https://www.mdu.se/

In this explorative essay, we ask how to integrate current development in entrepreneurship education with an education for societal transformation towards sustainability, more explicitly phrased as what and how educators should teach to make students develop transformative capabilities and build action competence for leading societal transformation. We conclude that entrepreneurship education has much to offer and that educators and students ought to transgress institutional borders and explore wilderness together to learn how to create transformative leadership education. Current knowledge indicates that a purposeful education for this end should address seven complementary competencies where students learn to take action, collaborate, engage with society, manage own growth, ground themselves, scout the future, and reframe the system. Due to its inherent qualities, entrepreneurship education, built on engagement in real-world transformative problems, can be considered the most potent foundation for such aspirations. However, as current educational institutions are formed by the malfunctioning and unsustainable system they serve, today's institutions might not be the best forerunners of change in any pedagogical practice. This is why we also conclude that progressive educators need to leave their ivory towers, classrooms, and lecture halls behind and engage in real transformative problems head-on with their students by their sides.

The paper is guided by the question of how public organizations can adapt to include citizens as co-producers of public values. To answer it, eleven researchers and civil servants, all involved in the transformation of a collaborative platform encompassing a university and four different public organizations, formed a collaborative and boundary-spanning author. Building on personal expertise and situated organizational experiences we conclude that public organizations do not adapt except for specific confined areas where they can still control and command outcomes important to them. Hence, public organizations struggle to become co-producers of new public values. From the process, we also conclude that academics and civil servants together writing an academic article cannot be viewed as a fertile common ground for equal collaboration and co-production. Nevertheless, it might still work as an interesting boundary-spanning activity for arriving at shared understandings and important insights on for instance why organizational moves from intended to actual involvement appear difficult.

In this chapter, we meet an author who writes about his inability to remember the names and references he needs to publish and become an accepted part of an acclaimed academic field. Now, at some age, he is finally finding his voice and indulges in performative writing on whatever topic he feels like and believes is important. He argues that staying true to yourself might be an excellent coping strategy in academia. A flaw might not so much be a flaw, but, rather, something unique that you can turn into a strength to build upon. As for references, he suggests a sneaking-in strategy, where we in this text count twelve. Not bad, not bad at all.

What makes an academic? Is it their unyielding devotion to research and teaching, their tendency towards a hermitic existence? Or does it have more to do with their socioeconomic privilege and racial profile? Are academics today any different from what society has always known them to be? How homogenous is the group of academics? Historically, academia was populated by men from the upper classes, often somewhat similar to each other. Over time, structures and procedures were established to ensure both scientific quality and academic exclusion. This chapter deconstructs the myths surrounding academics and the lives they lead within academia. Through shards of broken mirrors is the reader encouraged to look at a group of misfits that are the odd one out in most academic contexts that defy common classifications. Misfits that would like to devote only 40 working hours to academia instead of their whole being. Misfits that use the “wrong” theoretical lenses, unpopular methods, or undesirable contexts. Misfits that don't fit in by matter of race, ethnicity, sex, or social economic class. Misfits that have found their misfitting family and hold on for dear life.

Available Open Access under CC-BY-NC-ND licence. Drawing on affect theory and research on academic capitalism, this book examines the contemporary crisis of universities. With 11 international and comparative case studies, it offers a unique exploration of the contemporary role of affect in academic labour and the organisation of scholarship and explores diverse features of contemporary academic life, from the coloniality of academic capitalism to performance management and the experience of being performance-managed.

In this essay we explore some central societal and educational problems that educators ought to address in order to support sustainability and we argue the need for educating transformative entrepreneurial selves, that is, students with abilities to muster and organize resources pursuing a cause. The current situation calls for youth to develop entrepreneurial competences that will give them the means to introduce and drive change through individual action. In so doing, we put forward the concept of entrepreneurship for a cause to challenge more traditional ideas of what entrepreneurship encompasses. For education, we subsequently suggest using the concept of entrepreneurship education for a cause. We argue that entrepreneurship education has an important role to play as an enabler, but one in which individual self-interests connected to business venturing are given less attention than reflections upon how each individual through decisive action can support the creation of a more sustainable society. Central to our argument is the insight that new ideas about meaning in life that will support changing society away from consumption towards sustainability need to be added as a leading dimension in any education with the aspiration of transforming the world through the actions of its students.

There is a growing pressure for innovation in the public sector. Research on innovation suggests a new role for organizations, from a producer of predefined goods and services to a facilitator of co-creation and new forms of network-based governance. Previous research is mostly focused on the need for organizations to collaborate across sectors (inter-organizational) to promote innovation, less on the need for collaboration across local governments different departments (intra-organizational) but also across smaller units (inter-departmental). The aim is to explore how internal conditions affect a municipality’s innovation capability. 

This is done through a study based on interviews with departmental managers. The study reveals a heterogenic organizational environment where managing is situated and intra-departmental on the expense of inter-departmental and intra-organizational collaborations. The study also reveals that the situation is created by established practices, processes and structures which do not promote inter-departmental collaborations and thus does not build intra-organizational innovation capabilities.

With the aim to help innovation researchers choose outlets for articles based on participat- ory and action research methods, this article describes and discusses publication patterns of action research. A bibliographic study of 33 innovation journals ranked 4, 3, 2, and 1 in the 2018 Academic Journal Guide is complemented by a case study of this journal, the Technology Innovation Management Review, as an example of an established open access journal in the field with a wider scope and target group. From these two studies, we learn that the overall trend is towards more publications of action research articles in a diversity of outlets. Indirectly, the study supports the general view that articles striving towards adding practical relevance to research are becoming more frequent. There is no support for the notion that more renowned and higher-ranked journals would be more hesitant to accept articles with action research methods. The study also notes that there are interesting outlets beside those highly ranked and indexed in more conventional ways. The conclusion reached is that we lack a clear answer to the question of what are the best outlets for those of us who are interested in both innovation and action research. Instead, the study invites us to reflect upon what kind of impact we want to have and then act accordingly.