All students as part of their undergraduate course, have the opportunity to complete foundational studies in SI, equivalent to at least one unit of study.

OPTION ASchools include in required structure of each undergraduate course an existing unit that has a specific SI or social change focus. There are two identified units that provide foundational SI relevant content and enable students to reflect on social challenges and social change: » MGMT11167 Foundations

of Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship, or

» SOCL11059 Introduction to Social Change

Recommended for courses that can gain external accreditation approval for inclusion of these units, or for courses with no accreditation requirements.

OPTION BSchools to redevelop or reframe an existing course unit or units to include explicit foundational SI content equivalent to one full unit of study.

The Office of Social Innovation can provide support and additional resources that can help staff embed social innovation skills, knowledge or experiences into units, assessments and/or activities.

Recommended for courses that cannot gain external accreditation approval for inclusion of these units

TARGET 3 for Graduate Level of Social Innovation Mindset All students as part of their undergraduate course, have the opportunity to engage in critique about the role of SI for their discipline and career futures.

Schools to include opportunities for students to reflect, analyse and evaluate social innovation in the context of the discipline within one or more units in the latter stages of a course.

Target 1 is through the online iChange course modules, where students are introduced to social

innovation as a concept. The program introduces ways social innovation can be implemented in any

discipline and provides students different ways to become involved on campus or in their local community

(e.g., staff who engage in service-learning projects).

Heads of courses need to consider in which unit the iChange course module can be best incorporated.

The Office of Social Innovation can provide support with this in order to make sure the module is

contextualised in the relevant discipline and is embedded in the teaching practice.

Target 2 provides the most critical opportunity for all academic staff to engage with social innovation in

their own discipline. Currently, Schools have two options to choose from to meet Target 2 (refer to options

A and B). Both options are acceptable, and academic staff should discuss which option best suits their

Schools’ needs and capacity. The Office of Social Innovation can help facilitate discussion if needed.

For Option A, students will enrol in existing units that have a specific social innovation focus.

CQUNIVERSITY

The alternative approach (Option B) is for each program to either embed social innovation across their

degree program, or create a specific social innovation designated unit, such as through a service-learning

based project. The questions in the next section can guide thinking around how to identify whether or not

a unit or course is already addressing social innovation or how it can be adjusted.

Target 3 engages students through practical, often applied, experiences and reflection opportunities to

emphasise how social innovation applies in their field and their career futures. It will provide students with

an understanding about their own educational journey and how they are able to contribute and have social

impact, whatever their discipline is.

Academic staff may leverage several mediums in this regard, including specifically-designed outbound

learning opportunities (e.g., taking a group of students to work on a social innovation related project),

Work-Integrated Learning (e.g., where students traditionally work in an internship or placement setting

as required per their program, but with a social innovation element), in the Social Innovation Studio

(residential opportunity for students to be paired with industry partners to address problems in a socially

innovative way on a project), or through capstone units/courses. Reflection methods such as group

discussions in the unit/course, diaries, and ‘exit surveys’ when students complete the degree program

are prime opportunities to assess the impact of social innovation on the curriculum and student’s social

innovation mindset.

Academic staff should work with the Office of Social Innovation to ensure the appropriate medium for

their course/unit/degree program, as some external accrediting bodies require certain objectives or criteria

to be met.

18

A GUIDE TO SOCIAL INNOVATION IN THE CURRICULUM

19

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER WHEN ADDRESSING SOCIAL INNOVATION Some units are already including social innovation related learning outcomes, even though they may not

identify them as such, while others can easily be tweaked or adjusted. Of course, for some units, it may

not be appropriate to include social innovation or elements of social innovation and this decision will sit

with relevant Heads of Course, Unit Coordinators and Lecturers However, the Office of Social Innovation

can provide support with this if it is not clear and evident how this can be achieved.

There are some basic questions staff can ask to identify if elements of social innovation are being offered

to the student, or if they could be offered. When this is the case, it can be helpful to articulate this to

the students, so that they can make the connections and understand that this part of their unit (e.g.

assignment or task) will inform their social innovation skills, knowledges and experiences and contribute to

shaping their social innovation mindset.

WHEN A UNIT HAS LIMITED OR NO FOCUS ON SOCIAL ISSUES AND SOCIAL CHANGEThese questions are meant to indicate how aspects of social innovation practices and processes can be

experienced even when units are not socially focused. They are not conclusive but can work as a guide,

indicating elements of social innovation can be one of the learning outcomes. The purpose is that there

may be an opportunity for staff to be clearer about how, and which, learning outcomes relate to social

innovation and how they can nurture a social innovation mindset. If this connection is made, students can

better understand how their assignments or tasks provide them with skills, knowledge or experiences

they can use for social innovation and beyond their degree or occupation.

» Does the unit provide opportunities for students to explore and identify the systems they work or live in so they can understand how different elements and disciplines within and across systems are interconnected?

Yes: Students will understand their own relationships to systems and how they can have an impact

and influence that goes beyond their immediate and more narrow focus. This is one of the first steps

for students to develop a social innovation mindset and see themselves as a ‘Change Maker’, whatever

their discipline may be.

» Does the unit encourage students to critically test their assumptions about their discipline and chosen profession / area of study?

Yes: Students will understand the importance of testing assumptions, which is fundamental to social

innovation and learn ways to test them. This can open their realisation that they should not have to

confine themselves in disciplinary silos and that they may use their skills and knowledges in places they

have not yet identified or encountered.

CQUNIVERSITY

20

» Does the unit encourage and enable students to seek input and advice from people outside the students’ field or in the community?

Yes: Students will communicate and engage with ‘real’ people and learn different ways to seek other’s

feedback and inputs. This is a starting point for human centred design practices that can be applied in

most situations when working with, and learning from, people outside their normal sphere.

» Does this unit provide opportunities for students to work in diverse groups and experience team dynamics and different roles?

Yes: Students will learn that the notion of the ‘lone genius’ is often incorrect and instead the fact is that

in most projects, we need to work with other people to achieve the best results. To be comfortable and

confident working with others in a respectful and positive way is a key requirement in most work places

and when trying to come up with better ideas or opportunities.

» Does the unit enable students to learn away from traditional classroom setting and ‘in situ’ (i.e. in a real context)?

Yes: Students will actively engage in contextual learning situations and deal with ‘real’ challenges. This

will set students up for being in situations that are less predictable and potentially more ambiguous.

This type of active service learning can be more abductive (e.g. observing what could be, responding,

testing, iterating and testing again), which is linked to design processes that underpin a lot of social

innovation practices.

» Does the unit include creative practices or design work that focuses on problem solving?

Yes: Students will learn processes that are used to solve problems, which is the experimental part

of the social innovation process. It is a process that may apply in different context, but the skills,

knowledges and experiences it builds can be applied in social innovation and during the more creative

phases; the design or testing steps.

WHEN THE UNIT HAS A FOCUS ON SOCIAL ISSUES AND CHALLENGESThese questions can be considered if there is a focus on social issues and challenges, but it hasn’t

previously been linked to social innovation. When this is the case, it may just require a re-framing or

re-articulation to indicate how this is in fact addressing social innovation and will contribute to a social

innovation mindset.

All questions below are key elements that will encourage and enable a student to become a ‘Change

Maker’. If the answer is ‘yes’, the unit does include an element that can be linked to social innovation

process or practice. Here social innovation is not an add on, but an already established learning outcome

within that unit.

» Does this unit explore complex social and community problems that impact people and planet?

» Does this unit expose students to case studies of social change from a variety of sectors and contexts?

» Does this unit encourage students to explore ethical and moral issues associated with social problems and change?

A GUIDE TO SOCIAL INNOVATION IN THE CURRICULUM

» Does this unit encourage students to self-evaluate and develop insights into their own personal and social attributes, motivations, and capacities for social and community change?

» Does this unit expose students to one or more of the ways to respond effectively and innovatively to social and community problems?

» Does this unit explore appropriate social change methods or actively employ teaching and learning strategies that model these methods?

» Does this unit encourage students to apply discipline-specific skills, tools and ways of thinking to understand and respond to social and community issues?

» Does this unit provide students with the opportunity to develop their skills in the design and communication of responses to social and community problems?

» Does this unit enable students to form collaborative multi-disciplinary teams or community partnerships to address social and community problems?

» Does this unit develop students’ skills for evaluation of social change initiatives in terms of social outcomes and impact?

» Does this unit encourage students to participate in or lead local or international social change projects that address social or community issues and problems?

21

CQUNIVERSITY

22

SOCIAL INNOVATION CASE STUDIES One of the key objectives of the Office of Social innovation is to embed social innovation principles,

understanding and application across the University, including within the curriculum, research,

extracurricular activities, and engagement with external communities.

The use of case studies has been identified as best practice in presenting social innovation in action

and evidencing its impact. Case studies can provide insight, new learnings and understanding of applied

actions and their outcomes, including failure. They also provide an important resource platform for the

initiation of conversation, exploration and debate around particular topic areas.

“The vehicle by which a chunk of reality is brought into the classroom to be worked over by the class

and the instructor. A good case keeps the class discussion grounded upon some of the stubborn facts

that must be faced in real life situations” (Christensen, 1981).

The core objective of these case studies is to provide Schools and academic discipline areas with social

innovation examples that facilitate staff discussion and enable instructors to identify and embed social

innovation curriculum opportunities within existing courses, units, learning objectives, course content and

learning activities, and/or assessment.

» Social innovation case studies (CQUniversity internal)

» Social innovation case studies (CQUniversity external)

SUPPORTING ARTICLESTeaching with scenarios: a social innovation to foster learning and social change in times of great

uncertainty: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40309-016-0105-1

Social Innovation Simulation Model and Scenarios:

http://www.simpact-project.eu/publications/reports/SIMPACT_D21.pdf

A GUIDE TO SOCIAL INNOVATION IN THE CURRICULUM

23

ADDITIONAL RESOURCESYOUTUBE PRESENTATIONS AND VIDEOSIDEO.ORG. (n.d). What is Human-Centred Design? [Video file]. Retrieved from

http://www.designkit.org/human-centered-design

IDEO.ORG. (n.d.). Learn from Failure [Video file]. Retrieved from

http://www.designkit.org/mindsets/1

Keen. (2016, August 17). Bisociation Idea Generation [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeZ21W-3dkE

KL Kennisland. (2014, January 1). How to work with wicked problems? [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrWbicvDLPw

Project Innovation. (2012). Developing an innovation mindset [Video file]. Retrieved from

http://www.socialinnovationtoolkit.com/innovation-mindset.html

Rivers, B. A. (2015, March 31). Introduction to Social Innovation [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed0E48boEO4

TEDx Talks. (2014, December 1). The power of Social Innovation| Jeff Snell| TEDxUWMilwaukee [Video

file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH53mGNPI80

HANDOUTS AND ACTIVITIES“What is effectuation?”. (2011). Retrieved from

http://www.effectuation.org/sites/default/files/documents/effectuation-3-pager.pdf

Curtis, T., Burke, L., & Lance, J. (2014, June 4). Changemaker Handbook 3rd Edition. Retrieved from

https://issuu.com/cirtistim/docs/cm_complete_booklet_june_14

Horn, R.E. (2008). Comparing Ill-Structured and “Tame” Problems. Retrieved from

http://stanford.edu/~rhorn/a/kmap/mess/CmprngIlStrctrd7Tame.pdf

RECOMMENDED READINGConklin, J. (2006). Wicked Problems and Social Complexity. In Dialog Mapping: Building Shared

Understanding of Wicked Problems, John Wiley & Sons, 3–41. Napa, CA: CogNexus Institute

Frost & Sullivan. (2014). Social Innovation Whitepaper: Social Innovations to Answer Society’s Challenges.

Retrieved from https://www.hds.com/en-us/pdf/white-paper/social-innovation-mega-trends-to-answer-

society-challenges-whitepaper.pdf

Horn, R.E., & Weber, R. P. (2007). New Tools for Resolving Wicked Problems: Mess Mapping and

Resolution Mapping Processes. Retrieved from

http://www.strategykinetics.com/New_Tools_For_Resolving_Wicked_Problems.pdf

CQUNIVERSITY

24

Mulgan, G, Tucker, S, Ali, R & Sanders, B. (2007). Social Innovation: What it is, why it matters and how it

can be accelerated. Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship.

Murray, R & Caulier-Grice, J & Mulgan, Geoff. (2010). The Open Book of Social Innovation: Ways to Design,

Develop and Grow Social Innovations. The Young Foundation & NESTA. Retrieved from

https://youngfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/The-Open-Book-of-Social-Innovationg.pdf

Oxfam GB (2017). An economy for the 99%. Retrieved fromhttps://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/

files/file_attachments/bp-economy-for-99-percent-160117-en.pdf

TEPSIE. (2014). Social Innovation Theory and Research: A Summary of the Findings from TEPSIE. A

deliverable of the project: The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation

in Europe (TEPSIE), European Commission – 7th Framework Programme, Brussels: European

Commission, DG Research. Retrieved from

http://www.tepsie.eu/images/documents/research_report_final_web.pdf

UNRISD (2016). Policy Innovations for Transformative Change: Implementing the 2030 Agenda for

Sustainable Development. UNRISD, Geneva.

JOURNALS » European Public & Social Innovation Review

» European Journal of Innovation Management

» Stanford Social Innovation Review

ADDITIONAL CASE STUDIESAshoka Changemakers. (2016-2017). Ashoka Changemakers.

Retrieved from https://www.changemakers.com/ideas

IDEO.ORG. (n.d.) Case Studies. Retrieved from http://www.designkit.org/case-studies

LinkedIn Corporation. (2018). Social Frontiers: The Next Edge of Social Innovation Research [PowerPoint

slides]. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/SocialFrontiers/presentations

Oikos. (n.d). Cases Program. Retrieved from https://oikos-international.org/programmes/cases-program/

BIBLIOGRAPHYAamodt, A. M. (1991). Ethnography and epistemology: Generating nursing knowledge. Qualitative nursing

research: A contemporary dialogue, 40-53.

Ali, N. S., Carlton, K. H., & Ali, O. S. (2015). Telehealth education in nursing curricula. Nurse educator, 40(5),

266-269.

Amadei, B., Sandekian, R., & Thomas, E. (2009). A model for sustainable humanitarian engineering

projects. Sustainability, 1(4), 1087-1105.

Assembly, U. G. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. UN General Assembly.

A GUIDE TO SOCIAL INNOVATION IN THE CURRICULUM

25

Aydalot, P., & Keeble, D. (2018). High technology industry and innovative environments: the European

experience. Routledge.

Barba-Sánchez, V., & Atienza-Sahuquillo, C. (2018). Entrepreneurial intention among engineering students:

The role of entrepreneurship education. European Research on Management and Business

Economics, 24(1), 53-61.

Benneworth, P., Amanatidou, E., Edwards Schachter, M., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2014). Social innovation

futures: beyond policy panacea and conceptual ambiguity. European Forum for Studies of Policies for

Research and Innovation.

Benneworth, P., Cunha, J. (2015). Universities’ contributions to social innovation: reflections in theory &

practice. European Journal of Innovation Management, 18(4), 508-527.

Bostrom, N., & Yudkowsky, E. (2014). The ethics of artificial intelligence. The Cambridge handbook of

artificial intelligence, 1, 316-334.

Bradwell, D. J., Kim, H., Sirk, A. H., & Sadoway, D. R. (2012). Magnesium–antimony liquid metal battery for

stationary energy storage. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 134(4), 1895-1897.

Busse, H., Aboneh, E. A., & Tefera, G. (2014). Learning from developing countries in strengthening health

systems: an evaluation of personal and professional impact among global health volunteers at Addis

Ababa University’s Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital (Ethiopia). Globalization and health, 10(1), 64.

Byrne, M. (2001). Ethnography as a qualitative research method. AORN journal, 74(1), 82-84.

Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2014). Social innovation: Moving the field forward. A conceptual framework.

Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82, 42-51.

Campbell, R. M., Pleic, M., & Connolly, H. (2012). The importance of a common global health definition:

how Canada’s definition influences its strategic direction in global health. Journal of global health, 2(1).

Cancellieri, G.; Cappellaro, G.; Turrini, A.; Salido-Andres, N.; Sanzo Perez, M.J.; Alvarez Gonzalez L.I.;

Rey-Garcia, M.; Kullberg, J.; Van den Broek, A.; Cognat, A.S.; Sandford, S.,; Pache, A.C. (2016). Social

Innovation in Arts and Culture. Social cohesion in context of cultureled place rejuvenation. Deliverable

4.3 of the project: “Impact of the Third Sector as Social Innovation” (ITSSOIN), European Commission

– 7th Framework Programme, Brussels: European Commission, DG Research.

Combi C, Pozzani G, Pozzi G. Telemedicine for Developing Countries. A Survey and Some Design Issues.

Appl Clin Inform. 2016;7(4):1025-1050. Published 2016 Nov 2. doi:10.4338/ACI-2016-06-R-0089

Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing value from

innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin‐off companies. Industrial and corporate

change, 11(3), 529-555.

Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. E. (Eds.). (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Univ of

California Press.

Dana, L. P. (2015). Indigenous entrepreneurship: an emerging field of research. International Journal of

Business and Globalisation, 14(2), 158-169.

DePasse, J. W., & Lee, P. T. (2013). A model for ‘reverse innovation’in health care. Globalization and health,

9(1), 40.

CQUNIVERSITY

26

Ebrahim, Alnoor, and V. Kasturi Rangan. “What Impact? A Framework for Measuring the Scale & Scope of

Social Performance.” California Management Review 56, no. 3 (Spring 2014): 118–141.

Forsythe, D. P. (2017). Human rights in international relations. Cambridge University Press.

Foss, N. J., & Saebi, T. (2017). Fifteen years of research on business model innovation: How far have we

come, and where should we go?. Journal of Management, 43(1), 200-227.

Freeman, M. (2017). Human rights. John Wiley & Sons.

Gardner, G., Gardner, A., & O’connell, J. (2014). Using the Donabedian framework to examine the quality

and safety of nursing service innovation. Journal of clinical nursing, 23(1-2), 145-155.

Giesen E., Berman, S. J., Bell, R., & Blitz, A. (2007). Three ways to successfully innovate your business

model. Strategy & leadership, 35(6), 27-33.

Gjelsvik, M. (2018). Universities, innovation and competitiveness in regional economies. International

Journal of Technology Management, 76(1-2), 10-31.

Gleason, D. W. (2018). The humanities meet STEM: Five approaches for humanists. Arts and Humanities in

Higher Education, 1474022218806730.

Gostin, L. O., & Taylor, A. L. (2008). Global health law: a definition and grand challenges. Public Health

Ethics, 1(1), 53-63.

GOVINDARAJAN, V. (2009). What is reverse innovation? Vijay Govindarajan’s Blog, [Online] 15 October

2009. Available from: http://www.tuck.dartmouth.edu/people/vg/blogarchive/2009/10/what_is_reverse_

innovation.htm

Govindarajan, V., & Trimble, C. (2012). Reverse innovation: Create far from home, win everywhere. Harvard

Business Press.

Grbich, C. (2007). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. Sage.

Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing

academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1045-1057.

Harris, M., Weisberger, E., Silver, D., Dadwal, V., & Macinko, J. (2016). That’s not how the learning works–

the paradox of Reverse Innovation: a qualitative study. Globalization and health, 12(1), 36.

Hart, T. G., Ramoroka, K. H., Jacobs, P. T., & Letty, B. A. (2015). Revealing the social face of innovation.

South African Journal of Science, 111(9-10), 01-06.

Hayford, M., & Kattwinkel, S. (2018). Performing Arts as High-Impact Practice.

Hindle, K., & Lansdowne, M. (2005). Brave spirits on new paths: toward a globally relevant paradigm of

indigenous entrepreneurship research. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 18(2), 131-141.

Honeyman, R. (2014). The B corp handbook. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Hulme, M. (2011). Meet the humanities. Nature Climate Change, 1(4), 177.

Jeffreys, M. R. (2015). Teaching cultural competence in nursing and health care: Inquiry, action, and

innovation. Springer Publishing Company.

A GUIDE TO SOCIAL INNOVATION IN THE CURRICULUM

27

Johnson M. W. (2010). Seizing the white space: Business model innovation for growth and renewal.

Harvard Business Press.

Keeble, D., & Wilkinson, F. (2017). High-technology clusters, networking and collective learning in Europe.

Routledge.

Khoury, T. A., & Prasad, A. (2016). Entrepreneurship amid concurrent institutional constraints in less

developed countries. Business & Society, 55(7), 934-969.

Klofsten, M., & Jones-Evans, D. (2000). Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe–the case of

Sweden and Ireland. Small Business Economics, 14(4), 299-309.

Koplan, J. P., Bond, T. C., Merson, M. H., Reddy, K. S., Rodriguez, M. H., Sewankambo, N. K., &

Wasserheit, J. N. (2009). Towards a common definition of global health. The Lancet, 373(9679), 1993-

1995.

Kusujiarti, S. (2011). Service-Learning in Asia: Curricular Models and Practices. Journal of Higher Education

Outreach and Engagement, 15(3), 159-164.

Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2005). Opening the ivory tower’s door: An analysis of the determinants of the

formation of US university spin-off companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1106-1112.

Mack, Eric. “A Third HIV Patient Now Appears To Have Been Cured of AIDS, But It’s Complicated.” Forbes.

March 07, 2019. Accessed March 13, 2019. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2019/03/05/the-

promising-aids-cure-seen-in-a-london-patient-is-rare-but-it-might-not-have-to-be/.

Manias, E., & Street, A. (2001). Rethinking ethnography: reconstructing nursing relationships. Journal of

Advanced Nursing, 33(2), 234-242.

Manzini, E. (2015). Design, when everybody designs: An introduction to design for social innovation. MIT

press.

Maresch, D., Harms, R., Kailer, N., & Wimmer-Wurm, B. (2016). The impact of entrepreneurship education

on the entrepreneurial intention of students in science and engineering versus business studies

university programs. Technological forecasting and social change, 104, 172-179.

Marshall, S., Brown, D., Sakarias, B. and Cai, M. (2018). Madécasse: Competing with a 4x Fairtrade

business model. [online] Oikos-international.org. Available at: https://oikos-international.org/wp-

content/uploads/2013/10/oikos_Cases_2013_Madecasse.pdf [Accessed 8 Nov. 2018].

McCoy, L. (2008). Institutional ethnography and constructionism. Handbook of Constructionist Research.

701-714.

McSherry, R. O. B., & Douglas, M. (2011). Innovation in nursing practice: a means to tackling the global

challenges facing nurses, midwives and nurse leaders and managers in the future. Journal of Nursing

Management, 19(2), 165-169.

Moulaert, F. (2016). Social innovation: Institutionally embedded, territorially (re) produced. In Social

innovation and territorial development (pp. 27-40). Routledge.

Murray, R & Caulier-Grice, J & Mulgan, Geoff. (2010). The Open Book of Social Innovation: Ways to

Design, Develop and Grow Social Innovations. The Young Foundation & NESTA. Retrieved from https://

youngfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/The-Open-Book-of-Social-Innovationg.pdf

CQUNIVERSITY

28

Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., & Walmsley, A. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurship

education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management

Learning & Education, 16(2), 277-299.

Neumann, D. A. (2004). Historical Perspective—Polio: Its Impact on the People of the United States and

the Emerging Profession of Physical Therapy. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 34(8),

479-492.

Ostraszewska, Z., & Tylec, A. (2015). Reverse innovation–how it works. International Journal of Business

and Management, 3(1), 57-74.

Oxman, R. (2004). Think-maps: teaching design thinking in design education. Design studies, 25(1), 63-91.

Pike, A. W., Hoffmann, D. L., García-Diez, M., Pettitt, P. B., Alcolea, J., De Balbin, R., ... & Zilhao, J. (2012).

U-series dating of Paleolithic art in 11 caves in Spain. Science, 336(6087), 1409-1413.

Peredo, A. M., Anderson, R. B., Galbraith, C., Honig, B., & Dana, L. P. (2004). Towards a theory of

indigenous entrepreneurship. Int. J. Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 1(1/2).

Phillips, W., Lee, H., Ghobadian, A., O’Regan, N., & James, P. (2015). Social innovation and social

entrepreneurship: A systematic review. Group & Organization Management, 40(3), 428-461.

Phills, J.A., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D.T. (2008). Rediscovering Social Innovation, Stanford Social Innovation

Review, 6(4), 34-43. Retrieved May 3, 2017, from https://ssir.org/articles/entry/rediscovering_social_

innovation

Porter, T. M. (1996). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton

University Press.

Raaflaub, K. A., Ober, J., & Wallace, R. (2007). Origins of democracy in ancient Greece. Univ of California

Press.

Rae, D., & Melton, D. E. (2017). Developing an entrepreneurial mindset in US engineering education: an

international view of the KEEN project. The Journal of Engineering Entrepreneurship, 7(3).

Rankin, J., & Campbell, M. (2009). Institutional ethnography (IE), nursing work and hospital reform: IE’s

cautionary analysis. In Forum qualitative sozialforschung/forum: Qualitative social research (Vol. 10, No. 2).

Robinson, S. G. (2013). The relevancy of ethnography to nursing research. Nursing science quarterly, 26(1),

14-19.

Santos, F.M., Pache, A.-C., Birkholz, C., 2015. Making hybrids work: aligning business models and

organizational design for social enterprises. Calif. Manag. Rev. 57 (3), 36e58.

Scheper‐Hughes, N., & Lock, M. M. (1987). The mindful body: A prolegomenon to future work in medical

anthropology. Medical anthropology quarterly, 1(1), 6-41.

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning

in the Professions. The Jossey-Bass Higher Education Series. Jossey-Bass Publishers, 350 Sansome

Street, San Francisco, CA 94104.

Scott, Richard & Mars, Maurice. (2015). Telehealth in the developing world: current status and future

prospects. Smart Hom

A GUIDE TO SOCIAL INNOVATION IN THE CURRICULUM

29

Shan Juan, & Miqdad Ali Khan. (2016). Implications of Reverse Innovation for Socio-Economic

Sustainability: A Case Study of Philips China. Sustainability, 8(6), 530-530.

Shane, S. A. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Edward Elgar

Publishing.

Shane, S., & Stuart, T. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups.

Management science, 48(1), 154-170.

Skelton R. (1994) Nursing and empowerment: concepts and strategies. Journal of Advanced Nursing 19,

415–423.

Snyder, C. (2012). A case study of a case study: Analysis of a robust qualitative research methodology. The

Qualitative Report, 17(13), 1-21.

Sorokin, P. (2017). Social and cultural dynamics: A study of change in major systems of art, truth, ethics,

law and social relationships. Routledge.

Speziale, H. S., Streubert, H. J., & Carpenter, D. R. (2011). Qualitative research in nursing: Advancing the

humanistic imperative. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Stephens, W. B. (Ed.). (1964). A History of the County of Warwick: The City of Birmingham. University of

London Institute of Historical Research.

Stormer, F. (2003). Making the shift: Moving from” Ethics Pays” to an inter-systems model of business.

Journal of Business Ethics, 44(4), 279-289.

Street A. (1992) Inside Nursing: A Critical Ethnography of Clinical Nursing Practice. State University of New

York Press, Albany.

Stubbs, W., & Cocklin, C. (2008). Conceptualizing a “sustainability business model”. Organization &

Environment, 21(2), 103-127.

Stubbs, Wendy, Investigation of Emerging Sustainable Business Models: The Case of B Corps in Australia

(July 11, 2014). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2464758 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/

ssrn.2464758

TEPSIE. (2015). Final Report Summary - TEPSIE (The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for

building social innovation in Europe): The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building

social innovation in Europe (TEPSIE), European Commission – 7th Framework Programme, Brussels:

European Commission, DG Research, Available at: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/101832/

reporting/en

TEPSIE. (2014). Social Innovation Theory and Research: A Summary of the Findings from TEPSIE. A

deliverable of the project: The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation

in Europe (TEPSIE), European Commission – 7th Framework Programme, Brussels: European

Commission, DG Research

Tindana, P. O., Singh, J. A., Tracy, C. S., Upshur, R. E., Daar, A. S., Singer, P. A., ... & Lavery, J. V. (2007).

Grand challenges in global health: community engagement in research in developing countries. Plos

medicine, 4(9), e273.

Tsing, A. (2015). The mushroom at the end of the world: On the possibility of life in capitalist ruins.

CQUNIVERSITY

30

Tullock, G. (1957). Paper Money-A Cycle in Cathay. The Economic History Review, 9(3), 393-407.

Valentine, L., Kroll, T., Bruce, F., Lim, C., & Mountain, R. (2017). Design Thinking for Social Innovation in

Health Care. The Design Journal,20(6), 755-774.

Van der Have, R. P., & Rubalcaba, L. (2016). Social innovation research: An emerging area of innovation

studies?. Research Policy, 45(9), 1923-1935.

Van Houwelingen, C. T., Moerman, A. H., Ettema, R. G., Kort, H. S., & ten Cate, O. (2016). Competencies

required for nursing telehealth activities: A Delphi-study. Nurse education today, 39, 50-62.

VanderSteen, J. D., Baillie, C. A., & Hall, K. R. (2009). International humanitarian engineering. IEEE

Technology and Society Magazine, 28(4).

Wall, S. S. (2014, November). Focused ethnography: A methodological adaptation for social research in

emerging contexts. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research (Vol. 16,

No. 1).

Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T. (2006). The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation

on university spin-off performance. Journal of business venturing, 21(4), 541-567.

Wang, K., Jiang, K., Chung, B., Ouchi, T., Burke, P. J., Boysen, D. A., ... & Sadoway, D. R. (2014). Lithium–

antimony–lead liquid metal battery for grid-level energy storage. Nature, 514(7522), 348.

World Health Organization (WHO). Telemedicine: opportunities and developments in Member States:

report on the second global survey on eHealth. Global Observatory for eHealth Series, 2, World Health

Organization. 2009.

Xing, J., & Ma, C. H. K. (Eds.). (2010). Service-learning in Asia: Curricular models and practices (Vol. 1).

Hong Kong University Press.

Yu L., Shek D.T.L., Xing K.Y. (2019) Impact of a Service-Learning Programme in Mainland China: Views

of Different Stakeholders. In: T. L. Shek D., Ngai G., C. F. Chan S. (eds) Service-Learning for Youth

Leadership. Quality of Life in Asia, vol 12. Springer, Singapore.

Zedtwitz, M., Corsi, S., Soberg, P., & Frega, R. (2015). A Typology of Reverse Innovation. Journal of Product

Innovation Management, 32(1), 12-28.

Zimmet, P., Magliano, D., Matsuzawa, Y., Alberti, G., & Shaw, J. (2005). The metabolic syndrome: a global

public health problem and a new definition. Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis, 12(6), 295-300.

@CQUniversityAustralia

@CQUni

/company/CQUniversity

@CQUniversity

/CQUni

cqunilife.com

/CQUniversity

vc-cquniversity

CONTACT USDomestic Enquiries

13 27 86 (within Australia)

+61 7 4930 9000 (outside Australia)

International Enquiries

03 9616 0606 (within Australia)

+61 3 9616 0606 (outside Australia)

www.cqu.edu.au

CONNECT

www.cqu.edu.au/connect

CRICOS Code: 00219C | RTO Code: 40939