Given the disquieting changes in higher education worldwide, universities need new directions and ways of thinking about how to operate.In this article, we propose the notion of academic entrepreneurship, in which each employee pursues or supports those who pursue opportunities to build and improve their units, colleges, or universities.W e present ways that individual faculty members, program managers, department chairs, deans, and provosts can support academic entrepreneurship through helping to create opportunities, nurturing people who recognize and act on them, garnering resources to support opportunities, and creating a culture that supports the entrepreneurial activities of universities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Argyres, N., & Liebeskind, J. (1998). Privatizing the intellectual commons: Universities and the commercialization of biotechnology. Journal of Economic Behaviors & Organizations, 35, 427-454.
2.
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (1992). Trustees and troubled times in higher education. Washington, DC: Author.
3.
Collins, J. C.,& Porras, J. I. (1994). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. New York: Harper Business.
4.
Cooper, T., & Wright, N. (Eds.). (1992). Exemplary public administrators: Character and leadership in government. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
5.
Daniels, J., Shane, H., & Wall, J. (1984, July-August). Faculty turnover with academics: The case of business professors. Business Horizons, 27(4), 27-35.
6.
Doig, J., & Hargrove, E. (Eds.). (1987). Leadership and innovation: Entrepreneurs in government. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
7.
Glassman, A. M. (1998). Rethinking organization stability as a determinant for innovation adoption/diffusion. In T. E.Backer, S. L. David,& G. Soucy (Eds.), Reviewing the behavioral science knowledge base on technology transfer(pp. 132-146) (Research Monograph 155). Washington, DC: National Institute for Drug Administration.
8.
Hamel, G.,& Prahalad, C. (1989, May-June). Strategic intent. Harvard Business Review, 67(3), 63-79.
9.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. (1994, July-August). Competing for the future. Harvard Business Review, 72(4), 122-128.
10.
Kerr, C. (1988). Higher education in service to the labor market: Contributions and distortions. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Institute for Research in Higher Education.
11.
Krueger, N. (2000). The cognitive infrastructure of opportunity emergence. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 24(3), 5-23.
12.
Krueger, N., & Braezel, D. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 18(3), 91-104.
13.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row.
14.
Lewis, E. (1980). Public entrepreneurship: Toward a theory of bureaucratic power. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
15.
Lumpkin, G.,& Dess, G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135-172.
16.
Morris, M., & Jones, F. (1999). Entrepreneurship in established organizations: The case of the public sector. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 24(1), 71-91.
17.
Munitz, B., Ehrlich, T., & Wellman, J. (1997). Leveraging change in a time of fundamental transformation. Planning for Higher Education, 26(3), 1-7.
18.
Ramamurti, R. (1986). Public entrepreneurs: Who are they and how do they operate. California Management Review, 28(3), 142-158.
19.
Rowley, D. J., Lujan, H. D., & Dolence, M. G. (Eds.). (1997). Strategic change in colleges and universities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20.
Shapero, A. (1982). Some social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C. Kent, D. Sexton, & K. Vespers (Eds.), The encyclopedia of entrepreneurship(pp. 72-90). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
21.
Stevenson, H., Roberts, M.,& Grousbeck, H. (1989). Business ventures and the entrepreneur. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
22.
Zemsky, R. (1994, April). To dance with change. Pew Policy Perspective, 1A-12A.
