This article assesses whether or not students with international exchange experience return to their home countries with qualitatively different perspectives on the way universities can play a role in fostering innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystems. It includes survey data collected from 516 Brazilian undergraduates asked to rank characteristics of an entrepreneurial university on a scale from 1 to 5. The findings of this study suggest that those with international experience tended to emphasize connections between university and nonacademic partners, compared with nontraveling counterparts, who emphasized the importance of infrastructure in the university. Therefore, use of such programs may have an impact upon the structure of ST&I (Science Technology and Innovation) systems.
AltbachP. G. (2004). Globalisation and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary Education and Management, 10, 3-25.
2.
AlvedalenJ.BoschmaR. (2017). A critical review of entrepreneurial ecosystems research: Towards a future research agenda. European Planning Studies, 25, 887-903. doi:10.1080/09654313.2017.1299694
3.
AutioE.KenneyM.MustarP.SiegelD.WrightM. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy, 43, 1097-1108.
4.
BarataR. B. (2014). Academicism versus innovation: Challenges for the Brazilian science and technology system. Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 30, 1602-1603. doi:10.1590/0102-311XCO040814
5.
BischoffK.VolkmannC. K.AudretschD. B. (2018). Stakeholder collaboration in entrepreneurship education: An analysis of the entrepreneurial ecosystems of European higher educational institutions. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(1), 20-46. doi:10.1007/s10961-017-9581-0
6.
Brasil. Ministério da Ciência Tecnologia e Inovação. (2011). Science without borders: A special program of international mobility in science, technology and innovation. Brasília, Brazil: Ministério da Ciência Tecnologia e Inovação/Ministério da Educação.
7.
Brasil. Ministério da Ciência Tecnologia e Inovação. (2012). National science, technology and innovation strategy 2012-2015. Brasília, Brazil: Ministério da Ciência Tecnologia e Inovação.
8.
Brasil. Ministério da Ciência Tecnologia e Inovação. (2016). National science, technology and innovation strategy 2016-2019. Brasília, Brazil: Ministério da Ciência Tecnologia e Inovação.
9.
Brasil. Senado Federal. Comissão de Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovação, Comunicação e Informática. (2015). Public policy evaluation: Science without borders. Brasília, Brazil: Senado Federal.
DefazioD.LockettA.WrightM. (2009). Funding incentives, collaborative dynamics and scientific productivity: Evidence from the EU framework program. Research Policy, 38, 293-305.
12.
MançosGCoelhoF. (2017). Internationalization of Brazilian science: Contributions to the evaluation of Brazil science without borders program. Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas e Internacionais, 2(2), 52-82.
13.
EdlerJ.FierH.GrimpeC. (2011). International scientist mobility and the locus of knowledge and technology transfer. Research Policy, 40, 791-805.
14.
EtzkowitzH. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32(1), 109-121. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00009-4
15.
EtzkowitzH.KlofstenM. (2005). The innovating region: Toward a theory of knowledge-based regional development. R&D Management, 35, 243-255.
16.
EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL. (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.
17.
FabrizioK. (2006). The use of university research in firm innovation. In H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm (pp. 134-160). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
18.
FerreiraA. S. M.LoiolaE.GondimS. M. G. (2017). Individual and contextual predictors of entrepreneurial intention among undergraduates: A literature review. Cadernos Ebape.Br, 15(2), Article 6. doi:10.1590/1679-395159595
19.
FettersM.GreeneP. G.RiceM. P.ButlerJ. S. (2010). The development of university-based entrepreneurship ecosystems: Global practices. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
GravetterF. J.WallnauL. B. (2015). Statistics for behavioral sciences (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
22.
GuerreroM.UrbanoD.FayolleA. (2016). Entrepreneurial activity and regional competitiveness: Evidence from European entrepreneurial universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 105-131.
23.
GuerreroM.UrbanoD.HerreraF. (2017). Innovation practices in emerging economies: Do university partnerships matter?The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44, 615-646.
IsenbergD. (2011). The entrepreneurship ecosystem strategy as a new paradigm for economic policy: Principles for cultivating entrepreneurship. Babson Park, MA: The Babson Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Project.
26.
KlinebergO. (1976). International educational exchange: An assessment of its nature and its prospects. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.
27.
KnightJ. (2015). International universities misunderstandings and emerging models?Journal of Studies in International Education, 19(2), 107-121. doi:10.1177/1028315315572899
28.
LoiM.GuardoM. C. (2015). The third mission of universities: An investigation of the espoused values. Science and Public Policy, 42, 855-870.
29.
McManusC.NobreC. A. (2017). Brazilian scientific mobility program—Science without borders—Preliminary results and perspectives. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 89(1, Suppl.), 773-786. doi:10.1590/0001-3765201720160829
30.
MikkonenM. (2015). Influence of the entrepreneurship and innovation ecosystem on university-based startups: A case study of Aalto University. Espoo, Finland: Aalto University.
31.
MinolaT.DoninaD.MeoliM. (2016). Students climbing the entrepreneurial ladder: Does university internationalization pay off?Small Business Economics, 47, 565-587.
32.
MokK. H. (2005). Fostering entrepreneurship: Changing role of government and higher education governance in Hong Kong. Research Policy, 34(4), 537-554. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.003
33.
MooreJ. F. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75-86.
34.
NeryM. B. M. (2018). Science without borders’ contributions to internationalization of Brazilian higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 22, 371-392. doi:10.1177/1028315317748526
35.
NevesD. P.MançosG. (coord.). (2016). Índice de universidades empreendedoras. São Paulo: Brasil Júnior.
36.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). OECD science, technology and industry outlook 2014. Paris, France: Author. doi:10.1787/sti_outlook-2014-en
37.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015). Education at a glance 2015: OECD indicators. Paris, France: Author. doi:10.1787/eag-2015-en
38.
PotocanV.NedelkoZ.MulejM.DabicM. (2016). How university’s activities support the development of students’ entrepreneurial abilities: Case of Slovenia and Croatia. Journal of the Knowledge Economy. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s13132-016-0407-3
39.
RegeleM. D.NeckH. M. (2012). The entrepreneurship education subecosystem in the United States: Opportunities to increase entrepreneurial activity. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 23(2), 25-47.
40.
RheeB. S. (2011). A world-class research university on the periphery: The Pohang University of Science and Technology, the Republic of Korea. In P. G. Altbach & J. Salmi (Eds.), The road to academic excellence: The making of world-class research universities (pp. 101-128). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
41.
RiceM. P.FettersM. L.GreeneP. G. (2010). University-based entrepreneurship ecosystems: Key success factor. In FettersM.GreeneP. G.RiceM. P.ButlerJ. S. (Eds.), The development of university-based entrepreneurship ecosystems: Global practices (pp. 177-196). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
42.
RideoutE. C.GrayD. O. (2013). Does entrepreneurship education really work? A review and methodological critique of the empirical literature on the effects of university-based entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business Management, 51, 329-351.
43.
SaxenianA. (2002). Brain circulation: How high-skilled immigration makes everyone better off. Brookings Review, 20(1), 28-31.
44.
SchwartzmanS. (2005). Brazil’s leading university: Between intelligentsia, world standards and social inclusion. São Paulo, Brazil: Instituto de Estudos Avançados.
45.
SinC.TavaresO.NeaveG. (2017). Student mobility in Portugal: Grappling with adversity. Journal of Studies in International Education, 21, 120-135. doi:10.1177/1028315316669814
46.
SolesvikM. Z. (2013). Entrepreneurial motivations and intentions: Investigating the role of education major. Education + Training, 55, 253-271.
47.
SuY. S.TsangE. W.PengM. W. (2009). How do internal capabilities and external partnerships affect innovativeness?Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26, 309-331.
48.
TeixeiraA. A. C.ForteR. P. (2017). Prior education and entrepreneurial intentions: The differential impact of a wide range of fields of study. Review of Managerial Science, 11, 353-394.
49.
ThuneT. (2009). Doctoral students on the university–industry interface: A review of the literature. Higher Education, 58, 637-651.
50.
TimmH. C. (1996, Fall). Change through exchange the effects of student exchange on students’ attitudes. Research Seminar: Cultural Relations Between the United States and Europe Since 1945. Retrieved from https://docplayer.net/29112286-Change-through-exchange.html
51.
VauterinJ. J.LinnanenL.MichelsenK.-E. (2013). A university–industry collaborative response to the growing global demand for student talent. Industry & Higher Education, 27, 41-54.
