Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Higher education institutions (HEIs) are experiencing a challenging era due to demand–response imbalances. An assumed means of responding to the challenge is through the entrepreneurial university model, which adds a third mission to HEIs: to contribute to economic, technological and social development. Therefore, governments across the globe promote this ideal through system reforms and funding schemes, while HEIs ignite institutional changes. Publications also explore the entrepreneurial university model, although some scholars have criticized the new mission and its implied commercial orientation. However, little is still known about how HEIs are applying the model to become more entrepreneurial. Therefore, this article presents a systematic literature review comprised of a meta-ethnography on the transformation journey of 36 HEIs across 18 countries. The outcome is a four-stage iterative action-framework proposition, suggesting that exogenous and endogenous forces constantly influence HEIs which, in response, ignite experiments, requiring sensitization to be consolidated and later institutionalized, in an endless, long and rather slow process. This article contributes to theory by explaining the metalevel of HEIs’ entrepreneurial pathway process and to practice by providing policymakers and decision makers in HEIs with an analytical framework.

Keywords

Change management entrepreneurial pathways entrepreneurial university literature review meta-ethnography

In recent decades, countries have carried out higher education reforms and developed policies that have changed the autonomy, public financing, mission and accountability of higher education institutions (HEIs). Now, HEIs are expected to be enterprising and to actively contribute to developing entrepreneurial ecosystems (Etzkowitz, 2019; Oh et al., 2016). The ideal, expressed by the entrepreneurial university model, incorporates and transcends existing dichotomies in a new synthesis: ivory tower–polytechnic, research–teaching (Etzkowitz, 2004). It gives HEIs a third mission to respond to knowledge societies’ economic, technological and social demands, producing human, knowledge and entrepreneurship capitals that generate innovations, increase competitiveness and positively affect economic growth (Etzkowitz, 2014; Guerrero et al., 2015). Nevertheless, the model has also been subject to criticism regarding its legitimacy and conflicts between the three missions of HEIs (Philpott et al., 2011; Powell et al., 2007; Stensaker and Benner, 2013; Tuunainen, 2005). Without consensus, many HEIs have embarked on a journey replete with challenging organizational changes (Clark, 2004; Mcgowan et al., 2008).

The concept of the entrepreneurial university was introduced in 1983, based on developments at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Stanford University. An entrepreneurial university was defined as an institution that explored new sources of funds, like patents, research contracts and industry partnerships (Etzkowitz, 1983). MIT and Stanford were initially considered anomalies that would eventually conform to the research model (Etzkowitz, 2004), but they are now seen as epitomizing the entrepreneurial university. Their developments influenced policymaking and motivated HEIs worldwide to emulate them and Silicon Valley (Etzkowitz, 2003a, 2004, 2019), thus making the American academic model evolve to assume many roles in society and within innovation ecosystems (Sam and Sijde, 2014). The concept’s bottom-up emergence in the United States led it to be considered an extension of a university’s research mission, while its emergence in Europe’s welfare context required it to develop as a teaching mission extension (Etzkowitz et al., 2000; Etzkowitz, 2003b). Beyond the United States and Europe, this phenomenon has been documented in, among others, Brazil (Almeida, 2008; Amaral et al., 2011), Chile (Bernasconi, 2005), China (Zhou and Peng, 2008), Iran (Salamzadeh and Yadolahi Farsi, 2015), Japan (Yokoyama, 2006), Malaysia (Ahmad et al., 2018), Turkey (Beyhan and Findik, 2018), South Africa (De jager et al., 2017) and the United Arab Emirates (Bhayani, 2015). Its export has led to global convergence (Etzkowitz et al., 2000), though replication strategies are dramatically limited by environmental, resource and capability differences among HEIs (Etzkowitz and Zhou, 2008; Lazzeretti and Tavoletti, 2005; Philpott et al., 2011; Stensaker and Benner, 2013).

It is currently understood that the entrepreneurial university ideal is applicable to all HEI types in ‘an efflorescence of embryonic characteristics that exist ‘in potentio’ in any academic enterprise (…) with the ability to periodically reinvent itself and incorporate multiple missions’ (Etzkowitz, 2013a: 487). In this sense, a current definition proposes a systemic interpretation:

an entrepreneurial university design integrates project-based learning in the curriculum with an outlook of seeking out the useful as well as the theoretical results of investigation. These results are moved into use through an innovation system that includes a penumbra of public and private actors posing problems, concomitantly with the provision of resources. (Etzkowitz et al., 2019: 169)

The popularity of the entrepreneurial university concept was increased by two timely publications: Slaughter and Leslie’s (1997) ‘Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University’ and Clark’s (1998a) ‘Creating Entrepreneurial Universities’, which became ‘almost iconic’ (Taylor, 2012). A growing body of literature developed, which literature reviews summarized – for example, Gibb (2002), Rothaermel et al. (2007) and Perkmann et al. (2013). However, few reviews were conducted from an institutional perspective – for example, Laredo (2007), Bronstein and Reihlen (2014), Clauss et al. (2018) and Centobelli et al. (2019). Additionally, little is known about how HEIs adopt and adapt the entrepreneurial university concept. Understanding HEIs’ entrepreneurial pathways remains a main agenda for future research (Klofsten et al., 2019), as existing propositions are limited in explaining the underlying change management process, leaving this aspect undertheorized.

This article presents a systematic literature review with a meta-ethnographic approach, providing a compendium of 36 manifestations of the entrepreneurial university concept from 18 countries, shedding light on how this emerging global ideal translates into practice. Specifically, the research asks:

How do HEIs transform into more entrepreneurial institutions?

Which gaps and white spots remain in the understanding of this transformation process?

The resulting contributions are threefold:

An improved theoretical understanding of and research into HEIs’ transformation process.

A proposed research agenda.

Core entrepreneurial pathway propositions composed of three paths (ecosystem, education and governance) steered through an action-framework proposition.

The article begins by providing the topic’s theoretical foundation. Next, it uses meta-ethnography to synthesize the experience of 36 HEIs across 18 countries, proposing three paths and an action-framework to empirically explain the process and to serve as an analytical resource for HEI decision makers and policymakers. The findings are then discussed and the limitations of the study are considered with regard to expanding the conceptualization and development of the entrepreneurial university ideal – ultimately suggesting a research agenda before concluding.

Prologue: Theoretical foundation

Existing concepts and framework propositions explaining HEIs’ entrepreneurial pathways are generalizations, which fall short of clarifying how transformation happens in practice and defining the processual stages and required steps. Nevertheless, there is an overall understanding of the complexity and non-linearity of this process, characterized by experimental approaches in a steady state of institutional change (Clark, 2003; Etzkowitz, 2013a). Pathways for transformation are an incipient proposition developed by Burton Clark. He identified the following five elements, which become pathways through their interaction, as the elements alone would not be significant (Clark, 1998b):

‘Strengthened Steering Core’: a dynamic and flexible decision-making process enabled by formal and informal leadership, independent of the institutional governance structure being centralized or decentralized.

‘Enhanced Developmental Periphery’: a matrixed organizational structure with units, centres and parks beyond the traditional institutional structures, extending its boundaries to connect with the ecosystem.

‘Diversified Funding Base’: reduced government dependency, increased autonomy (i.e. self-determination) and active budgetary management to increase the total amount of resources through service commercialization and partnerships with the private sector.

‘Stimulated Academic Heartland’: academic departments and professors becoming entrepreneurial by connecting with the ecosystem and generating new income streams.

‘Entrepreneurial Culture’: an integrated organizational culture that embraces changes, diffused from the academic heartland, steered by core leaders at the university and in its peripheral units to respond to new demands and produce new income streams.

Attempting to understand how developed theory was being translated into practice, Kirby (2006) identified the following strategic actions for enterprising British HEIs: endorsement from senior staff, who act as role models; incorporation of entrepreneurial elements into university levels/departments; development of entrepreneurial targets that are monitored; effective communication, also via publications; support mechanisms via infrastructure, process, training and mentoring; aligned models for equity sharing and staff promotion; cross-disciplinary research and teaching; and promotion via role models and competition. Also in Britain, Newcastle University’s transformation towards entrepreneurialism serves as a pathway example, divided into four main stages (Benneworth, 2007): ‘Naïve’ – the development of services to local industries; ‘Growth’ – the attempt to promote its own spinoffs due to weak demand from local industries; ‘Consolidation’ – knowledge transfer deals made with large corporations to increase revenue; and ‘Reach-out’ – the attempt to open itself to outside users.

Another proposition, developed by Nelles and Vorley (2010), presents an ‘entrepreneurial architecture blueprint’ composed of Structures (entrepreneurial support infrastructure such as incubators and technology transfer offices (TTOs)); Systems (networks connecting different departments/actors); Strategies (institutional goals supported by incentive and measurement schemes); Leadership (orientation and support from university leaders with regard to the third mission); and culture (entrepreneurial attitude at institutional, departmental and individual levels).

In a simplified synthesis, Etzkowitz (2013a) suggests three complementary and non-sequential development stages to explain, in broad terms, HEIs’ paths to entrepreneurialism: University Entrepreneur One (HEI adopts new vision and begins to diversify funding and increase autonomy); University Entrepreneur Two (HEI develops transfer capabilities, actively enabling, sourcing and commercializing intellectual property); and University Entrepreneur Three (HEI uses Triple Helix collaborations to take a proactive role in regional development). This path is supported by four interrelated propositions, which characterize entrepreneurial universities (Etzkowitz, 2014): Interaction (HEI engages in Triple Helix collaborations); Independence (HEI is not dependent on another institutional sphere); Hybridization (HEI creates hybrid organizational formats such as centres and parks); and Reciprocity (HEI continually revises its structures and Triple Helix relationships). Furthermore, in an updated study on Stanford University, Etzkowitz et al. (2019) suggest a threefold strategy for entrepreneurial transformation: project-based experiential learning in teaching; applied research with support mechanisms for transfer; and various public and private partnerships.

Finally, Markuerkiaga et al. (2018) analysed characteristics and actions to propose three clusters based on the transformation status quo of 69 European HEIs. They conducted a quantitative study with institutions as the unit of analysis and technology office managers as key informants. The resulting statistical clusters are as follows: Advanced Entrepreneurial Universities (14 sampled HEIs consolidated the ideal); Emerging Entrepreneurial Universities (10 sampled HEIs were taking initial steps towards entrepreneurialism); and En-route Entrepreneurial Universities (45 HEIs were somewhere ‘in the middle’). This analysis illustrates the complexity of defining what it means to be an entrepreneurial university and how this ideal can be achieved. That most of the sampled HEIs were placed ‘in the middle’ demonstrates the challenge of distinguishing developmental stages.

Review method

This systematic literature review adopts a replicable and transparent search process among published studies on the phenomenon of entrepreneurial universities. The meta-ethnographic constructionism approach was best suited to form hypotheses on the transformation processes of HEIs, enabling the emergence of an action-framework combining empirical evidence with the author’s own expert practitioner insights (France et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2015; Mays et al., 2005; Noblit and Hare, 1988). Meta-ethnography was developed by Noblit and Hare (1988) to provide methodological rigour when deriving substantive interpretations from qualitative studies, facilitating a line of argument by interpreting findings across studies to produce new models (Atkins et al., 2008; Booth et al., 2016; Campbell et al., 2011; Noblit and Hare, 1988). The present author iteratively adopted the original seven steps (Noblit and Hare, 1988), while following enhanced strategies for case selection, analysis and synthesis (Doyle, 2003). After defining the topic and research questions (step 1), the author selected studies to read (steps 2 and 3) by purposively sampling case studies describing HEIs’ transformation, with the institutions as the analysis unit (Figure 1). Afterwards, she determined how studies were related (step 4), following the recommendation to apply selective case boundaries to increase rigour (Doyle, 2003). This resulted in 33 publications reporting on 36 cases (Table 1). Through coding via the ATLAS.ti software (Friese, 2014), the author identified and categorized common themes across studies, HEIs and countries. Towards the end of this step, initial assumptions about the relationship between studies were made (Noblit and Hare, 1988), meaning that the author could, based on the emerging categories, explore the topic’s many manifestations. This iterative process facilitated a conceptual leaping through bricolage (Klag and Langley, 2013) to develop an action-framework explaining how HEIs are transforming into more entrepreneurial institutions.

Figure 1.

The sampling process.

Table 1.

The sampled cases.

Country	Institution	Type	Reference
Poland	WSB University	2C	Pawlowski (2001)
Sweden	Chalmers University of Technology	2B	Berggren (2011), Jacob et al. (2003)
Sweden	Luleå University of Technology	1B	Ylinenpää (2013)
Netherlands	University of Twente	1B	Lazzeretti and Tavoletti (2005), Mcgowan et al. (2008)
UK	Warwick University	1A	Taylor (2012)
	University of Surrey	1A	Kirby (2006), Mcgowan et al. (2008), Yokoyama (2006)
	Nottingham Trent University	1A	Yokoyama (2006)
	University of Ulster	1A	Mcgowan et al. (2008)
	University of Derby	1BD	Rae et al. (2009)
	Newcastle University	1A	Benneworth (2007)
Denmark	Aarhus University	1A	Pinheiro and Stensaker (2014)
Denmark	Copenhagen Business School	1C	Kristensen (1999)
Italy	University of Salento	1A	Elia et al. (2017)
Belgium	Free University of Brussels	2A	Mathieu et al. (2008)
Spain	Polytechnic University of Catalonia	2B	Guerrero et al. (2014)
Spain	Autonomous University of Barcelona	3A	Guerrero et al. (2011), Guerrero et al. (2014)
Ireland	National University of Ireland – Galway	1A	Guerrero et al. (2014)
Ireland	University of Limerick	1A	Guerrero et al. (2014)
Serbia	University of Novi Sad	1A	Stankovic (2006)
Japan	University of Tokyo	1A	Yokoyama (2006)
Japan	Waseda University	2A	Yokoyama (2006)
Singapore	National University of Singapore	3A	Wong et al. (2007)
Iran	University of Tehran	1A	Salamzadeh and Yadolahi Farsi (2013)
South Africa	Central University of Technology	1B	De jager et al. (2017)
Brazil	Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro	2A	Almeida (2008)
	Federal University of Itajubá	1A	Almeida (2008)
	Federal University of Minas Gerais	1A	Almeida (2008)
	Regional University of Volta Redonda	1B	Amaral et al. (2011)
Chile	Catholic University of Chile	2A	Bernasconi (2005)
USA	University of Arkansas	1A	Vickers et al. (2001)
	Stanford University	2A	Etzkowitz (2003a, 2004, 2013b), Leih and Teece (2016)
	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	2B	Etzkowitz (2003a, 2004), O’Shea et al. (2007)
	University of California at Berkeley	1A	Leih and Teece (2016)
	Garfield State University	1A	Mcclure (2016)
	Stony Brook University	1A	Wolf (2017)
Canada	University of Waterloo	1A	Bramwell and Wolfe (2008)

Note: 1: Public; 2: Private; 3: Autonomous; A: Research university; B: Technology/technical University; C: Business school; D: Arts university.

Next, the author translated all studies into one another (step 5) by comparing the cases’ narratives, treating accounts as analogies. To do so, she reviewed the cases, applying the developed action-framework to all 36 HEIs (see Online Appendix). She then synthesized the findings (step 6), considering that synthesis in meta-ethnography ‘does not mean transferability of similar findings on a case by case basis, but rather a reconceptualization across studies’ (Doyle, 2003: 323). Finally, she expressed the synthesis (step 7) in this article, following up-to-date recommendations (France et al., 2019; Noyes et al., 2018).

Entrepreneurial pathways for HEIs

The 36 reviewed cases are contextually different and present a wide range of elements characterizing the actions HEIs take to become more entrepreneurial. The author coded and grouped these into 13 categories (Table 2). Exploring relationships between these categories (Table 2) enabled the identification of the following three complementary, not mutually exclusive, core entrepreneurial pathways propositions:

Table 2.

Entrepreneurial pathways summary per case.

HEI	Ecosystem path							Education path			Governance path
HEI	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M
Chalmers Institute of Technology	X		X	X			X		X	X	X		X
Luleå University of Technology	X		X		X	X			X		X
Warwick University	X										X		X
University of Surrey	X	X		X		X			X
Newcastle University	X	X	X								X		X
Nottingham Trent University	X							X	X
University of Ulster				X				X	X		X	X
University of Derby	X			X				X	X		X		X
University of Twente	X	X		X		X	X			X		X
Aarhus University	X				X
Copenhagen Business School	X			X	X	X			X
WSB University	X								X		X	X
University of Salento	X			X					X
Free University of Brussels	X	X	X	X	X					X			X
Polytechnic University of Catalonia	X							X	X			X
Autonomous University of Barcelona	X	X		X					X				X
National University of Ireland – Galway	X	X		X	X					X	X	X
University of Limerick	X	X			X				X	X	X
University of Novi Sad	X	X	X						X		X	X
University of Tokyo	X
Waseda University	X								X				X
National University of Singapore	X	X		X				X	X		X	X
University of Tehran													X
Central University of Technology	X			X				X	X		X
Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro	X	X		X					X
Federal University of Itajubá	X			X				X	X
Federal University of Minas Gerais	X			X					X
Regional University of Volta Redonda	X												X
Catholic University of Chile	X				X						X
University of Arkansas	X	X		X	X				X	X
Stanford University	X	X	X		X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Massachusetts Institute of Technology	X	X	X	X	X				X
University of California – Berkeley	X	X											X
Garfield State University	X	X		X		X			X
Stony Brook University	X	X	X	X					X
University of Waterloo	X		X	X	X		X		X

Note: A: Industry relations and/or Triple Helix networks; B: Technology transfer; C: Venture capital; D: Entrepreneurship centre or institute; E: Research centre; F: Science park; G: Student or alumni association; H: Outreach events (e.g. competitions); I: Entrepreneurship education; J: Role models; K: Strategy for staff training and/or hiring; L: Governance, empowerment, performance measurement; M: Development problems (conflicts, lack of communication/leadership, etc.).

Ecosystem path: establishing industry relations, in some cases benefiting from strong alumni relationships (G) leads to forming Triple Helix regional, national or international networks (A). These are combined with technology transfer services (B) and venture capital (C), connecting entrepreneurship centres’ services such as incubation (D), with research centres’ outputs (E), inside the university and/or at parks (F). The expected outcome is resources and capabilities synergy at the meso- and micro-levels

Education path: outreach events, such as business idea competitions (H), sensitizing students to student and alumni networks (G), dissemination support and role models (J). Entrepreneurship education offers (I) are developed in many formats – for example, online, boot camps, undergraduate/postgraduate degrees and interdisciplinary curricular courses (stand-alone or integrating entrepreneurship education learning outcomes with existing courses). The expected outcome is human capital constituted by resourceful individuals with entrepreneurial competences and skills.

Governance path: to minimize development problems related, for instance, to internal conflicts and communication (M), HEI leaders must establish effective governance structures that empower staff members, offer incentives and provide clear performance measurements (L) combined with an aligned staff hiring strategy and training opportunities (K). The expected outcome is a dynamic, proactive and promptly responsive institution.

Transformative action-framework

These identified paths move into action through a non-linear, long-term process constantly influenced by exogenous and endogenous forces (Figure 2). Despite the reviewed HEIs having widely different contexts, the meta-ethnographic method allowed a meta-level proposition to emerge, transcending individual organizational and contextual differences (e.g. developed versus developing countries and HEIs’ entrepreneurial maturity).

Figure 2.

The action-framework.

The action-framework proposition takes an institutional perspective, thus accounting for the exogenous and endogenous forces influencing the transformation of HEIs. Higher education is highly regulated, and political changes influence that transformation. For example, consider Brazil and Chile where military regimes have pushed HEIs towards technology research. In Chile, this inspired a ‘neo-liberal agenda’, characterized by privatization and a new technological research fund, while in Brazil it meant creating technology parks. The return to democracy increased public funding in Chile while the new Brazilian Constitution (1988) defined teaching, research and ‘extension activities’ as the missions of HEIs (Almeida, 2008; Amaral et al., 2011; Bernasconi, 2005). Similarly, the return to democracy in Serbia (2000) led to a new Higher Education Law (2002), increasing the autonomy of HEIs and locally enabling the Bologna process (Stankovic, 2006).

For HEIs in developed economies, political reforms result mainly in increased autonomy, public funding changes and pushes towards the third mission, as in the United Kingdom (1988) (Yokoyama, 2006), Denmark (1993; 2003) (Kristensen, 1999; Pinheiro and Stensaker, 2014) and Sweden (1997) (Berggren, 2011). Many countries have also created specific policies to promote innovation directly affecting HEIs. In Spain, a 2007 reform regulated the use of research output, enabling academic entrepreneurship (Guerrero et al., 2011; Guerrero et al., 2014), while the US Bayh–Dole Act ignited the creation of TTOs in several HEIs in the early 1980s (Etzkowitz, 2003a). In many countries, public development agencies have also emerged, becoming major stakeholders for HEIs, such as Sweden’s VINNOVA (Ylinenpää, 2013), Denmark’s Globalization Council (Kristensen, 1999), Brazil’s FINEP (Amaral et al., 2011) and Chile’s FONDECYT (Bernasconi, 2005).

The lack of such policies and agencies is a major hindrance to the emergence of entrepreneurial universities (De jager et al., 2017; Salamzadeh and Yadolahi Farsi, 2013). A favourable business environment and the cultural proximity of business from HEIs are further influencers from the meso-environment, due to the importance of Triple Helix collaborations (Amaral et al., 2011; Salamzadeh and Yadolahi Farsi, 2013). In more neoliberal contexts, the absence of strong local economies creates opportunities for HEIs to support the emergence of entrepreneurial ecosystems, as with Stanford, Newcastle, Twente, Novi Sad and WSB, or the current attempt by the Central University of Technology.

Endogenous forces directly affect an institution’s ability to ignite the process and be promptly responsive. It is relevant to consider an HEI’s type, size, location and historical background. In this sense, a middle-sized technical university founded in the second half of the 20th century in a region with developed industries might be a natural fit for developing into an entrepreneurial university – for example, Luleå and Surrey. This does not mean that other HEI types may not transform, but they may face harder challenges, as have the University of Tokyo and the University of California–Berkeley. A more feasible entrepreneurial pathway, which the Free University of Brussels has followed, might involve specialized entrepreneurial efforts in specific fields.

Pursuing entrepreneurial pathways requires long-term commitment, clearly defined missions and visions, supportive leadership and enabling governance structures. In almost all the cases, this study has analysed, with the exception of Tokyo and Tehran, the universities added the ‘third mission’ and edited their visions accordingly. Furthermore, HEIs with matrixed organizational structures that empower individuals to be enterprising and professors to run their departments as ‘quasi-firms’ seem better prepared to navigate the process – for example, Stanford and Aarhus.

To establish these elements, it is essential for supportive leadership to provide the necessary guidance. Throughout the journeys of the sampled HEIs, a number of individuals have played crucial roles. The main example is Frederick Terman (Stanford), who is ‘hyperbolically’ considered the ‘father of Silicon Valley’ (Etzkowitz, 2003a). Others include the founders of MIT and Chalmers; the decision makers (e.g. chancellor/president) at Warwick, Itajuba and Garfield State; and informal leaders, such as the small entrepreneurial team at Derby University.

The process influenced by these forces is non-linear, encompassing four stages: ignition, sensitization, consolidation and institutionalization. One or more forces influence an HEI’s first actions, triggering the process. For some in this study, the triggering force was their founding principles, as at MIT and Chalmers (whose founders provided vision and leadership), Nottingham Trent and Derby (accession to university status) and Aarhus (after merger). In many countries, policy reforms, reducing public funding and/or requesting HEIs to pursue the third mission ignited the process, forced HEIs to react, as in Brazil (Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro), Chile (Catholic University), Japan (Waseda and Tokyo), Singapore (National University), Belgium (Brussels Free University) and the United Kingdom (Ulster and Surrey). More proactive ignitions, setting a new vision influenced by HEI leaders, occurred at Stanford, Novi Sad, Minas Gerais, Itajuba, the Autonomous University of Barcelona and Catalonia’s Polytechnic. Proactive leadership also ignited further waves of transformation at MIT, Chalmers, the National University of Singapore and the Catholic University of Chile.

Once the process has begun, sensitization is the most critical phase, when actions (i.e. projects) are conceptualized in response to influencing forces. These can be seen as pilot experiments, which require validation to consolidate. At this stage, the main aim is to sensitize stakeholders towards the third mission, developing an entrepreneurial culture, one experiment at a time. It requires leadership and the empowerment of key individuals. If these are weak or absent, emergence of the entrepreneurial culture is hindered, and the performance of pilot experiments is negatively affected, as at the University of Tehran and the University of Tokyo. A lack of effective and sustainable sensitization can have the same negative effect, an issue observed even in mature entrepreneurial universities such as Stanford and Chalmers.

The transformation process is non-linear and fuzzy and there is no clear-cut point between the sensitization and consolidation stages, as development speed can make them overlap in a process characterized by transformation waves. Thus, the availability of resources and capabilities dedicated to each project, especially supported by steady funding, can accelerate the process towards consolidation. This means that the consolidation and sensitization stages of the same project may occur concomitantly, rather than linearly. Consolidation is, therefore, a fuzzy continuum from sensitization, characterized by the expansion of successful ecosystem, education and governance actions, which have different meanings for each HEI. In general, this involves infrastructure building, the development of complementary offers, the identification and dissemination of role models and governance formalizations. For example, consider the following:

Infrastructure: the Federal University of Minas Gerais merged two technical incubators and developed a business incubator. Stanford and MIT created TTOs, since their activities emerged informally.

Complementary offers: Stanford, MIT, Stony Brook, Luleå and Novi Sad included venture capital initiatives to accelerate technology transfer and spin-off development.

Governance actions: a new Vice-Principal position was created to consolidate Chalmers’s fragmented system. A New Business Development Directorate was formed at Surrey to concentrate non-academic entrepreneurial activities. A Corporate Service Unit was developed at Newcastle, whose Director is an Executive Board member.

Role models: successful spin-offs have been devised – for example, HP and Google (Stanford). Key entrepreneurial individuals are recognized, such as Torkel Wallmark (Chalmers), or even entire departments, such as at the Free University of Brussels.

Once consolidated, these actions become an integral part of an institution, constituting an entrepreneurial (eco)system and resulting in a new culture and positioning with aligned values, mission and vision. The narratives of only 12 of the sampled cases characterize institutionalization – eight ‘fully-fledged’ (Chalmers, Warwick, Surrey, Newcastle, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Stanford, MIT and Waterloo) and four ‘smart specialized’, focusing on entrepreneurial efforts in selected fields (Twente, Free University of Brussels, Luleå and Stony Brook). A possible explanation for this is the incipience of the entrepreneurial university concept, as many HEIs and policymakers began the process in the late 1990s. Therefore, institutions are still igniting, sensitizing and consolidating the first projects in a complex and relatively slow process, influenced by volatile exogenous and endogenous forces. Examples of institutionalization include the following:

Waterloo: the university institutionalized an entrepreneurial network, which is a catalyst in the regional high-tech economy and is perceived as a ‘good community player’.

Free University of Brussels: this case suggests that HEIs can be entrepreneurial and contribute to economic regional development without transforming into a ‘fully-fledged’ entrepreneurial university. As a large, traditional, comprehensive university, this institution opted to concentrate its entrepreneurial efforts and outputs in the medicine and life science departments.

Warwick: the ‘Warwick Way’ motto illustrates its institutionalization.

The present author further proposes that this process contains an institutional innovation loop, represented in the action-framework by iterations back to ignition, demonstrating endlessness. This iteration also occurs due to a need for sustainable communication to raise awareness. A dotted arrow from consolidation and institutionalization back to sensitization depicts this characteristic in Figure 2. Of the sampled cases, 21 presented narratives describing this characteristic, demonstrating how new demands and opportunities ignite new experiments in an iterative innovation process, which enables and fosters entrepreneurialism in HEIs. In this sense, dynamic capabilities for sensing, seizing and transforming are key to recognizing demand and (funding) opportunities. Thus monitoring and measuring progress is fundamental, as failed projects can teach lessons and ignite new attempts. Examples of the narratives are:

‘The Chalmers infrastructure for innovation and entrepreneurship has been an ad hoc experiment with little or no directions and guidelines from the main administration’ (Jacob et al., 2003: 1563).

‘[…] these faults meant that each particular attempt proved unsuccessful, and that failure in turn stimulated a further attempt […]’ (Benneworth, 2007: 494).

‘The formative and reflective learning experiences of the team as practitioners were a process of entrepreneurial action learning through sense-making, featuring “critical incidents” and “practical theories” developed from praxis’ (Rae et al., 2009: 188).

‘To respond to new opportunities, university leaders must also act entrepreneurially […] Plans must not be wooden […] continuous updating […] In the dynamic capabilities framework, transforming involves what is called asset orchestration and asset repurposing. These activities are associated with the breaking up of established ways of doing things to align capabilities with new needs and new opportunities in the broader environment. Universities, like all organizations, must undergo some level of continuous renewal […]’ (Leih and Teece, 2016: 200).

Discussion and research agenda

Scholars have raised concerns about the abilities of HEIs to follow entrepreneurial pathways, pointing out that this could be a path with no return, leaving HEIs ‘doomed to be entrepreneurial’ (Stensaker and Benner, 2013). In their cluster analysis, Markuerkiaga et al. (2018) allocated the majority (45) to a cluster they called the ‘En route entrepreneurial university’. However, the present researcher wonders if these are, in fact, ‘en route’ or merely ‘stuck in the middle’ – a transformation risk suggested by Ylinenpää (2013). Assuming that an HEI successfully becomes an entrepreneurial university, it still risks facing the ‘paradox of success’, as has Stanford (Etzkowitz, 2013b; Etzkowitz et al., 2019). Hence, HEIs are

facing both new challenges and old ones with new levels of urgency. Survival and future development will depend on how well universities adapt to unpredictable environments that are becoming global, instead of isolationist; international, instead of domestic; and competitive, instead of regulated. (Klofsten et al., 2019: 150)

At the same time, the entrepreneurial university paradigm is still in developmental infancy, even at those institutions that epitomize it like Stanford (Etzkowitz et al., 2019), and so new developments and setbacks are surfacing. For instance, Newcastle University was found to be reverting to an ivory tower stance due to setbacks in its science park development (Etzkowitz and Zhou, 2018). This indicates that it might be necessary to take the entrepreneurial ecosystem metaphor seriously (Kuckertz, 2019) and actively manage HEIs’ transformation processes with a stakeholder perspective, establishing meaningful institutional metrics (Balven et al., 2018; Etzkowitz, 2016; Gianiodis and Meek, 2019; Roundy et al., 2018).

Moreover, the concept’s incipience means that elements that will ultimately constitute entrepreneurial HEIs are still emerging. The ‘networked university’ (Witt, 2010), the ‘engaged university’ (Breznitz and Feldman, 2012) and the ‘civic university’ (Goddard et al., 2016) are just some examples of surfacing propositions encompassing and extending the entrepreneurial university paradigm. These further account for the external environment and give HEIs a refreshed sense of purpose in knowledge societies.

The aggregation of case study narratives following a meta-ethnographic approach has enabled the author to identify and make sense of actions taken by the 36 HEIs across 18 countries in their attempts to become more entrepreneurial. This has resulted in two central propositions. First, the author asserts the existence of three complementary, not mutually exclusive, paths: ecosystem, education and governance. These are the fundamental cornerstones for HEIs aiming to become more entrepreneurial. Second, the research has presented a deeper understanding of how the transformation process occurs in practice. Combined, these contributions in practical terms might serve as insights and analytical tools for HEI decision makers, supporting the agile development of advancement strategies – thus minimizing HEIs’ risk of being ‘doomed to be entrepreneurial’, getting ‘stuck in the middle’ or facing a ‘paradox of success’ dilemma.

Therefore, this research contributes to practice by demonstrating how the transformation process of HEIs is composed of a series of pilot experiments following an iterative, non-linear path, constantly influenced by exogenous and endogenous forces. In this way, the author confirms the initial conceptualization proposed by Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000) regarding ‘endless transition’ based on ‘non-linear innovation models’ of HEIs’ transformation processes. She also extends it, encompassing the Triple Helix model and combining it with the need for ‘dynamic capabilities’ (Siegel and Leih, 2018; Teece, 2018) to explain the meta-level process enabling organizational change. Therefore, the author’s proposition illustrates the innovation process, which recent evidence suggests ‘fully mediate[s] the transformation capability–organizational change relationship’ in HEIs (Zhang et al., 2019: 12). Nevertheless, the findings also suggest that the researcher’s proposition might be lacking a necessary negative iteration back to ignition to depict the risk of failed pilot experiments making an HEI backslide to its old institutional self.

Some limitations of this study open interesting avenues for future research. This meta-ethnography relies on 33 peer-reviewed articles, excluding a vast body of literature on the phenomenon available in other sources. These other resources were excluded to improve confidence about the employed evidence body and to keep the body of selected literature manageable for a single researcher. These articles provide a picture from the viewpoints of their authors which might be incomplete, outdated and partial, as many authors were members of the studied institutions. Nevertheless, it is important to recall that in meta-ethnography synthesized interpretations are ‘metaphors’ or ‘characterizations of the juxtaposition of the author’s perspective with the perspectives of those studied’ (Thorne et al., 2004: 1347). Furthermore, not all requirements for an audit trail are present in this research, since the empirical evidence reviewed is combined with the author’s own expert practitioner insights (France et al., 2014). However, to mitigate this and the above-mentioned limitations, the author has followed up-to-date guidelines for methodological rigour and for reporting meta-ethnographic studies to improve confidence in the outcomes (Doyle, 2003; France et al., 2019; Lewin et al., 2018; Noyes et al., 2018). Thus, to assess the confidence in the key findings proposed, the author adopted the CERQual¹ framework to assess the methodological limitations, coherence, adequacy and relevance of the data supporting each finding. Taking into consideration the number of cases supporting each proposition, she rated the findings’ confidence levels as low (up to 11 cases), moderate (12–24 cases) and high (more than 25 cases). All propositions were rated as moderate or high. This analysis led to the identification of gaps, suggesting a research agenda to deepen the current understanding of HEIs’ changes in management due to entrepreneurialism (Table 3).

Table 3.

Findings’ confidence rating and research agenda.

Propositions	CERQual confidence rating	No of cases contributing to finding	Related gaps and research agenda
Ignition stage	High	30	Empirically test the validity and applicability of the proposed action-framework by confronting it with past, current and planned actions from a larger number of HEIs undergoing the transformation process in different contexts. Forecast future entrepreneurial pathways for institutionalized entrepreneurial HEIs by enabling academics, industry leaders and policymakers to envision them collectively.
Sensitization stage	High	36
Consolidation stage	High	31
Institutionalization stage	Moderate	12
Innovation loop concept	Moderate	21
Influencing exogenous forces	High	34	Measure the impact of specific large governmental funding schemes that promote entrepreneurialism in HEIs and compare results across nations.
Influencing endogenous forces	High	34	See governance path agenda.
Ecosystem path	High	35	Understand the impact of HEIs’ transformation speeds on the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Identify ecosystem synergy opportunities to develop cost-effective entrepreneurial pathways for HEIs. Understand the impact of different ecosystem actors on HEIs’ entrepreneurial pathways. Understand HEIs’ entrepreneurialism value-added per stakeholder.
Education path	High	29	Identify drivers leading from project-based teaching to academic entrepreneurship and transfer. Evaluate academic entrepreneurship outcomes of different teaching initiatives (e.g. online vs. classroom; mono- vs. multidisciplinary)
Governance path	Moderate	22	Research organizational resilience and how different levels impact HEIs’ transformation processes, especially regarding the institutional ability to overcome perceived failed experiments. Research the determinants of HEIs’ abilities to respond to demands placed by different exogenous and endogenous forces. Analyse the impact of different leadership styles and governance models on long-term strategic planning for the development of entrepreneurial universities. Analyse the impact of HEI staff members’ (administration and professors) entrepreneurial mindsets and orientations on the institutional transformation process.

Note: HEI: Higher education institution.

Conclusion

The forces influencing HEIs to become more entrepreneurial and contribute actively to economic, social and technological development cannot be ignored or downplayed. As significant public resources fund schemes towards an entrepreneurial agenda, decision makers in HEIs must acknowledge these influencing forces and proactively manage their institutions’ entrepreneurial pathways.

This article proposes that HEIs’ transformations are part of a long-term iterative process, characterized by non-linear, fuzzily divided stages, constantly influenced by exogenous and endogenous forces. Hence, context matters and there is no ready-made recipe. Rather than trying to emulate Stanford and create a Silicon Valley, each institution must develop its own advancement strategies towards entrepreneurialism. HEIs’ abilities to proactively lead this process, being promptly responsive to demands and opportunities, will determine future epitomes. Nevertheless, it is clear that not all HEIs should transform themselves into fully fledged entrepreneurial universities or will even have the potential to do so. A smart specialization strategy and/or focus on ecosystem resources and capabilities synergies at the meso-level might be a more feasible path for many HEIs starting the process of institutionalizing an entrepreneurial culture and intending to contribute actively to regional development.

According to Tranfield et al. (2003), the goal of a Systematic Literature Review is to serve both academics and practitioners. This article achieves this goal by contributing to the body of knowledge on entrepreneurial universities with an original methodological approach – systematically and pragmatically explaining HEIs’ entrepreneurial pathways and their underlying transformative process.

Supplemental material

Supplemental Material, SLR_Appendix - A meta-ethnography on HEIs’ transformation into more entrepreneurial institutions: Towards an action-framework proposition

Supplemental Material, SLR_Appendix for A meta-ethnography on HEIs’ transformation into more entrepreneurial institutions: Towards an action-framework proposition by Audrey Stolze in Industry and Higher Education

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful for the insightful and expert comments received on an earlier version of this article from Henry Etzkowitz (Triple Helix Institute), Andreas Kuckertz (University of Hohenheim), Klaus Sailer (Munich University of Applied Sciences and Strascheg Center for Entrepreneurship) and two anonymous reviewers. The earlier version was presented at the XVII Triple Helix Conference in Cape Town, South Africa (10 September 2019) and at the 23rd Annual Interdisciplinary Conference on Entrepreneurship, Innovation and SMEs in Vienna, Austria (27 September 2019).

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Audrey Stolze

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Note

References

Ahmad

Halim

Ramayah

, et al. (2018) The ecosystem of entrepreneurial university: the case of higher education in a developing country. International Journal of Technology Management 78(1–2): 52–69.

Almeida

(2008) Innovation and entrepreneurship in Brazilian universities. International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development 7(1): 39–58.

Amaral

Ferreira

Teodoro

(2011) Building an entrepreneurial university in Brazil: the role and potential of university–industry linkages in promoting regional economic development. Industry and Higher Education 25(5): 383–395.

Atkins

Lewin

Smith

, et al. (2008) Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature: lessons learnt. BMC Medical Research Methodology 8(21): doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-21.

Balven

Fenters

Siegel

, et al. (2018) Academic entrepreneurship: the roles of organizational justice, championing, education, work-life balance, identity, and motivation. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(1): 21–42.

Benneworth

(2007) Seven samurai opening up the Ivory tower? The construction of Newcastle as an entrepreneurial university. European Planning Studies 15(4): 487–509.

Berggren

(2011) The entrepreneurial university’s influence on commercialisation of academic research – the illustrative case of Chalmers University of Technology. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business 12(4): 429–444.

Bernasconi

(2005) University entrepreneurship in a developing country: the case of the P. Universidad Católica de Chile, 1985–2000. Higher Education 50(2): 247–274.

Beyhan

Findik

(2018) Student and graduate entrepreneurship: ambidextrous universities create more nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Technology Transfer 43(5): 1346–1374.

10.

Bhayani

(2015) Building entrepreneurial universities in a specific culture – barriers and opportunities. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 330(July): 312–330.

11.

Booth

Sutton

Papaioannou

(2016) Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review, 2nd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

12.

Bramwell

Wolfe

(2008) Universities and regional economic development: the entrepreneurial University of Waterloo. Research Policy 37(8): 1175–1187.

13.

Breznitz

Feldman

(2012) The engaged university. Journal of Technology Transfer 37(2): 139–157.

14.

Bronstein

Reihlen

(2014) ‘Entrepreneurial university archetypes: a meta-synthesis of case study literature. Industry and Higher Education 28(4): 245–262.

15.

Campbell

Pound

Morgan

, et al. (2011) Evaluating meta-ethnography: systematic analysis and synthesis of qualitative research. Health Technology Assessment 15(43): 1–164.

16.

Centobelli

Cerchione

Esposito

, et al. (2019) Exploration and exploitation in the development of more entrepreneurial universities: a twisting learning path model of ambidexterity. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 141: 172–194.

17.

Clark

(1998a) Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation. Issues in Higher Education. New York: Elsevier.

18.

Clark

(1998b) The entrepreneurial university: demand and response. Tertiary Education and Management 4(1): 5–16.

19.

Clark

(2003) Sustaining change in universities: continuities in case studies and concepts. Tertiary Education and Management 9(2): 99–116.

20.

Clark

(2004) Delineating the character of the entrepreneurial university. Higher Education Policy 17(4): 355–370.

21.

Clauss

Moussa

Kesting

(2018) Entrepreneurial university: a stakeholder-based conceptualisation of the current state and an agenda for future research. International Journal of Technology Management 77(1–3): 109–144.

22.

Doyle

(2003) Synthesis through meta-ethonography: paradoxes, enhancements, and possibilities. Qualitative Research 3(3): 321–344.

23.

Elia

Secundo

Passiante

(2017) Pathways towards the entrepreneurial university for creating entrepreneurial engineers: an Italian case. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management 21(1–2): 27–48.

24.

Etzkowitz

(1983) Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepreneurial universities in American academic science. Minerva 21(2–3): 198–233.

25.

Etzkowitz

Webster

Gebhardt

, et al. (2000) The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy 29(2): 313–330.

26.

Etzkowitz

(2003a) Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: the invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy 32(1): 109–121.

27.

Etzkowitz

(2003b) The European entrepreneurial university: an alternative to the US model. Industry and Higher Education 17(5): 325–335.

28.

Etzkowitz

(2004) The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation 1(1): 64–77.

29.

Etzkowitz

(2013a) Anatomy of the entrepreneurial university. Social Science Information 52(3): 486–511.

30.

Etzkowitz

(2013b) Startx and the ‘Paradox of Success’: filling the gap in Stanford’s entrepreneurial culture. Social Science Information 52(4): 605–627.

31.

Etzkowitz

(2014) The entrepreneurial university wave: from ivory tower to global economic engine. Industry and Higher Education 28(4): 223–232.

32.

Etzkowitz

(2016) The entrepreneurial university: vision and metrics. Industry and Higher Education 30(2): 83–97.

33.

Etzkowitz

Germain-Alamartine

Keel

, et al. (2019) Entrepreneurial university dynamics: structured ambivalence, relative deprivation and institution-formation in the Stanford innovation system. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 141: 159–171.

34.

Etzkowitz

(2019) Is silicon valley a global model or unique anomaly? Industry and Higher Education 33(2): 83–95.

35.

Etzkowitz

Leydesdorff

(2000) The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and Mode 2 to a Triple Helix of university – industry – government relations. Research Policy 29: 109–123.

36.

Etzkowitz

Zhou

(2008) Introduction to special issue building the entrepreneurial university: a global perspective. Science and Public Policy 35(9): 627–635.

37.

Etzkowitz

Zhou

(2018) Innovation incommensurability and the science park. R&D Management 48(1): 73–87.

38.

France

Ring

Thomas

, et al. (2014) A methodological systematic review of what’s wrong with meta-ethnography reporting. BMC Medical Research Methodology 14(119): 1–16. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-119.

39.

France

Cunningham

Ring

, et al. (2019) Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: the eMERGe reporting guidance. Review of Education 7(2): 430–451.

40.

Friese

(2014) Qualitative Data Analysis with ATLAS.ti, 2nd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

41.

Gianiodis

Meek

(2019) ‘Entrepreneurial education for the entrepreneurial university: a stakeholder perspective. The Journal of Technology Transfer doi: 10.1007/s10961-019-09742-z.

42.

Gibb

(2002) In pursuit of a new ‘enterprise’ and paradigm for learning: creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combinations of knowledge. International Journal of Management Reviews 4(3): 233–269.

43.

Goddard

Hazelkorn

Kempton

, et al. (2016) The Civic University – The Policy and Leadership Challenges. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

44.

Guerrero

Urbano

Cunningham

, et al. (2014) Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions: a case study comparison. Journal of Technology Transfer 39(3): 415–434.

45.

Guerrero

Cunningham

Urbano

(2015) ‘Economic impact of entrepreneurial universities activities: an exploratory study of the United Kingdom. Research Policy 44(3): 748–764.

46.

Guerrero

Toledano

Urbano

(2011) Entrepreneurial universities and support mechanisms: a Spanish case study. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management 13(2): 144–160.

47.

Jacob

Lundqvist

Hellsmark

(2003) Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish University system: the case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research Policy 32(9): 1555–1568.

48.

De jager

Mthembu

Ngowi

, et al. (2017) Towards an innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystem: a case study of the Central University of Technology, Free State. Science, Technology and Society 22(2): 310–331.

49.

Kirby

(2006) Creating entrepreneurial universities in the UK: applying entrepreneurship theory to practice. Journal of Technology Transfer 31(5): 599–603.

50.

Klag

Langley

(2013) Approaching the conceptual leap in qualitative research. International Journal of Management Reviews 15(2): 149–166.

51.

Klofsten

Fayolle

Guerrero

, et al. (2019) The entrepreneurial university as driver for economic growth and social change – key strategic challenges. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 141: 149–158.

52.

Kristensen

(1999) The entrepreneurial university as a learning university. Higher Education in Europe 24(1): 35–46.

53.

Kuckertz

(2019) Lets take the entrepreneurial ecosystem metaphor seriously! Journal of Business Venturing Insights 11: e00124.

54.

Laredo

(2007) Revisiting the third mission of universities: Toward a renewed categorization of university activities? Higher Education Policy 20(4): 441–456.

55.

Lazzeretti

Tavoletti

(2005) Higher education excellence and local economic development: the case of the entrepreneurial University of Twente. European Planning Studies 13(3): 475–493.

56.

Lee

Hart

Watson

(2015) Qualitative synthesis in practice: some pragmatics of meta-ethnography. Qualitative Research 15(3): 334–350.

57.

Leih

Teece

(2016) Campus leadership and the entrepreneurial university: a dynamic capabilities perspective. Academy of Management Perspectives 30(2): 182–210.

58.

Lewin

Bohren

Munthe-Kaas

, et al. (2018) Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings – paper 2: how to make an overall CERQual assessment of confidence and create a Summary of Qualitative Findings table. Implementation Science 13(Suppl 1): 11–23.

59.

Markuerkiaga

Igartua

Errasti

(2018) A performance-based taxonomy of entrepreneurial universities. International Journal of Technology Management 77(1–3): 57–85.

60.

Mathieu

Meyer

van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie

(2008) Turning science into business: a case study of a major European research university. Science and Public Policy 35(9): 669–679.

61.

Mays

Pope

Popay

(2005) Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 10(Suppl 1): 10–20.

62.

Mcclure

(2016) Building the innovative and entrepreneurial university: an institutional case study of administrative academic capitalism. The Journal of Higher Education 87(4): 516–543.

63.

Mcgowan

Sijde

van der P

Kirby

(2008) The role of universities in the entrepreneurship industry. Industry and Higher Education 22(1): 49–59.

64.

Nelles

Vorley

(2010) Constructing an entrepreneurial architecture: an emergent framework for studying the contemporary university beyond the entrepreneurial turn. Innovative Higher Education 35(3): 161–176.

65.

Noblit

Hare

(1988) Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications.

66.

Noyes

Booth

Flemming

, et al. (2018) Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance paper 3: methods for assessing methodological limitations, data extraction and synthesis, and confidence in synthesized qualitative findings. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (97): 49–58.

67.

O’Shea

Allen

Morse

, et al. (2007) Delineating the anatomy of an entrepreneurial university: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology experience. R&D Management 37(1): 1–16.

68.

Phillips

Park

, et al. (2016) Innovation ecosystems: a critical examination. Technovation 54: 1–6.

69.

Pawlowski

(2001) Towards the entrepreneurial university. Higher Education in Europe 26(3): 427–436.

70.

Perkmann

Tartari

McKelvey

, et al. (2013) Academic engagement and commercialisation: a review of the literature on university – industry relations. Research Policy 42(2): 423–442.

71.

Philpott

Dooley

O’Reilly

, et al. (2011) The entrepreneurial university: examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation 31(4): 161–170.

72.

Pinheiro

Stensaker

(2014) Designing the entrepreneurial university: the interpretation of a global idea. Public Organization Review 14(4): 497–516.

73.

Powell

Owen-Smith

Colyvas

(2007) Innovation and emulation: lessons from American universities in selling private rights to public knowledge. Minerva 45(2): 121–142.

74.

Rae

Gee

Moon

(2009) Creating an enterprise culture in a university the role of an entrepreneurial learning team. Industry and Higher Education 23(3): 183–197.

75.

Rothaermel

Agung

Jiang

(2007) University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change 16(4): 691–791.

76.

Roundy

Bradshaw

Brockman

(2018) The emergence of entrepreneurial ecosystems: a complex adaptive systems approach. Journal of Business Research 86: 1–10.

77.

Salamzadeh

Yadolahi Farsi

(2013) Entrepreneurial universities in Iran: a system dynamics model. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business 20(4): 420–445.

78.

Salamzadeh

Yadolahi Farsi

(2015) Institutional factors affecting the transformation of entrepreneurial universities. International Journal of Business and Globalisation 14(3): 271–291.

79.

Sam

Sijde

van der P

(2014) Understanding the concept of entrepreneurial university from the perspective of higher education model. Higher Education 68(6): 891–908.

80.

Siegel

Leih

(2018) Strategic management theory and universities: an overview of the special issue. Strategic Organization 16(1): 6–11.

81.

Slaughter

Leslie

(1997) Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

82.

Stankovic

(2006) Entrepreneurialism at the University of Novi Sad. Higher Education in Europe 31(2): 117–128.

83.

Stensaker

Benner

(2013) Doomed to be entrepreneurial: institutional transformation or institutional lock-ins of ‘new’. Minerva 51(4): 399–416.

84.

Taylor

(2012) The entrepreneurial university in the twenty-first century. London Review of Education 10(3): 289–305.

85.

Teece

(2018) Managing the university: why ‘organized anarchy’ is unacceptable in the age of massive open online courses. Strategic Organization 16(1): 92–102.

86.

Thorne

Jensen

Kearney

, et al. (2004) Qualitative metasynthesis: reflections on methodological orientation and ideological agenda. Qualitative Health Research 14(10): 1342–1365.

87.

Tranfield

Denyer

Smart

(2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management 14: 207–222.

88.

Tuunainen

(2005) Contesting a hybrid firm at a traditional university. Social Studies of Science 35(2): 173–210.

89.

Vickers

Salamo

Loewer

, et al. (2001) Creation of an entrepreneurial university culture, the University of Arkansas as a case study. Journal of Engineering Education 90(4): 617–622.

90.

Witt

Kde

(2010) The networked university: the structure, culture, and policy of universities in a changing environment. Tertiary Education and Management 16(1): 1–14.

91.

Wolf

(2017) Entrepreneurial university: a case study at Stony Brook University. Journal of Management Development 36(2): 286–294.

92.

Wong

Singh

(2007) Towards an entrepreneurial university model to support knowledge-based economic development: the case of the National University of Singapore. World Development 35(6): 941–958.

93.

Ylinenpää

(2013) In search of excellence or stuck in the middle? The quest to build a (more) entrepreneurial third-generation university. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing 5(2): 153–167.

94.

Yokoyama

(2006) Entrepreneurialism in Japanese and UK universities: governance, management, leadership and funding. Higher Education 52(3): 523–555.

95.

Zhang

Wang

O’Kane

(2019) Realized absorptive capacity and entrepreneurial universities’ organizational change: the role of process innovation practices. R and D Management 1–18. doi: 10.1111/radm.12366.

96.

Zhou

Peng

(2008) The entrepreneurial university in China: nonlinear paths. Science and Public Policy 35(9): 637–646.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.43 MB