Institutionalization of responsible research and innovation in universities seen through system archetypes

Purpose The call for the institutionalization of responsible research and innovation (RRI) has resulted in a broad variety of outcomes in universities. This paper aims to look for explanations for these outcomes through a theory-based typology of archetypes of organizational learning (OL) and power in universities. Design/methodology/approach This paper is conceptual and uses theories that have not previously been combined, such as historical institutionalism and OL (exploration and exploitation). Universities aim to be organizations governed by professional administrations. At the same time, some universities are also characterized by academic self-organization by communities of peers. This paper suggests a typology of preconditions for OL through historical institutionalism, which explains power relations driving processes of learning. Findings The discussion involves the paradox between two types of OL: administrative organizing and academic self-organization. The hypothetical role of RRI in this paradox is explained by a typology of system archetypes that describe why some universities are expected to learn as organizations and others are not. Research limitations/implications The theory-based typology will contribute to future empirical studies and evaluations of policy initiatives, such as RRI, with a conceptual understanding of interrelations between institutional preconditions within universities, processes of OL and the wider systemic networks, clusters and societies surrounding universities. Originality/value The system archetypes provide a new perspective on attempts at RRI institutionalization by analyzing OL within the broader context of power relations explained by historical institutionalism.