Entrepreneurial University: A stakeholder-based ...

Entrepreneurial University: A stakeholder-based conceptualisation of the current state and an agenda for future research

Thomas Clauss* Philipps-University of Marburg, School of Business and Economics, Universitätsstraße 25 A, 35037 Marburg, Germany Email: [email protected] *Corresponding author

Aurel Moussa Philipps-University of Marburg, School of Business and Economics, Universitätsstraße 25 A, 35037 Marburg, Germany Email: [email protected]

Tobias Kesting Apollon University of Applied Sciences, Universitätsallee 18, 28359 Bremen, Germany Email: [email protected] Abstract: Research on the entrepreneurial university has been receiving increased attention in recent years. The growing literature stock has been leading to a rather unstructured research status quo, characterised by foci on particular elements and actors of the entrepreneurial university. Hence, our paper aims to systematically integrate the fragmented literature on entrepreneurial universities. Relying on the stakeholder theory, our paper provides a stakeholder-based conceptualisation. We identify seven research streams and devised an integrative systematic university-centred view on the entrepreneurial university itself and its core stakeholders within its organisational boundaries and beyond, such as researchers, firms, the economy and society. We illustrate and discuss the findings and conclude with a future research agenda. Due to its systemic nature, our integrative stakeholder-based conceptualization of the literature on the entrepreneurial university enables the identification of important future research directions that particularly address the linkages between the stakeholder groups and the overall ecosystem. Keywords: Entrepreneurial university; academic entrepreneurship; university-industry collaboration; university ecosystem; stakeholder; stakeholder theory; technology transfer; triple-helix; university spin-off; mode-2 knowledge production; academic capitalism; research agenda; literature review 1

Biographical notes: Thomas Clauss is an Assistant Professor for Management and Innovative Value Creation Concepts at Philipps University of Marburg. He received his PhD from University of Hamburg. His research areas are business model innovation, buyer-supplier collaboration and innovation as well as digitalization and service orientation. His research appeared in leading international journals such as Industrial Marketing Management, R&D Management or Transportation Research Part A. Aurel Moussa is a Student Assistant at the research group in Management and Innovative Value Creation Concepts at Philipps University of Marburg. He received his M.Sc. in Business Administration at Philipps University of Marburg. He received his Bachelor in Politics, Economics and Philosophy from the University of Essex (UK). His research is dedicated to entrepreneurial universities. Tobias Kesting is a Professor for General Business Management and Marketing at APOLLON University of Applied Sciences in Bremen. He holds a doctoral degree from the IHI Zittau (now part of TU Dresden). His primary research areas are knowledge and technology transfer, innovation management and marketing. He publishes his research in international journals (e.g. Industrial Marketing Management, International Journal of Technology Management) and edited books. He furthermore works as a scientific consultant (specialising in organisational marketing/management process issues) and as director of the University Industry Innovation Network (UIIN) scientific board.

1

Introduction

The role of universities has been changing significantly in recent years. Prior to this development, universities had focused on teaching and research, whereas nowadays economic contributions to society and entrepreneurial activities are becoming increasingly relevant. This change is being nurtured by both external influences and internal developments within the university itself (Etzkowitz and Dzisah, 2008). Externally, explicit policies from governments aimed at increasing the universities’ responsibility for ensuring research funding and commercialising academic achievements have been leading to a growth in economic activities of universities. The most prominent political measure in this context is the Bayh-Dole Act (1980), passed into law by the US Congress with the goal of promoting the commercialisation of university research outcomes (Kenny and Patton, 2008*) 1. This Act allowed universities to commercialise intellectual property arising from US federal government-funded research. It spurred patenting and licensing activities from universities (Grimaldi et al., 2011*). Additionally, numerous European countries have been introducing new policies to improve and stimulate university technology transfer and commercialisation activities (Etzkowitz et al., 2000; Rasmussen et al., 2006), e.g. by abandoning the so-called ‘professor’s privilege’, hereby shifting the commercialisation process and responsibility from the personnel to the institutional level of universities (Perkmann et al., 2013*). Internally, a continuous change of the inner logic and role perception of academics “… expanded the academic enterprise from a conservator to an originator of knowledge” (Etzkowitz, 2013a, p. 487). The relevance of university teaching was extended by students applying their academic knowledge in entrepreneurial endeavours and acting as intermediaries between the university and other institutional spheres (Etzkowitz et al., 2000). Founding new ventures out of the university is often regarded as a good opportunity for students to utilise their academic education in practical ways without losing the support of their university supervisors (Guerrero et al., 2015). Caused by these developments, 1

Papers that were referenced, but not included in the literature review are marked with an asterisk

2

universities have been transforming themselves into increasingly entrepreneurial organisations, nurturing intensive ties to industry to enable and encourage the entrepreneurial activities of their academics (Krabel and Mueller, 2009*). Understanding entrepreneurial universities and their activities is becoming more and more relevant for both academia and business practice. Despite this relevance for multiple university stakeholders (e.g. society, academics, firms, government) (e.g. Bercovitz and Feldman, 2006*; Etzkowitz, 2013a; Guerrero et al., 2015) and the entire university ecosystem (Maia and Claro, 2013*), there currently exists no generic understanding of the meaning, the determinants and the impacts of the entrepreneurial university from a stakeholder-based perspective. Previous literature reviews either focus on the identified positive, negative and challenging effects of entrepreneurial universities (Baycan and Stough, 2013), or on the perceived differences between the concepts of entrepreneurial universities, academic entrepreneurship and university technology transfer (Yusof and Jain, 2010). In their review on the related concept of university entrepreneurship, Rothaermel et al. (2007*) show the breath of the system by suggesting a fourfold systemic categorisation though, namely (1) the entrepreneurial research university, (2) the productivity of technology transfer offices (TTOs), (3) new firm creation and the (4) environmental context including networks of innovation. This categorisation is rather functional and merely emphasises selected issues. In sum, previous conceptualisations vary in focus and scope according to their idiosyncratic use and do not provide a concise and theory-based view on the phenomenon and its variety of intraand inter-organisational and -personal linkages. As Etzkowitz (2008*) highlights, entrepreneurial ethos among administrators, faculty, and students are one of the main pillars of the entrepreneurial university. Whereas functional or process-oriented perspectives ensure a good overview of the field, they eventually lack a concise theme to systemically capture the multiple actors and their interactions related to the entrepreneurial university. To address the latter issue and to provide a reconciled view and deeper understanding of current and future research on the entrepreneurial university, we rely on the stakeholder theory. This theory, arising from management literature, serves as an attempt to redraw the picture of an organization by considering all of the groups and individuals that may affect or may be affected by the organization’s activities and goals. The efficiency and effectiveness of the organization depends on the characteristics of the stakeholders and their interactions (Freeman, 2010*). This theory is regarded as a suitable theme for integrating businesses and society (Jones, 1995*). In the light of the Triple-Helix model in the university-business-government relations context (Etzkowitz, 2008*), the stakeholder theory turns out to be highly appropriate for our research due to its integrating theme. We follow Jongbloed et al. (2008*), who support the applicability of the stakeholder concept in the university context and take a stakeholder-based view on entrepreneurial universities. Furthermore, Bartell (2003*) emphasizes the high complexity of universities as organizations with a wide variety of internal and external stakeholders. Students can be both domestic or foreign, undergraduates, graduates or professionals, or mid-career individuals aiming at furthering their education. A faculty can be split into administrators and researchers that can further be grouped into those conducting basic, applied or contract research. External stakeholders include the press, granting and accrediting agencies, unions, as well as the political and social environment. Following these reflections, we utilize stakeholder theory to conceptualize and integrate the research on the entrepreneurial university. Consequently, our paper aims at answering two pertinent research questions: a) Which are the core entrepreneurial university research streams arising from a systemic stakeholder-based perspective? b) Which are the missing links and white spots identifiable from this perspective as relevant avenues for future research on the entrepreneurial university? By answering these two questions, we contribute to research in two ways. First, we provide a theory based literature review on the research of entrepreneurial universities from which we 3

derive a novel stakeholder-based conceptualisation. We highlight which research fields and which groups of stakeholders are affected and interconnected with each other, hereby ensuring an aggregated understanding on the specific findings related to each area. Second, by reflecting the systemic findings among the stakeholder groups, we draw concrete conclusions about promising avenues for future research in the field. These contributions help researchers and managers to get a better understanding of the determinants, management approaches and outcomes of entrepreneurial universities and help to provide the basis for planning further research and inter-organisational projects to address the open issues we identified. Our research proceeds as follows: It starts with a methodological overview illustrating the way we carry out our literature review. We then analyse the literature from a stakeholder-based perspective. The paper finishes with a discussion of the aggregated findings and an agenda for future research. 2

Methodology

Tranfield et al. (2003*) argue that numerous literature reviews in the field of management lack methodological rigor in comparison to fields such as e.g. medical research. Consequently, our review relies on a systematic structure instead of on the more traditional narrative review. Systematic reviews adopt a replicable, scientific and transparent process and provide an audit trail of the reviewers’ decisions, procedures and conclusions (Cook et al., 1997*), hereby aiming at reducing the researchers’ bias as far as possible. We primarily focus on the subject matter of the entrepreneurial university, rather than related concepts such as academic entrepreneurship (e.g. Brennan and McGowan, 2006*) or technology transfer (Bozeman, 2000*) (see section 4.1 for a clarification). As such, we defined “entrepreneurial university” as the main keyword. We used the Thomson-Reuters Web of Science Database to identify relevant journal articles. Our search term was TOPIC = “Entrepreneur* Universit*” (with quotation marks). The asterisks allow for slight changes in spelling, enabling us to include related keywords, such as “entrepreneurial universities” or “entrepreneur university”. The quotation marks ensured the exclusion of papers merely featuring both terms “entrepreneurial” and “university” separately, but do not deal with the higher education institute concept. We refined the search to include only papers in LANGUAGE English in the TIMESPAN 1900 to 2015. We refined for RESEARCH DOMAIN “Social Sciences”, but did not further refine within the RESEARCH AREA (e.g. business economics), as the concept of the entrepreneurial university arises within the areas of educational research and public administration and we would otherwise lose theoretical and conceptual papers that first gave rise to this research topic. We carried out this search in January 2016. The search query resulted in a list of 135 papers. Having scanned each abstract, we eventually rejected 27 papers from this review, e.g. book reviews or papers in which the entrepreneurial university merely plays a peripheral role. Consequently, a total of 108 papers constitute the foundation of our review. Having analysed each paper, we created a database comprising the following information: (i) author name(s), (ii) article title, (iii) journal of publication, (iv) publication year, (v) research questions and hypotheses, (vi) main research findings, (vii) whether the paper was primarily empirical or not, (viii) qualitative data used, (ix) quantitative data used, (x) databases used, (xi) variables used, (xii) entrepreneurial university definition, (xiii) statistical models and other methods used, and (ix) theoretical concepts used. This data allowed us to categorise the concepts and research streams related to the entrepreneurial university. 4

3

Descriptive bibliometrics

18

400

16

350

14

300

12

250

10

200

8

150

6

100

4

50

2

0

0

Publications

450

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Citations

A first glance at the data reveals that research interest on the entrepreneurial university started to intensify in the late 1990s. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the number of citations of the articles in our review shows a steady growth, emphasising that the research field gained and sustained an acceptance in the academic community (see Fig. 1).

Number of publications

Number of citations

Figure 1 Number of publications and citations on the entrepreneurial university

The 108 papers are spread over 51 journals, with the most important ones being Research Policy (14 articles – JIF 3.117), The Journal of Technology Transfer (10 articles – JIF 1.181), Higher Education (8 articles – JIF 1.151) and Technovation (7 articles – JIF 2.526). 34 journals merely feature a single paper in this research area (see Fig. 2 for an overview). A total of 184 different authors worked on the papers we examined. The most prolific authors and co-authors are researchers with an extensive track record in research on university-business interaction, the role of the university in society and technology commercialisation: Henry Etzkowitz (11 articles), Maribel Guerrero (6 articles) and David Urbano (6 articles).

5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

RESEARCH POLICY THE JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER HIGHER EDUCATION TECHNOVATION EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT ENTREPRENEURSHIP RESEARCH JOURNAL INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT MINERVA R & D MANAGEMENT SOCIAL SCIENCE INFORMATION SUR LES SCIENCES SOCIALES CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCESREVUE CANADIENNE DES SCIENCES DE L ADMINISTRATION EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT HUMAN RELATIONS INZINERINE EKONOMIKA-ENGINEERING ECONOMICS SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY SMALL BUSINESS ECONOMICS

Figure 2 Journals featuring two or more papers on the entrepreneurial university

4 4.1

Results Definitions

The concept of the entrepreneurial university is not only interpreted differently within the papers we examined, but it is also closely related to several further concepts we shortly highlight below. Etzkowitz (1983) and Clark (1998*) were the first to provide a comprehensive conceptualisation of the entrepreneurial university. For Etzkowitz (2003b), the entrepreneurial university is essentially the classical research university (i.e. a university that focuses on the core missions “teaching” and “research”) featuring an additional Third Mission, demanding that universities actively contribute to economic and social development (Perkmann et al. (2013*). The entrepreneurial university itself is embedded in a Triple Helix (university-industrygovernment) environment, playing an equally important role in innovation generation for knowledge-based economies as industry and government (e.g., Etzkowitz and Dzisah, 2008; Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000*). The relations between these three actors give rise to trilateral networks and hybrid organisations. Technology transfer can be understood as the interaction sphere between the university and industry (Yusof and Jain, 2010), a type of 6

16

university-to-industry knowledge transfer (Agrawal, 2001*). According to Clark (1998*), the entrepreneurial university actively seeks to innovate on how it operates, creating a shift in its culture so as to create a more promising posture for the future. From this perspective, university entrepreneurship is both a process and an outcome. The entrepreneurial university performs academic entrepreneurship, i.e. processes occurring within its organisational boundaries (Yusof and Jain, 2010). Compared to the term “entrepreneurial university”, which comprises the entire university system, academic entrepreneurship can be understood as the non-binary degree of entrepreneurialism existing within the university (Styhre and Lind, 2010a). The analysed papers are in line with the above definitions. However, we find that there exist differences in the authors’ interpretations of the ways to achieve this economic and social development, specifically the methods of transferring the knowledge of the university and the stakeholders involved. This leads us to deriving a narrow and wider perspective of the entrepreneurial university in literature (see Table 1). Table 1 Overview of the narrow and wider perspective of the entrepreneurial university Narrow perspective

Wider perspective

Knowledge transfer

Mainly commercialisation (patents, licenses, spin-offs)

Stakeholders

University, researchers, technology transfer office, firms, spin-offs “Given the aforementioned, the working definition of the term entrepreneurial university that will inform this paper will be a university that has developed a comprehensive internal system for the commercialisation and commodification of its knowledge. This system includes not just structures such as liaison or technology transfer offices which bridge the gap between industry and the academy but also incentives for adjusting lines of study and the allocation of research budgets to the demand in the private and public sectors ” (Jacob et al., 2003, p. 1556)

Entrepreneurship incubator, aiding the establishment and support of new commercial and/or intellectual ventures All narrow stakeholders and entrepreneurship support services, students “… the summary of elements that characterizes the entrepreneurial university, such as the organizational adaptation to environmental changes, the managerial and governance distinctiveness, the new activities oriented to the development of entrepreneurial culture at all levels, and the contribution to economic development with the creation of new ventures or commercialization of research. Applying these parameters, the entrepreneurial university has the ability to innovate, recognize, and create opportunities; work in teams, take risks, and respond to challenges; and seek to work out a substantial shift in organizational character to arrive at a more promising posture for the future. Therefore, the entrepreneurial university is a natural incubator providing support structures for teachers and students to initiate new ventures: intellectual, commercial, and conjoint (Urbano and Guerrero, 2013, pp. 3-4)

Examples

“The entrepreneurial university concept argues that HEIs [higher education institutes] are increasingly complementing their traditional missions (research and teaching) by a third one, that is, economic development. Universities are seen to contribute to regional prosperity by taking an active role in commercializing their— mainly natural science—knowledge through spin-offs, patents and licensing. Such activities are intimately related to the implementation of new incentive and reward structures for commercialization for university scientists, a business culture within academia, and the creation or enlargement of interface functions such as technology transfer offices” (Trippl et al., 2015, p. 1724)

7

“… we analyze the evolution of the entrepreneurial university from a narrow focus on capturing the commercializable results of the ‘meandering stream of basic research’ to a multifaceted institution that shapes organizations as well as individuals. Teaching and research are expanded from traditional lectures and individual professor–student relationships into an experiential education and group-research format. The entrepreneurial university makes technology transfer, firm formation and regional development an

“Closely associated with the Triple Helix model, the notion of ‘entrepreneurial universities’ has increasingly been used in relation to the developments in academia: greater involvement in economic and social development, more intense commercialization of research results, patent and licensing activities, the institutionalization of spin-off activities, and managerial and attitudinal changes among academics with respect to collaborative projects with industry.” (Van Looy et al., 2011, pp. 553-554)

academic mission, even as these tasks are integrated into the university’s education and research missions.” (Etzkowitz, 2013a, p. 487) “For some universities, being entrepreneurial is right at the heart of what they do; innovation, creativity and enterprise are their core values. These values include building 'independence' cultivating a strong self-belief in individuals' abilities to resolve difficulties themselves; 'taking responsibility' - making a difference, owning challenges and making things happen, and believing in the importance of 'networking'; and being willing to work through partnerships and joint endeavors. (…) the debate for the entrepreneurial university has moved away from the narrow focus upon commercialization of intellectual property and the fears of 'prostitution' of the 'idea' of a university that results from this. Entrepreneurship for this type of university is now located as an individual and organizational, behavioral and development response to uncertainty and complexity broadly relevant to citizens and organizations of all kinds - private, public and autonomous” (Culkin and Mallick, 2011, pp. 356-357)

From a narrow perspective, contributions to economy and society are primarily achieved by researchers within the university making use of their research results by patents, licenses and university spin-offs (Trippl et al., 2015). Further, academics are able to engage with existing firms in areas such as consulting and collaborative research (Martinelli et al., 2008). These activities give rise to further structures in addition to the ones established in traditional research universities, such as TTOs (Jacob et al., 2003). In essence, entrepreneurial universities in the narrower sense mostly engage in academic capitalism – researchers act as state-subsidised capitalists and entrepreneurs within a neoliberal setting (e.g. Slaughter and Leslie, 1997*). According to the narrow perspective, strategic renewal and transformation focus more on attitude changes when it comes to working with industry (Van Looy et al., 2011), implementation of a business culture within academia and commercialisation incentivising schemes (Trippl et al., 2015) or allocating research budgets in line with the private and public sector (Jacob et al., 2003). In contrast, several papers rely on a wider perspective of the entrepreneurial university. According to this view, contributions to the economy and society are not limited to researchers as the stakeholders. Instead, the entrepreneurial university serves as a natural incubator providing support structures for researchers and students to establish both commercial and noncommercial ventures (Urbano and Guerrero, 2013). Academic entrepreneurship processes not only comprise technology or knowledge transfer to industry (e.g. via spin-off creation), but also strategic renewal, and transformation of the university system itself (Brennan and McGowan, 2006*). From a wider perspective, the development of an entrepreneurial culture is required at all levels (Urbano and Guerrero, 2013), creating an interactive experiential education format (Etzkowitz, 2013a) and building values such as independence, belief in the importance of networking and responsibility in individuals (Culkin and Mallick, 2011). This wider perspective is also more in line with a knowledge production moving away from being discipline-based, traditional and context-free towards transdisciplinarity and context-sensitivity (see Gibbons et 8

al., 1994*; Nowotny et al., 2001*), whilst giving commercialisation a less dominant role in comparison to the narrow understanding of the entrepreneurial university (Knuuttila, 2013). 4.2

Research streams

We systematically analysed each paper regarding its primary focus in the entrepreneurial university system, as understood from the wider perspective of the entrepreneurial university. As a first outcome of our detailed analysis, we derived seven primary research streams, each featuring a particular stakeholder group. In this conceptual stakeholder-based view, the entrepreneurial university itself is located in the centre and is linked with six internal and external groups of focal actors (see Fig. 3).

Researchers Administrators & coordinators

Economy & society

Entrepreneurial university Students

Existing firms

New ventures

Figure 3 Stakeholder-based conceptualisation of entrepreneurial university research streams

While most papers merely concentrate on one stakeholder group, some of them also address more, for example when examining the links between researchers and existing firms. As such, the number of publications dealing with each stakeholder does not add up to the total number of papers examined. Fig. 4 provides an overview of the number of publications dealing with each stakeholder.

9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Entrepreneurial university Researchers Economy & society New ventures Existing firms Students Administrators & coordinators

Figure 4 Number of publications dealing with each stakeholder

4.3 4.3.1

Entrepreneurial university Profile

The stakeholders forming the entrepreneurial university are the university itself and the research centres within the university, both aimed at understanding the entirety of the entrepreneurial university rather than specific stakeholders that make up the university. The analysed papers specify the concept of the entrepreneurial university, compare it with other university models and additionally highlight its historical trajectories in the United States, Europe and Asia. Researchers furthermore focused on factors influencing the development and success of the entrepreneurial university and focused on intra- and international comparisons of entrepreneurial universities. In addition, factors, elements and histories of specific universities and research centres were also analysed (see Table 2).

Table 2 Research stream overview – Entrepreneurial University Stakeholder Research sub-questions

Number of papers

4.3.2

University, university research centres What are the conceptual interpretations and historical accounts of entrepreneurial university models? What are the external and internal factors, facilitators and barriers influencing the development of entrepreneurial universities? How can different entrepreneurial universities be compared? What are examples of specific entrepreneurial universities? 45

Development of the concept

The development of entrepreneurial universities, both its model and historical account, were detailed by papers featured in this sub-section, both independently and in comparison with other university models. Etzkowitz provided the first models and historical accounts of the entrepreneurial universities (Etzkowitz, 1983; 2003a; b; Etzkowitz et al., 2000). He argues that entrepreneurial elements within universities did not arise due to demand by existing industries, 10

but rather are a result of university scientists’ decisions to use their research for industrial applications (Etzkowitz, 1983). Military research funding also played a role in this development (Etzkowitz, 2003b). He sees the major trends in a greater dependence of the economy on knowledge production and in attempts to identify and guide trends in this knowledge production. This led to patterns of transformation of traditional universities towards entrepreneurial ones in the United States, Latin America, Europe and Asia from different initial starting points (Etzkowitz et al., 2000) and via different paths i.e. bottom-up in the US and topdown in Europe (Etzkowitz, 2003b). The differences between these paths was further highlighted by Kruecken et al. (2007), who argue that the discourse on the “entrepreneurial university” still shows persistent differences across the Atlantic, such as the increased role and importance of innovation networks in Germany when compared to the US. An account of this historical development in Singapore was written by Mok (2015), whilst Sing et al. (2015) describe the trajectories of East Asian countries and Metcalfe (2010) that of Canada. Etzkowitz (2013a) reprises his analysis of the entrepreneurial university, expressing it in four interrelated tenets, namely (1) close interaction with industry and government, (2) being a relatively independent institution, (3) using the resolution of the tensions between interaction and independence as a starting point to create hybrid organisational forms that can realise the objectives of interactive and independent research and knowledge transfer, and (4) a continuing renovation and renewal of the university’s internal structure as its external relations to industry and government evolve. Tuunainen (2005) states that the “enterprise university” primarily focuses on administrative and political issues of academia, rather than scientific practices. This view is supported by Deem (2001), who argues that the concept of the entrepreneurial university is closely related to new managerialism i.e. trying to find new, efficient and effective ways of doing things and setting up new organisational forms. The entrepreneurial university is also expected to aim at interdisciplinary education, transferable skill training, as well as to instil an ethos of life-long learning and green sustainable development (Krisciunas, 2010). The entrepreneurial university is furthermore regarded as one of the core drivers of cross-campus entrepreneurship education (i.e. network or collaborative efforts from multiple departments to develop entrepreneurial skills in students) (Katz et al., 2014). The manifestations of entrepreneurship across the campus, their governance structures and necessary maintenance building blocks were further examined by Morris et al. (2014). Sam and van der Sijde (2014) investigated the entrepreneurial university in relation to other university models, such as classical Humboldtian (featuring research-like learning and academic freedom of research and teaching), Napoleonic (focusing on professional education and certification), Anglo-Saxon (personality development through liberal education and a close relationship between teachers and students) and Anglo-American (combining Humboldtian and Anglo-Saxon elements with a more decentralized and competitive academic market place) models. The authors identify the entrepreneurial university as the culmination of all these models and as a central part in the innovation ecosystem. Audretsch (2014) argues that the role of the university changes as it adapts to underlying economic forces and that the Humboldtian model remained prevalent as long as economic performance was shaped by factors such as physical capital and unskilled labour – largely separate from universities. 4.3.3

Determinants of the entrepreneurial university

Several authors assessed the external and internal determinants as well as facilitators and barriers that have an effect on the success of the entrepreneurial university. Nelles and Vorley (2011) develop a framework to understand the internal dynamics of entrepreneurial universities and concluded that consolidating universities’ third mission needs to be led bottom-up from the university to create the appropriate path for that specific university. This view is highlighted by 11

Lehrer et al. (2009), who state that when a university system grows and exhibits cost problems, political pressures to reform it via top-down measures increase. However, these very reforms breed homogenisation and weaken the contextual factors of national university systems such as a nationwide, diversified bidding system for funding large-scale university-based research projects, decentralised competition and a certain latitude in mission and revenue mix. Facilitators and barriers for the development of entrepreneurial universities were also identified by Kirby et al. (2011). Participants identified facilitators such as favourable staff attitudes and links with industry, barriers such as organisational structure and university governance, and success measurement criteria such as number of students in entrepreneurial programmes. In a study of Spanish universities the most critical factors identified were the attitudes towards entrepreneurship from academics and students (Guerrero and Urbano, 2012). Mainardes et al. (2011) provide a summary of further barriers. A Middle-Eastern perspective on relevance, barriers and drivers of the entrepreneurial university reveals that United Arab Emirate universities required developments in their innovation culture and risk-taking approach (Bhayani, 2015). Challenges for Scandinavian universities were determined to be the difficulty of escaping global templates of how an entrepreneurial university should function, whilst wanting to create a unique regional identity, as well as the reliance on social science students for recruitment whilst the primary source of research revenue comes from science students (Stensaker and Benner, 2013). 4.3.4

Comparing entrepreneurial universities

Differing policies and structures have led to different entrepreneurial universities – the papers in this section aim to highlight these similarities and differences across regions and nations. Using qualitative content analysis, Loi and Di Guardo (2015) categorise organisational orientations of universities in Italy, hereby trying to achieve their Third Mission. The authors note that keywords related to traditional entrepreneurial activities, such as consultation and collaboration, were the most frequent ones. Furthermore, they established clear geographical differences between the Northern, Central and Southern Italian universities. Yokoyama (2006) compares the conditions of Japanese and UK entrepreneurial universities in relation to governance, management, leadership and funding. She finds that UK universities are more extensively involved in entrepreneurial activities, particularly in areas such as strategies to increase funding and organizational reforms. A further study on Irish and Spanish universities reveals that Spanish ones mainly rely on collegial structures, business creation and technology transfer and lack reward systems for entrepreneurial activities, whilst Irish ones feature streamlined organizational structures, full-service TTOs, cross-functional multi-cultural research teams and reward systems that include explicit inventor agreements (Guerrero et al., 2014). Comparing the UK, Sweden and Austria, Trippl et al. (2015) argue that whilst in the UK policies attempted to reflect the differences between universities and their abilities to commercialise research, in Sweden and Austria this tailoring of policies towards capabilities has not been taken place yet. A comparison between the United States, Ireland and Australia argues that US university commercialisation is more advanced, particularly due to more support from university leadership and better scale and connectivity in the US, when compared to Irish and Australian universities (Geoghegan et al., 2015). Some universities have also established university venture capital and private equity funds to pursue their Third Mission. It was found that European funds concentrate on biotechnology and medical/health companies whilst US funds are more likely to focus on ICT and semiconductor/electronics companies (Croce et al., 2014). In a comparison of different US university-sponsored technology incubators, certain similarities such as policies, management practices and performance outcomes were discovered (Mian, 1994). 12

4.3.5

Specific entrepreneurial universities

A variety of papers focus on the specific factors, elements and histories of select universities or research centres to inductively form a holistic perspective and present best practice cases (Table 3). Individual university analyses mostly focus on the US, the UK and Scandinavia.

Table 3 Researched entrepreneurial universities Americas Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (Bernasconi, 2005) Stanford & Berkeley (Adams, 2009) Stanford (Etzkowitz, 2013b) University at Albany (Schultz, 2011)

Europe University of Twente (Lazzeretti and Tavoletti, 2005) Chalmers University of Technology (Jacob et al., 2003) Unnamed Scandinavian university (Styhre and Lind, 2010a) Unnamed Scandinavian university (Styhre and Lind, 2010b) Two unnamed Scandinavian universities (Stensaker and Benner, 2013) Universities of the Uppsala Round-Table group (Mets, 2010) Unnamed Spanish university (Urbano and Guerrero, 2013) University of Strathclyde (Levie, 2014) Newcastle University (Goddard et al., 2012)

Asia National University of Singapore (Wong et al., 2007) National University of Singapore (Sidhu et al., 2011) Mahidol University (Wonglimpiyarat, 2015)

Concluding this section, it becomes evident that research on entrepreneurial universities itself and its units has been receiving high attention, resulting in numerous recent publications. 4.4 4.4.1

Economy & society Profile

Etzkowitz’s (e.g., 2003b) definition regards the entrepreneurial university’s Third Mission as an important contribution to economic and social development. The regional and national economy and the society as a whole thus represent the ultimate beneficiary of the entrepreneurial university’s knowledge transfer activities. The analysed literature focuses on devising models for regional and national economic development and knowledge capabilities, and the role of the entrepreneurial university within these frameworks. Furthermore, researchers examined specific impacts on the economy and society in different settings (see Table 4). Table 4 Research stream overview – Economy & society Stakeholder Research sub-questions

Number of papers

Economy, society What are regional economic models and what role does the entrepreneurial university play in this context? What are impacts of the entrepreneurial university on the economy and society? 14

13

4.4.2

Economic models and the role of entrepreneurial universities

The analysed papers determine the different frameworks of knowledge-based economic models, as well as the role and critiques of the entrepreneurial universities within these settings. Etzkowitz and Klofsten (2005) derive a model for knowledge-based regional economic development and argued that the role of the entrepreneurial university in this context is on par with that of industry and government. They argue that regional economic development goes through various stages until it is self-sustaining. Etzkowitz and Dzisah (2008) highlight the difference between a Triple Helix strategy of development and traditional development models, where development is not merely a specific level of gross domestic product, but rather the institutionalisation of innovations as a fundamental societal value. In this setting, universities are becoming ever more crucial to the innovation process, complementing industrial enterprise as sources of new economic activity. Regional and national knowledge capabilities and their interaction with the knowledge economy were studied within the frame of different theoretical models by Cooke (2005). Using the Basel biotechnology sector as an example, he argues that the Triple Helix is too macro-sociological, functionalist and consensus-focused. Goddard et al. (2012) state that, whilst universities can be incorporated into a regional innovation system, this needs to be carefully planned and that, in practice, regions are not nor should they be a primary focus for universities. Subotzky (1999) criticises the overreliance on neo-liberal ideas within the entrepreneurial university, and advocates for higher education’s contribution to society’s equity, community development and the public good through a more Mode-2 like research. 4.4.3

Societal and economic impacts of the entrepreneurial university

Besides the various studies that specifically look at ways in which the entrepreneurial university impacts the economy through contact with existing industries and spin-off creation, multiple studies take a broader look at the effects of entrepreneurial universities on the local, regional and national economy and society. Baycan and Stough (2013) highlight several previously identified positive impacts on the society and economy, such as the creation of jobs, the university's crucial role in selected industries, the regional attractiveness to firms, and more knowledge-sharing infrastructure. Atkinson and Pelfrey (2010) state that research universities are one of the principal reasons why the United States can have confidence in its economic future, if certain funding challenges are dealt with. Bramwell and Wolfe (2008) highlight spinoff activity, R&D resources and support, the creation and support of talented educated people, progressive innovative entrepreneurial activities, as well as formal and informal local and global linkages and performing intermediary function as benefits to society and the economy. Trippl et al. (2015) point out that there are strong national differences in these impacts on the economy and society. Whilst UK programmes promote commercial outcomes, local engagement and knowledge transfer to firms, policy instruments in Sweden reflect a broader Mode-2 approach and promotion of inter-organisational interactions. Further national differences on the role of the university within the regional and national innovation system were highlighted by Ho (2014). For example, in Korea the emphasis lies on the creation of skilled graduates, whilst in Japan strong connections with local industry were mentioned most. In a quantitative study among 147 British universities, Guerrero et al. (2015) used a structural equation model to support their hypotheses that entrepreneurial universities' teaching, research and entrepreneurship activities has a positive impact on economic development. Further, detailed analysis regarding the regional economic footprint of universities were carried out, taking into consideration the cases of Newcastle and Twente University (Benneworth, 2007; Benneworth and Hospers, 2007), as well as Linköpping (Svensson et al., 2012). The analysis shows that the role for and impacts of entrepreneurial universities on economy and society have been studied in numerous facets so far. 14

4.5 4.5.1

Researchers Profile

Researchers are the primary actor group for traditional technology transfer activities (such as the creation of patentable or licensable inventions) and hence the main contacts for industry. Our analysis relies on a broader view of researchers, i.e. it not only considers tenured professors but also post-doc researchers, doctoral candidates, contracted researchers and other individuals engaged within the university. Research of the last few years focuses on motivations of researchers to interact with industry and the impact of entrepreneurial university structures, activities and policies on researchers’ knowledge transfer mechanisms and roles and attitudes. Publications as well highlight the researchers’ awareness of elements of the entrepreneurial university (Table 6).

Table 6 Research stream overview – researchers Stakeholder Research sub-questions

Number of papers

4.5.2

Researchers (tenured professors, post-doc researchers, doctoral candidates, contracted researchers et al.) What are the motivations of academics to interact with industry? What are the impacts of typical entrepreneurial university structures, activities and policies on knowledge transfer mechanisms associated with researchers? How do different incentivising schemes affect these outputs? What are the impacts of the entrepreneurial university on roles and attitudes? How aware are researchers of the elements of the entrepreneurial university? 25

Motivations of researchers

A number of papers deals with the motivations of academics’ engagement with industry, as well as the effects of monetary incentives and funding sources on this engagement. Important motivational factors are commercialisation, learning, access to funding and in-kind resources (D'Este and Perkmann, 2011), reputation gain from university-industry collaboration, practical application of research, publications and additional financial resources (Franco and Haase, 2015). Taking a more singular view on the field of Turkish nano-scientists, motivation factors of researchers can be grouped into research motivators (having access to resources versus learning from industry) and entrepreneurship motivators (commercialisation of research outcomes) (Beyhan and Rickne, 2015). The effects of monetary incentives were studied in relation to patenting output. Baldini (2010a), using quantitative data on Italian universities, found support for the hypothesis that universities which grant higher revenue shares to researchers generate more patents, whilst the hypothesis that universities which give higher revenue shares to researchers’ departments generate more patents was weakly supported. Monetary incentives’ effects on high-impact publishing and commercialisation was examined by Derrick and Bryant (2013). The authors find that these do not affect a change in the behaviour of researchers, but rather that researchers viewed incentives as a reward for those who did achieve success in these activities. Existing schemes served a larger purpose by promoting commercialisation as something worthy of reward and hence scientific recognition and are thus useful in reducing the tension between research and commercialisation. Extramural and in particular industry funding of academic research was found to have an effect on academic's sharing behaviour: scientists who received third-party funding were more likely to have been denied access to others’ research results and materials and industry funding doubled the likelihood of keeping research materials secret (Czarnitzki et al., 2015). Hong and Walsh 15

(2009) find that industry funding is associated with more secrecy, whilst industry collaboration is associated with less secrecy and that the concern over increasing scientific secrecy has merit but that this is due to a combination of increasing commercial linkages and increased pressures from scientific competition. 4.5.3

Impacts of entrepreneurial university processes on researchers

The impacts of processes and structures of the entrepreneurial university on knowledge transfer mechanisms associated with researchers, such as patenting or start-up intentions, as well as on their other work duties and behaviours, were particularly studied with the focus on the relationship between researcher patents and publications. The minority of inventor-authors, that is researchers with high numbers of patents, also tends to publish and be cited overproportionally (Meyer, 2006). Czarnitzki et al. (2009) took a deeper look into the relationship by distinguishing engagement in patenting with the business sector and non-profit organizations and identify that the former is associated with a lower publication output and quality. Magerman et al. (2015) investigated whether involvement in patenting hampers the dissemination of researchers' published research and found no negative effect on forward citations for publications that are subject of a patent, but rather far higher lifespan H-index for authors involved in patenting activities. Hong and Walsh (2009) conclude that patenting is associated with increased secrecy among mathematicians and physicists, but not for experimental biologists. The hypothesis that academics from highly entrepreneurially-oriented university departments are less likely to engage in traditional activities than their counterparts from lowly entrepreneurially-oriented departments could not be supported (Kalar and Antoncic, 2015). The effects of contextual and structural ambidexterity on research commercialization and researchers' engagement with the different commercialisation options was researched in a Taiwanese context. Chang et al. (2009) determined that contextual ambidexterity was more critical than structural ambidexterity for researchers engaging in patenting and licensing, whilst ambidextrous factors such as organizational supports or personal entrepreneurial capabilities can stimulate researchers' engagement in spin-off equity number more than institutional legitimacy or networking capability. Social norms and entrepreneurial university policies were also researched in relation to academics' start-up intentions. Guerrero and Urbano (2014) could partially find support for their hypotheses that academics motivational factors, subjective norms and entrepreneurial university policies have a knowledge filter effect on academics’ start-up intentions. A warning was given by Frost and Brockmann (2014), stating that the implementation of quantitative measurement systems can lead to scholars behaving strategically by concentrating on measured indicators. In their literature review of the impacts of entrepreneurial universities, Baycan and Stough (2013) also mentioned the dissolution of academic culture, less academic freedom and worse undergraduate teaching as possible dysfunctional effects on researchers. Taking an East Asian perspective, academics mentioned the decreasing importance of teaching due to the two other missions, as well as the lack of academic status for social scientists and the undermining of academic freedom (Mok, 2013). 4.5.4

Roles and attitudes of researchers

The impact that the entrepreneurial university has on researchers' self-concept and role has been researched in various papers. Some faculty members have adopted multiple objectives like running a company next to their traditional role (Etzkowitz, 1998). This is in line with research that indicated that researchers were basically positive about integrating new and old roles, but lack the trust and support from university administrators to perform in their new role (Fogelberg and Lundqvist, 2013). One study suggested that the desire to remain in academia is lower in those researchers that have had contact with university spin-offs, compared to a no-contact16

group (Lam and de Campos, 2015). Professorial attitudes towards the idea of an entrepreneurial university was supportive if promoted by university management through a bottom-up approach (Philpott et al., 2011). However, academics complain about their loss of academic freedom and personal autonomy in work, as these values come into conflict with externally imposed steering and control (Ylijoki, 2005). Using a case study from Helsinki, Tuunainen and Knuuttila (2009) inquired into the difficulties associated with engaging researchers simultaneously in an academic and business setting and found problems in areas such as the allocation of economic rewards, the decrease of open scholarly communication, the relationships between professorentrepreneur and department head, working hour allocations for different duties, the use of university equipment and the definition of intellectual property rights. Targeting junior researchers at entrepreneurial universities, Hakala (2009) determined that for them the significance and meaning of their work stem primarily from their hope that research results can be put into use, also benefitting non-academic people. Furthermore, the junior researchers mentioned that the possibility of having an academic career is considered to be beyond one’s own control (feeling forced to leave academia finishing their PhD), and that the appeal of traditional and entrepreneurial elements of the university are not enough, as useful research can be conducted elsewhere (governmental research institutes, industry) in better conditions. The difficulty of building an academic career in an entrepreneurial university was further discussed by Joseph (2015). 4.5.5

Perceptions and awareness of researchers

The number of studies on perceptions and awareness of elements of the entrepreneurial university is rather sparse. Kalar and Antoncic (2015) surveyed 1,266 academics and find that academics in the natural sciences are more likely to perceive their university department as highly entrepreneurially-oriented than their counterparts in the social sciences. The study of Martinelli et al. (2008) reveals a low faculty awareness concerning the different technology transfer activities. In sum, we conclude that the research stream on researchers as important internal entrepreneurial university stakeholders is relatively well developed. 4.6 4.6.1

Existing firms Profile

The Triple-Helix model features industry as one of the three primary actors in a knowledgebased economy (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000*). Research on existing firms focuses on the contact points and knowledge exchange mechanisms between universities and firms and the factors influencing these interactions. It furthermore analyses the motivations of firms to engage with the entrepreneurial university and the benefits and drawbacks perceived by industry (Table 7).

Table 7 Research stream overview – existing firms Stakeholder Research sub-questions

Number of papers

Existing firms Which are the contact points, knowledge exchange mechanisms and interaction channels between existing firms and the entrepreneurial university, and which factors influence this contact? What are the motivations for firms to engage with the entrepreneurial university? What are the benefits and drawbacks perceived by firms? 10

17

4.6.2

Contact points between firms and the university

Researchers constitute the most frequent contact points between existing firms and the entrepreneurial university. For Sussex University, Martinelli et al. (2008) identify consultation, collaborative research and research grants as the most common knowledge exchange mechanisms. According to Franco and Haase (2015), interaction channels differ considerably depending on the scientific area and technological departments are prone to a higher degree of cooperation. The main interaction channels remain traditional and service channels though. Franco et al. (2014) find that variables like gender and age influence researchers’ propensity to cooperate with industry. The study of Boardman and Ponomariov (2009) among more than 1,500 US researchers shows that industry grants, affiliation with a university research centre, the number of students supported through grants, and being a male researcher positively influence interactions with industry. From a Taiwanese perspective, Hu (2009) supports the view that industry-university links are strengthened by private and public research funding, while there was no evidence that establishing technology licensing and business incubation may reinforce those links. The Belgian study of Bramwell and Wolfe (2008) reveals that the University of Waterloo is a contact point serving as an important intermediary function within the local high-tech community. Difficulties of industry-university contact were studied by Goddard et al. (2012), who find the relationships between regional firms and technology and innovation centres in the North-East of England to be limited due to poor matching between a strong academic research base (the “supply side”) and limited absorptive capacity (the “demand side”). The contact point of the research centre, joint ventures between universities, industry and government funding organisations, were studied by Styhre and Lind (2010a). 4.6.3

Motivations of firms and perceived impacts of collaboration

Regarding the motivation of existing firms for interacting with the entrepreneurial university, Ankrah et al. (2013) find that industry actors particularly mention responsiveness to government policy, strategic institutional policy, the desire to attract specific collaborative funded projects with universities to participate in, access to new knowledge/technology/knowhow, and links to suitable academic partners as core motivational factors. Potential impacts for firms collaborating with universities are benefits and drawbacks. Being associated with a research institute enhances the valuation of a firm and the probability that it will be acquired, as well as the propensity to be a target of cross-border mergers and acquisitions (Meoli et al., 2013). Derived benefits for industry refer to improved innovative ability, exposure to new knowledge/technologies and keeping up-to-date with technologies, whilst the most mentioned drawback was raising too high expectations (Ankrah et al. (2013). Summing up the status quo of research on firms as entrepreneurial university stakeholders, it becomes evident that research on motivation and impacts for industry has been receiving considerable less attention in comparison to literature on contact and interaction. 4.7 4.7.1

New ventures Profile

One of the most commonly mentioned knowledge transfer activities of entrepreneurial universities is the establishment of new organisational ventures, specifically university-based or university-sponsored spin-off companies. The analysis of new ventures as stakeholder group focuses on the factors promoting the growth and success of these spin-offs, the impact these spin-offs have and how they compare to non-university spin-offs (see Table 5). 18

Table 5 Research stream overview – new ventures Stakeholder Research sub-questions Number of papers

4.7.2

University spin-offs What factors impact university spin-off growth and success? What impact do university spin-offs have? How do university spin-offs compare to other spin-offs? 10

Factors influencing spin-off growth and success

O'Shea et al. (2007) used the MIT case to determine in which way attributes operating both independently and through interaction influence spin-off creation and success. They identified factors such as the science and engineering base of the university, the quality of staff's research activities, leadership and supporting policies, an entrepreneurial-oriented culture, as well as the regional context of the university; highlighting that no single factor can explain MIT's spin-off success. However, Etzkowitz (2012) suggests that inducing permeability (easily moving across the borders of the university and firms) is a key driver for renewable sources of spin-off activity. Avnimelech and Feldman (2015) tested a host of hypotheses regarding factors impacting spinoff activity at 124 US academic institutions. Their data support the positive impact of local entrepreneurial and developed clusters, the availability of venture capital, university R&D activity, university ranks (overall, technological departments, business school) and the efficiency of TTOs. An Italian study highlights variables affecting spin-off growths as location, sector of activity and ownership structure (Iacobucci and Micozzi, 2015). Styhre (2014) examined the ways Swedish biomedical university spin-offs access the required capital and highlighted the specific problems of selling spin-off products in biomedicine as the small, second-rate Swedish domestic market and a community of conservative physicians. 4.7.3

Impact of university spin-offs

The impacts of university spin-offs not only affect the economy, but also other determinants of the entrepreneurial university, such as patenting, publication and contract research activities and the entrepreneurs collaborating with academia. Focusing on the UK, Harrison and Leitch (2010) examined the recent spin-off trends and dynamics. They argue that UK spin-offs start and remain small, are unlikely to be a major source of income and that there may be an adverse selection process in operation such that universities oftentimes do not retain involvement in the “best” spin-offs. Furthermore, Harrison and Leitch (2010) argue that those involved in the spinoff creation seek to complicate and mystify the process. Iacobucci and Micozzi (2015) agree that direct, quantifiable effects of university spin-offs on the economy remain small. Van Looy et al. (2011) show that the hypotheses that higher levels of spin-off activity coincide with lower levels of contract research and patent activities could not be supported. Baldini (2010b) rejects the hypothesis that university spin-off creation and publications negatively affect each other. The study of van Burg et al. (2013) analyses how fairness perceptions are affected in the context of spin-off creation, specifically in the context of entrepreneur-university cooperation and identified specific fairness-rules, as well as that the entrepreneur’s entrepreneurial experience and relational capital with the university impacted the formation of these fairness-rules. 4.7.4

Comparison of university to non-university spin-offs

Comparisons between university spin-offs to non-university spin-offs have not received much attention by researchers so far. In their study on Italian spin-offs, Colombo and Piva (2012) find that academic spin-offs differ from non-academic spin-offs, e.g. they hire a relatively greater number of educated technical personnel and are more likely to establish technological research 19

alliances with public research organisations. However, the hypothesis their research does not support is that academic spin-offs place a relatively greater emphasis on internal investments in technical and scientific functions and less emphasis on internal investments in commercial functions. As a conclusion for this research stream, we state that research on new ventures has received considerably more attention regarding influence factors and impacts than comparisons between university and non-university spin-offs. 4.8 4.8.1

Students Profile

The wider perspective of the entrepreneurial university (e.g. Urbano and Guerrero, 2013) also considers undergraduate and graduate students as stakeholders. Several authors researched the methods and structures within the entrepreneurial university to integrate students in the knowledge transfer process, as well as the impact these structures have on students (see Table 8).

Table 8: Research stream overview – students Stakeholder Research sub-questions

Number of papers

4.8.2

Students (undergraduates, postgraduates) Which methods and structures can entrepreneurial universities use to increase students’ entrepreneurial capacities and willingness? What impact do entrepreneurial universities have on their students? 6

Methods and structures for student engagement

According to Arroyo-Vazquez et al. (2010), an effective entrepreneurship support system encompasses entrepreneurship culture, entrepreneurship support, business launch support and business development support. Culkin and Mallick (2011) investigate the strategy and contribution of a British university in creating more entrepreneurial students. They do not regard entrepreneurial students as the stereotypical business actors forming new ventures, but rather more broadly as value creators. As such, not only is it important to provide skills in launching enterprises, but also about fostering transferable skills such as research analysis, creativity and leadership. This is achieved, amongst other ways, via offering students and graduates the opportunity to engage in business consulting, coordinated by a Graduate Consulting Unit specifically set up for this purpose. Rasmussen and Sorheim (2006) also investigated the extent of entrepreneurship education at five Swedish universities, and highlight that it focused more on active involvement instead of teaching and has grown dramatically in scope. A German analysis reveals the increased relevance of entrepreneurship courses for students, with fundamentals of entrepreneurship and business plan development playing the most important role and a lack of courses devoted to technology transfer or knowledge commercialisation (Guenther and Wagner, 2008). In Mexico, methods of increasing research and innovation include making undergraduates work in research groups as interns (Galeano et al., 2012).

20

4.8.3

Impact on students

Saeed et al. (2014) investigate a Pakistani context when it comes to students' perceptions on their universities educational, concept-development and business support-development, and whether these correlate with entrepreneurial intentions amongst students. They discovered that whilst perception of high educational support and concept-development support had a positive effect on entrepreneurial intentions, business-development support had no effect. In sum, the research contributions emphasise the students’ role as relevant entrepreneurial university stakeholders. Yet, in comparison with other stakeholders, this research streams remains currently underrepresented. 4.9

Administrators & coordinators

4.9.1

Profile

The seventh of the identified stakeholder groups of the entrepreneurial university comprises university administrators, managers and heads of departments (see Table 9).

Table 9 Research stream overview – administrators & coordinators Stakeholder Research sub-questions Number of papers

4.9.2

University administrators, management & heads of departments; technology transfer coordination What are the effects of the entrepreneurial university on university administrators and managers? 3

Impacts on administrators and coordinators

In a study among senior managers of UK knowledge transfer officers, Sharifi et al. (2014) identify a tendency towards inter-organisational relations and interactions and that the business model focused management approach seems to be a highly important direction for knowledge transfer offices. Vogel and Kaghan (2001) state that technology transfer officers, fundraisers and other administrators should be seen as key actors, mixing bureaucratic and entrepreneurial elements and adopting the role of a deal-arranging broker. Sotirakou (2004) highlights the effects of entrepreneurial university governance structures on heads of departments and identifies conflicts resulting out of the strong pressures on them to create effectiveness and the low influence they had in determining their institutions policy and strategy. Thus, administrators and coordinators are as well affected by changing structures and processes inherent in the entrepreneurial university. There is a strong tendency to continuously adapt their roles and activities in line with the further entrepreneurial development in academia. 5 5.1

Discussion Implications for the concept of the entrepreneurial university

As our systemic stakeholder-based literature review revealed, the field of the entrepreneurial university has grown in scope over the years. Before 2006, most articles solely dealt with the concept of the entrepreneurial university, and to a lesser extent with its impact on the economy and researchers. After 2006, first articles focused on the relationship of the entrepreneurial university with students, new ventures and existing firms. In the same period, published 21

research put more emphasis on researchers as core actors of entrepreneurial universities. Between 2013 and 2015 (the strongest two-year-period with respect to the number of publications and citations, see Fig. 1), publications still highlighted the researchers’ role, but additionally dedicated more attention to further stakeholder groups, in particular to existing firms and new ventures. In contrast, research foci on students and the economic impact of the entrepreneurial university decreased in relevance, i.e. in number of publications. Summing up the publication development over time, it eventually becomes obvious that research on the entrepreneurial university was rather aggregated before 2006, and then gradually featured a stronger differentiation of the actors involved. This development justifies the wider view on the entrepreneurial university our research took over and consequently highlights the necessity to put more emphasis on the actors, i.e. the stakeholders forming the entrepreneurial university and its environment. Thus, the wider view on the entrepreneurial university, featuring an integrative perspective on these stakeholders, helped to overcome the fragmented treatment of single issues when providing our review on the current state of research on the entrepreneurial university. By transferring the stakeholder theory to the entrepreneurial university, our paper therefore provides a more systemic and comprehensive literature review on the status quo of research on entrepreneurial universities with the help of a stakeholder-based conceptualisation. Our novel classification of previous research resulted in the identification of seven primary stakeholder groups. This allowed us to significantly extend prior conceptualisations, merely featuring selected foci. By integrating the core stakeholders and their linkages we considerably extend and concretise prior, process-based conceptualisations in the entrepreneurial university context. Our more comprehensive and detailed understanding of the entrepreneurial university concept, its drivers and particularly the systemic linkages between the stakeholder groups involved in sum provides a valuable basis for deriving future research avenues (see Section 5.2). The research on each stakeholder type already features valuable insights about their determinants and the outcomes with regard to the entrepreneurial university. The entrepreneurial universities impact on the economy and society was highlighted through job creation, the university’s role in certain industries, regional attractiveness to firms with entrepreneurial universities, knowledge-sharing infrastructure and the provision of skilled graduates. Researchers were thoroughly examined, with both positive (e.g. more patents) and negative (e.g. increased secrecy) effects associated with elements of the entrepreneurial university. Entrepreneurial elements associated with students include support systems, the development of transferrable skills and a more active teaching concept. Research on administrators and managers revealed their changing role within the university towards more service orientation and professionalism with regard to entrepreneurial activities. Some linkages between stakeholders were emphasised in previous analyses. We highlighted those by solid lines in Figure 5. The links between the entrepreneurial university itself and the other stakeholders radiating away from it have largely been studied by scholars. Furthermore, the link between researchers and existing firms has been in the focus of the vast literature on universityindustry collaboration (e.g. Franco and Haase, 2015). Last, the link between researchers an new ventures was addressed in research addressing motivations, processes and outcomes of academic spin-off creations (e.g. Landry et al., 2006*). Our review suggests that the concept of the entrepreneurial university is increasingly more closely related to academic entrepreneurship (Perkmann et al., 2013*), rather than to academic capitalism. This underlines that a wider view on the phenomenon of entrepreneurial universities, as we pursued it throughout our paper, gains relevance in research. Indeed, this wider view and deeper understanding of the activities taking place in the entrepreneurial 22

university environment requires an extended and changing role understanding of the university itself and the stakeholders involved in this context. Whilst the historical trajectory of the entrepreneurial university has traditionally been a combination of bottom-up and top-down factors, governments around the world have initiated a variety of top-down measurements to promote the university’s Third Mission. University administrators need to beware that these top-down homogenisation efforts may reduce the contextual, regional effectiveness of the entrepreneurial university. Additionally, they should note that favourable staff attitudes were the one factor identified by various authors as critical in establishing and maintaining a functioning entrepreneurial university. In line with Perkmann et al. (2013*), individual characteristics and the individual perspectives of the stakeholders involved deserve more attention when it comes to future research in this area. Furthermore, our findings emphasise the importance for policy makers to provide adequate organisational framework conditions for entrepreneurial activities within the university and beyond. It is hence not sufficient that researchers of the entrepreneurial university are characterised by entrepreneurial spirit. Instead, in line with Etzkowitz (2008*), the other stakeholders also need to take over an entrepreneurial ethos. The interplay of the stakeholders and their linkages with each other and with the university need to be seen and analysed from an integrative and themebased systemic perspective to provide better conditions for this ethos to emerge. From an internal perspective, the development and progress of the entrepreneurial university additionally features changing and extended role definitions for the stakeholders (e.g. for researchers, administrators and coordinators). 5.2

Implications for a future research agenda

Our stakeholder-based categorisation of seven research streams on entrepreneurial universities allows us to regard the university as a system of groups interacting with each other. This integrative perspective helps to overcome the limitations of prior, rather fragmented views on the entrepreneurial university and its research foci. Instead, our categorisation visualises and emphasises the integration of the entrepreneurial university’s core stakeholders. We see the following areas as a basis for a future research agenda on entrepreneurial universities. We highlighted all areas identified to offer prospective research opportunities by dotted lines in Figure 5. 5.2.1

Missing stakeholder groups

We did not find any studies that explicitly considered some external stakeholders which were mentioned by Bartell (2003*) such as the press, founding agencies or political initiatives. Further core stakeholder groups, uncovered by Mainardes et al. (2010*), are professional bodies, potential students and competitor universities. None of these stakeholders have been targeted by the papers discussed in this literature review. 5.2.2

White spots within particular stakeholder groups

Some of the analysed stakeholder groups are currently underrepresented in entrepreneurial university research. This particularly concerns administrators & coordinators and students, but also existing firms and new ventures. The reason for these identified white spots in research may be a narrower perspective in form of academic capitalism taken over by many current publications on entrepreneurial universities. In this latter perspective, researchers are regarded as state-subsidised entrepreneurs (e.g., see Slaughter and Leslie, 1997*) commercialising their knowledge through spin-offs, patents and licensing with the help of the TTO (Trippl et al., 2015). However, a certain availability bias towards this stakeholder might also play a role. As 23

argued by Ankrah et al. (2013), university-industry knowledge transfer activities are biased to using quantitative methods to focus on academics. The developments arising in the course of entrepreneurial university ethos development not only affect researchers, but also have impacts on the administrational personnel within universities, e.g. with regard to promoting their entrepreneurial ethos (Etzkowitz, 2008*). Apart from few exceptions (e.g. Kesting and Wurth, 2015*), the changing roles and role understanding of administrators and coordinators from an entrepreneurial and service provider perspective currently remains a largely underrepresented area of research. Taking into consideration the students, the antecedents, contingencies and consequences of elements of the entrepreneurial university on students have not yet been determined, e.g. asking questions about which type of students are especially receptive. Studies on characteristics of motivations and attitudes with respect to the student engaging with different entrepreneurial university structures are also lacking; as are agreed-upon success measurement criteria of the entrepreneurial university when it comes to students. With respect to existing firms, particularly impacts perceived by industry actors engaging with elements of the entrepreneurial university represent a relevant area for further studies, such as e.g. the benefit perception by universities and firms. However, it needs to be noted that the literature on contact and interaction between non-entrepreneurial universities and industry is already quite vast (for an overview, see Agrawal, 2001*). Taking over a wider perspective of the entrepreneurial university and regarding it as a natural incubator with support structures to initiate not only commercial new ventures, but also intellectual and conjoint ones (Urbano and Guerrero, 2013), researchers may seek to concretise what exactly is meant by these new ventures. Certainly, one aspect of the commercial new venture (i.e. university spin-off companies) has already been examined, but there is currently no indication as to the nature, processes, determinants and impacts of non-commercial new ventures arising from the entrepreneurial university. Additionally, further research into the differences between university-based and non-university-based spin-offs, as well as differences in their success metrics could allow university administrators to tweak the entrepreneurial university’s environment in such a way as to best exploit the former’s potential. 5.2.3

Missing links between the stakeholder groups

Further, we identified a considerable lack of research with respect to several inter-stakeholder interactions. Compared to non-university research institutions, students ensuring “… the ‘flow-through of human capital’ …“ (Etzkowitz, 2008*, p. 1) provide a concrete competitive advantage of universities. It is thus surprising that a closer focus on student-business has been receiving very limited attention in research so far (Nielsen and Cappelen, 2014*; Rossano et al., 2016*). While both recent contributions on this issue emphasise the relevance of including students in university-business collaboration, there remains considerable research potential on this issue, e.g. with respect to the entrepreneurial focus of students and lecturers alike (Rossano et al., 2016*) Additionally, further links also provide new promising research opportunities when framed from the context of the entrepreneurial university, such as particularly the link between new ventures and students, e.g. asking questions about the nature and characteristics of studentgenerated spin-offs as well as the contextual conditions (i.e. entrepreneurial education, founding opportunities, academic engagement & consulting). In fact, the topic of “student entrepreneurship” has hardly been examined at all, even though, as Bailetti (2011*) states, most 24

universities do not have the skills, will-power, discipline, financial resources, space, and networks required to transform university knowledge into a wide range of commercial goods, and to achieve their Third Mission. In general, university barriers to entrepreneurship include lack of social acceptance of student entrepreneurs, tensions between academic and commercial outputs, lack of personnel with business experience and commercial skills, and inefficient TTOs (Shane, 2003*). However, the specific barriers for students of entrepreneurial universities (or universities striving to become entrepreneurial) have not yet been examined. Another relevant link that has currently been receiving less attention is the one between researchers and students within the new context of the entrepreneurial university. A recent EC and OECD framework on entrepreneurial universities highlights several key areas to be considered in this respect, such as whether and which mechanisms are in place for breaking down traditional boundaries between students and staff, and which mechanisms exist to foster new relationships between these stakeholders (EC and OECD, 2012*). Furthermore, the link between administrators & coordinators and students provides relevant future research avenues for determining the nature and effectiveness of these interfaces. As stated by Bailetti (2011*), results-based management (RBM) approaches and tools for coordinating initiatives fostering the creation of student spinoffs such as a logic model, a performance measurement framework or an investment risk management template, may be very useful. From a more practical standpoint, questions like “How could the university administration help students when applying for patents?” arise. However, actual empirical studies on the effectiveness and efficiency of such management approaches and tools are still missing in the status quo of research on entrepreneurial universities. Adding to these reflections and in line with a wider understanding of the novel, more entrepreneurial role of administrators and coordinators, the relations and activities between administrational personnel and new ventures arising in the closer environment of a university provide a further future research direction. 5.2.4

Entire ecosystem

We eventually conclude that the seven stakeholder groups determine existing entrepreneurial university activities. Possible knowledge gains may result through the application of an ecosystems perspective focusing not only on individual actors, but the entirety of the system. First observations from Aalto University, Imperial College London, TUSUR, University of Auckland (Graham, 2014*), and University of Coimbra (Maia and Claro, 2013*) indicate that synergies between the university and its stakeholder groups in sum provide the foundations for the establishment of institutional entrepreneurial cultures and capabilities. A system perspective on the entrepreneurial university can thus be regarded as a fruitful avenue for future research. It can provide a basis to understand the emergence and effect of entrepreneurial ethos (Etzkowitz, 2008*) among university stakeholders. Theoretically, questions about the role of diversity (Eagle et al., 2010*) in maintaining the university ecosystem or the level of institutionalization (Scott, 1995*) of an ecosystem could be addressed. Methodologically, insights from network analyses could be transferred into the context of the entrepreneurial university ecosystem. For instance, effects of configurational network aspects such as network position, brokerage or tie strength within the entrepreneurial university ecosystem could be analysed by means of social network analysis (Wasserman and Faust, 2008*).

25

Entrepreneurial ecosystem Researchers

Economy & society

Administration-student interactions

Administrators & coordinators

Entrepreneurial university

Students

Existing firms Student-business interactions

Administration-new ventures interactions

New ventures

Fig. 5 Overview on future research directions

5.3

Limitations

Despite our comprehensive and systematic analysis on entrepreneurial university research and the derived stakeholder-based conceptualisation, this review is not free of limitations. First, by integrating all identified articles identified with the keyword search, we did not carry out a quality test of the papers, which stem from both higher and lower impact journals. Hence, future research may consider and compare the differences in results presented in higher and lower impact journals. Second, transferring the stakeholder concept to the university context has certain limits, in particular due to the multifunctional roles of universities and the subsequent fragmentation and heterogeneity of the stakeholders that entrepreneurial universities are facing (Jongbloed et al., 2008*). Third, the overall research field features a high degree of heterogeneity. The specific role of universities in the societal context and their diverse interactions with their stakeholders lead to increased interdisciplinary research issues and overlapping of research areas. In this respect, the concept of the engaged university has been emerging as a further field of interest. It emphasises the role of universities with respect to societal needs and engagement (Benneworth, 2013). The linkages to the entrepreneurial university particularly concern the stakeholder orientation featured in our review, although the focal point of engaged universities lies on the civic engagement and support of universities and their staff with respect to offering support for dealing with societal problems in the region a university is embedded in (Watson et al., 2011).

26

References Adams, S.B. (2009) 'Follow the money: Engineering at stanford and uc berkeley during the rise of silicon valley', Minerva, Vol. 47, No. 4. pp. 367-390. Agrawal, A. K. (2001) 'University‐to‐industry knowledge transfer: Literature review and unanswered questions', International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 285-302. Ankrah, S.N., Burgess, T.F., Grimshaw, P. and Shaw, N.E. (2013) 'Asking both university and industry actors about their engagement in knowledge transfer: What single-group studies of motives omit', Technovation, Vol. 33, No. 2–3. pp. 50-65. Arroyo-Vazquez, M., van der Sijde, P. and Jimenez-Saez, F. (2010) 'Innovative and creative entrepreneurship support services at universities', Service Business, Vol. 4, No. 1. pp. 63-76. Atkinson, R.C. and Pelfrey, P.A. (2010) 'Science and the entrepreneurial university', Issues in Science and Technology, Vol. 26, No. 4. pp. 39-48. Audretsch, D.B. (2014) 'From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society', Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 39, No. 3. pp. 313-321. Avnimelech, G. and Feldman, M.P. (2015) 'The stickiness of university spin-offs: A study of formal and informal spin-offs and their location from 124 us academic institutions', International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 68, No. 1-2. pp. 122-149. Bailetti, T. (2011) 'Fostering student entrepreneurship and university spinoff companies', Technology Innovation Management Review, Vol. October 2011, pp. 7-12. Baldini, N. (2010a) 'Do royalties really foster university patenting activity? An answer from italy', Technovation, Vol. 30, No. 2. pp. 109-116. Baldini, N. (2010b) 'University spin-offs and their environment', Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 22, No. 8. pp. 859-876. Bartell, M. (2003) 'Internationalization of universities: A university culture-based framework', Higher Education, Vol. 45, No. 1. pp. 43-70. Baycan, T. and Stough, R.R. (2013) 'Bridging knowledge to commercialization: The good, the bad, and the challenging', Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 50, No. 2. pp. 367-405. Benneworth, P. (2007) 'Seven samurai opening up the ivory tower? The construction of newcastle as an entrepreneurial university', European Planning Studies, Vol. 15, No. 4. pp. 487-509. Benneworth, P. (ed.) eds., (2013) University engagement with socially excluded communities, Dordrecht et al.: Springer. Benneworth, P. and Hospers, G.-J. (2007) 'Urban competitiveness in the knowledge economy: Universities as new planning animateurs', Progress in Planning, Vol. 67, pp. 105-+. Bercovitz, J. and Feldman, M. (2006) 'Entpreprenerial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development', The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 31, No. 1. pp. 175-188. Bernasconi, A. (2005) 'University entrepreneurship in a developing country: The case of the p. Universidad catolica de chile, 1985-2000', Higher education, Vol. 50, No. 2. pp. 247-274. Beyhan, B. and Rickne, A. (2015) 'Motivations of academics to interact with industry: The case of nanoscience', International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 68, No. 3-4. pp. 159-175. Bhayani, A. (2015) 'Building entrepreneurial universities in a specific culturebarriers and opportunities', International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 20, No. 4. pp. 312-330. Boardman, P.C. and Ponomariov, B.L. (2009) 'University researchers working with private companies', Technovation, Vol. 29, No. 2. pp. 142-153. 27

Bozeman, B. (2000) 'Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory', Research Policy, Vol. 29, No. 4. pp. 627-655. Bramwell, A. and Wolfe, D.A. (2008) 'Universities and regional economic development: The entrepreneurial university of waterloo', Research Policy, Vol. 37, No. 8. pp. 1175-1187. Brennan, M.C. and McGowan, P. (2006) 'Academic entrepreneurship: An exploratory case study', International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 12, No. 3. pp. 144-164. Chang, Y.-C., Yang, P.Y. and Chen, M.-H. (2009) 'The determinants of academic research commercial performance: Towards an organizational ambidexterity perspective', Research Policy, Vol. 38, No. 6. pp. 936-946. Clark, B.R. (1998) Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation, Colombo, M.G. and Piva, E. (2012) 'Firms' genetic characteristics and competence-enlarging strategies: A comparison between academic and non-academic high-tech start-ups', Research Policy, Vol. 41, No. 1. pp. 79-92. Cook, D.J., Mulrow, C.D. and Haynes, R.B. (1997) 'Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions', Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 126, No. 5. pp. 376380. Cooke, P. (2005) 'Regionally asymmetric knowledge capabilities and open innovation exploring 'globalisation 2' - a new model of industry organisation', Research Policy, Vol. 34, No. 8. pp. 1128-1149. Croce, A., Grilli, L. and Murtinu, S. (2014) 'Venture capital enters academia: An analysis of university-managed funds', Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 39, No. 5. pp. 688715. Culkin, N. and Mallick, S. (2011) 'Producing work-ready graduates the role of the entrepreneurial university', International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 53, No. 3. pp. 347-368. Czarnitzki, D., Glanzel, W. and Hussinger, K. (2009) 'Heterogeneity of patenting activity and its implications for scientific research', Research Policy, Vol. 38, No. 1. pp. 26-34. Czarnitzki, D., Grimpe, C. and Pellens, M. (2015) 'Access to research inputs: Open science versus the entrepreneurial university', Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 40, No. 6. pp. 1050-1063. D'Este, P. and Perkmann, M. (2011) 'Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations', Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 36, No. 3. pp. 316-339. Deem, R. (2001) 'Globalisation, new managerialism, academic capitalism and entrepreneurialism in universities: Is the local dimension still important?', Comparative Education, Vol. 37, No. 1. pp. 7-20. Derrick, G.E. and Bryant, C. (2013) 'The role of research incentives in medical research organisations', R & D Management, Vol. 43, No. 1. pp. 75-86. Eagle, N., Macy, M. and Claxton, R. (2010) 'Network diversity and economic development', Science, Vol. 328, No. 5981. pp. 1029-1031. EC and OECD. (2012) 'A guiding framework for entrepreneurial universities.', Accessed at: 12.07.2016, Etzkowitz, H. (1983) 'Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepreneurial universities in american academic science', Minerva, Vol. 21, No. 2-3. pp. 198-233. Etzkowitz, H. (1998) 'The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages', Research Policy, Vol. 27, No. 8. pp. 823-833. Etzkowitz, H. (2003a) 'Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university-industrygovernment relations', Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales, Vol. 42, No. 3. pp. 293-337. 28

Etzkowitz, H. (2003b) 'Research groups as 'quasi-firms': The invention of the entrepreneurial university', Research Policy, Vol. 32, No. 1. pp. 109-121. Etzkowitz, H. (2008) The triple helix. University-industry-government innovation in action. New York: Routledge. Etzkowitz, H. (2012) 'Triple helix clusters: Boundary permeability at university-industrygovernment interfaces as a regional innovation strategy', Environment and Planning CGovernment and Policy, Vol. 30, No. 5. pp. 766-779. Etzkowitz, H. (2013a) 'Anatomy of the entrepreneurial university', Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales, Vol. 52, No. 3. pp. 486-511. Etzkowitz, H. (2013b) 'Startx and the 'paradox of success': Filling the gap in stanford's entrepreneurial culture', Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales, Vol. 52, No. 4. pp. 605-627. Etzkowitz, H. and Dzisah, J. (2008) 'Rethinking development: Circulation in the triple helix', Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 20, No. 6. pp. 653-666. Etzkowitz, H. and Klofsten, M. (2005) 'The innovating region: Toward a theory of knowledge-based regional development', R & D Management, Vol. 35, No. 3. pp. 243255. Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (2000) 'The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and "mode 2" to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations', Research Policy, Vol. 29, No. 2. pp. 109-123. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C. and Terra, B.R.C. (2000) 'The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm', Research Policy, Vol. 29, No. 2. pp. 313-330. Fogelberg, H. and Lundqvist, M.A. (2013) 'Integration of academic and entrepreneurial roles: The case of nanotechnology research at chalmers university of technology', Science and Public Policy, Vol. 40, No. 1. pp. 127-139. Franco, M. and Haase, H. (2015) 'University-industry cooperation: Researchers' motivations and interaction channels', Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 36, pp. 41-51. Franco, M., Haase, H. and Fernandes, A. (2014) 'The influence of academic staff's personal and professional characteristics on the decision to cooperate with industry', European Journal of International Management, Vol. 8, No. 3. pp. 293-309. Freeman, R.E. (2010) Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frost, J. and Brockmann, J. (2014) 'When qualitative productivity is equated with quantitative productivity: Scholars caught in a performance paradox', Zeitschrift Fur Erziehungswissenschaft, Vol. 17, pp. 25-45. Galeano, N., Morales-Menendez, R. and Cantu, F.J. (2012) 'Developing research skills in undergraduate students through an internship program in research and innovation', International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 28, No. 1. pp. 48-56. Geoghegan, W., O'Kane, C. and Fitzgerald, C. (2015) 'Technology transfer offices as a nexus within the triple helix: The progression of the university's role', International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 68, No. 3-4. pp. 255-277. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies: Sage. Goddard, J., Robertson, D. and Vallance, P. (2012) 'Universities, technology and innovation centres and regional development: The case of the north-east of england', Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 36, No. 3. pp. 609-627. Graham, R. (2014) 'Creating university-based entrepreneurial ecosystems: Evidence from emerging world leaders', Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Vol. 29

Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D.S. and Wright, M. (2011) '30 years after bayh–dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship', Research Policy, Vol. 40, No. 8. pp. 10451057. Guenther, J. and Wagner, K. (2008) 'Getting out of the ivory tower - new perspectives on the entrepreneurial university', European Journal of International Management, Vol. 2, No. 4. pp. 400-417. Guerrero, M., Cunningham, J.A. and Urbano, D. (2015) 'Economic impact of entrepreneurial universities' activities: An exploratory study of the united kingdom', Research Policy, Vol. 44, No. 3. pp. 748-764. Guerrero, M. and Urbano, D. (2012) 'The development of an entrepreneurial university', Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 37, No. 1. pp. 43-74. Guerrero, M. and Urbano, D. (2014) 'Academics' start-up intentions and knowledge filters: An individual perspective of the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship', Small Business Economics, Vol. 43, No. 1. pp. 57-74. Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Cunningham, J. and Organ, D. (2014) 'Entrepreneurial universities in two european regions: A case study comparison', Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 39, No. 3. pp. 415-434. Hakala, J. (2009) 'The future of the academic calling? Junior researchers in the entrepreneurial university', Higher education, Vol. 57, No. 2. pp. 173-190. Harrison, R.T. and Leitch, C. (2010) 'Voodoo institution or entrepreneurial university? Spinoff companies, the entrepreneurial system and regional development in the uk', Regional Studies, Vol. 44, No. 9. pp. 1241-1262. Ho, K.C. (2014) 'The university's place in asian cities', Asia Pacific Viewpoint, Vol. 55, No. 2. pp. 156-168. Hong, W. and Walsh, J.P. (2009) 'For money or glory? Commercialization, competition, and secrecy in the entrepreneurial university', Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 1. pp. 145-171. Hu, M.-C. (2009) 'Developing entrepreneurial universities in taiwan: The effects of research funding sources', Science Technology and Society, Vol. 14, No. 1. pp. 35-57. Iacobucci, D. and Micozzi, A. (2015) 'How to evaluate the impact of academic spin-offs on local development: An empirical analysis of the italian case', Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 40, No. 3. pp. 434-452. Jacob, M., Lundqvist, M. and Hellsmark, H. (2003) 'Entrepreneurial transformations in the swedish university system: The case of chalmers university of technology', Research Policy, Vol. 32, No. 9. pp. 1555-1568. Jones, T.M. (1995) 'Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 2. pp. 404-437. Jongbloed, B., Enders, J. and Salerno, C. (2008) 'Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda', Higher Education, Vol. 56, No. 3. pp. 303-324. Joseph, M. (2015) 'Investing in the cruel entrepreneurial university', South Atlantic Quarterly, Vol. 114, No. 3. pp. 491-511. Kalar, B. and Antoncic, B. (2015) 'The entrepreneurial university, academic activities and technology and knowledge transfer in four european countries', Technovation, Vol. 3637, pp. 1-11. Katz, J.A., Roberts, J., Strom, R. and Freilich, A. (2014) 'Perspectives on the development of cross campus entrepreneurship education', Entrepreneurship Research Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1. pp. 13-44. Kenny, M. and Patton, D. (2008) 'Reconsidering the bayh-dole act and the current university technology licensing regime', Research Policy, Vol. 16, No. 4. pp. 641-655. 30

Kesting, T. and Wurth, B. (2015) 'Knowledge and technology transfer support potential of intermediate organizations: Theory, empirical evidence, and practice cases', In: Szopa A, Karwowski W, Barbe D, editors. Competitive strategies for academic entrepreneurship: Commercialization of research-based products, pp. 143-170, Hershey: IGI Global. Kirby, D.A., Urbano, D. and Guerrero, M. (2011) 'Making universities more entrepreneurial: Development of a model', Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences-Revue Canadienne Des Sciences De L Administration, Vol. 28, No. 3. pp. 302-316. Knuuttila, T. (2013) 'Science in a new mode: Good old (theoretical) science versus brave new (commodified) knowledge production?', Science & Education, Vol. 22, No. 10. pp. 2443-2461. Krabel, S. and Mueller, P. (2009) 'What drives scientists to start their own company?: An empirical investigation of max planck society scientists', Research Policy, Vol. 38, No. 6. pp. 947-956. Krisciunas, K. (2010) 'New and forgotten pathways reducing tension in contract between university, society and authorities', Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, Vol. 21, No. 5. pp. 509-517. Kruecken, G., Meier, F. and Mueller, A. (2007) 'Information, cooperation, and the blurring of boundaries - technology transfer in german and american discourses', Higher education, Vol. 53, No. 6. pp. 675-696. Lam, A. and de Campos, A. (2015) ''Content to be sad' or 'runaway apprentice'? The psychological contract and career agency of young scientists in the entrepreneurial university', Human Relations, Vol. 68, No. 5. pp. 811-841. Landry, R., Amara, N. and Rherrad, I. (2006) 'Why are some university researchers more likely to create spin-offs than others? Evidence from canadian universities', Research Policy, Vol. 35, No. 10. pp. 1599-1615. Lazzeretti, L. and Tavoletti, E. (2005) 'Higher education excellence and local economic development: The case of the entrepreneurial university of twente', European Planning Studies, Vol. 13, No. 3. pp. 475-493. Lehrer, M., Nell, P. and Gaerber, L. (2009) 'A national systems view of university entrepreneurial ism: Inferences from comparison of the german and us experience', Research Policy, Vol. 38, No. 2. pp. 268-280. Levie, J. (2014) 'The university is the classroom: Teaching and learning technology commercialization at a technological university', Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 39, No. 5. pp. 793-808. Loi, M. and Di Guardo, M.C. (2015) 'The third mission of universities: An investigation of the espoused values', Science and Public Policy, Vol. 42, No. 6. pp. 855-870. Magerman, T., Van Looy, B. and Debackere, K. (2015) 'Does involvement in patenting jeopardize one's academic footprint? An analysis of patent-paper pairs in biotechnology', Research Policy, Vol. 44, No. 9. pp. 1702-1713. Maia, C. and Claro, J. (2013) 'The role of a proof of concept center in a university ecosystem: An exploratory study', Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 38, No. 5. pp. 641-650. Mainardes, E. W., Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2010) 'An exploratory research on the stakeholders of a university', Journal of Management and Strategy, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 76-88. Mainardes, E.W., Alves, H. and Raposo, M. (2011) 'The process of change in university management: From the "ivory tower" to entrepreneurialism', Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol., No. 33E. pp. 124-149. Martinelli, A., Meyer, M. and von Tunzelmann, N. (2008) 'Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a 31

medium-sized, research-oriented university', Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 33, No. 3. pp. 259-283. Meoli, M., Paleari, S. and Vismara, S. (2013) 'Completing the technology transfer process: M&as of science-based ipos', Small Business Economics, Vol. 40, No. 2. pp. 227-248. Metcalfe, A.S. (2010) 'Revisiting academic capitalism in canada: No longer the exception', Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 81, No. 4. pp. 489-+. Mets, T. (2010) 'Entrepreneurial business model for classical research university', Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, Vol. 21, No. 1. pp. 80-89. Meyer, M. (2006) 'Are patenting scientists the better scholars? An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology', Research Policy, Vol. 35, No. 10. pp. 1646-1662. Mian, S.A. (1994) 'United-states university-sponsored technology incubators - an overview of management, policies and performance', Technovation, Vol. 14, No. 8. pp. 515-528. Mok, K.H. (2013) 'The quest for an entrepreneurial university in east asia: Impact on academics and administrators in higher education', Asia Pacific Education Review, Vol. 14, No. 1. pp. 11-22. Mok, K.H. (2015) 'The quest for global competitiveness: Promotion of innovation and entrepreneurial universities in singapore', Higher Education Policy, Vol. 28, No. 1. pp. 91-106. Morris, N.M., Kuratko, D.F. and Pryor, C.G. (2014) 'Building blocks for the development of university-wide entrepreneurship', Entrepreneurship Research Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1. pp. 45-68. Nelles, J. and Vorley, T. (2011) 'Entrepreneurial architecture: A blueprint for entrepreneurial universities', Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences-Revue Canadienne Des Sciences De L Administration, Vol. 28, No. 3. pp. 341-353. Nielsen, C. and Cappelen, K. (2014) 'Exploring the mechanisms of knowledge transfer in university-industry collaborations: A study of companies, students and researchers.', Higher Education Quarterly, Vol. 68, No. 4. pp. 375-393. Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2001) Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty: SciELO Argentina. O'Shea, R.P., Allen, T.J., Morse, K.P., O'Gorman, C. and Roche, F. (2007) 'Delineating the anatomy of an entrepreneurial university: The massachusetts institute of technology experience', R & D Management, Vol. 37, No. 1. pp. 1-16. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., Fini, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldi, R., Hughes, A., Krabel, S., Kitson, M., Llerena, P., Lissoni, F., Salter, A. and Sobrero, M. (2013) 'Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations', Research Policy, Vol. 42, No. 2. pp. 423-442. Philpott, K., Dooley, L., O'Reilly, C. and Lupton, G. (2011) 'The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions', Technovation, Vol. 31, No. 4. pp. 161170. Rasmussen, E., Moen, O. and Gulbrandsen, M. (2006) 'Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge', Technovation, Vol. 26, No. 4. pp. 518533. Rasmussen, E.A. and Sorheim, R. (2006) 'Action-based entrepreneurship education', Technovation, Vol. 26, No. 2. pp. 185-194. Rossano, S., Meerman, A., Kesting, T. and Baaken, T. (2016) 'He relevance of problem-based learning for policy development in university-business cooperation', European Journal of Education, Vol. 51, No. 1. pp. 40-55. Rothaermel, F.T., Agung, S.D. and Jiang, L. (2007) 'University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature', Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 16, No. 4. pp. 691-791. 32

Saeed, S., Muffatto, M. and Yousafzai, S. (2014) 'A multi-level study of entrepreneurship education among pakistani university students', Entrepreneurship Research Journal, Vol. 4, No. 3. pp. 297-321. Sam, C. and van der Sijde, P. (2014) 'Understanding the concept of the entrepreneurial university from the perspective of higher education models', Higher education, Vol. 68, No. 6. pp. 891-908. Schultz, L.I. (2011) 'Nanotechnology's triple helix: A case study of the university at albany's college of nanoscale science and engineering', Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 36, No. 5. pp. 546-564. Scott, W.R. (1995) Institutions and organizations: Sage Thousand Oaks, CA. Shane, S. A general theory of entrepreneurship. The individual-opportunity nexus. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar; 2003. Sharifi, H., Liu, W. and Ismail, H.S. (2014) 'Higher education system and the 'open' knowledge transfer: A view from perception of senior managers at university knowledge transfer offices', Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 39, No. 10. pp. 18601884. Sidhu, R., Ho, K.C. and Yeoh, B. (2011) 'Emerging education hubs: The case of singapore', Higher education, Vol. 61, No. 1. pp. 23-40. Singh, A., Wong, P.-K. and Ho, Y.-P. (2015) 'The role of universities in the national innovation systems of china and the east asian nies: An exploratory analysis of publications and patenting data', Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, Vol. 23, No. 2. pp. 140-156. Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L.L. (1997) Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university: ERIC. Sotirakou, T. (2004) 'Coping with conflict within the entrepreneurial university: Threat or challenge for heads of departments in the uk higher education context', International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 70, No. 2. pp. 345-372. Stensaker, B. and Benner, M. (2013) 'Doomed to be entrepreneurial: Institutional transformation or institutional lock-ins of 'new' universities?', Minerva, Vol. 51, No. 4. pp. 399-416. Styhre, A. (2014) 'Coping with the financiers: Attracting venture capital investors and endusers in the biomaterials industry', Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 26, No. 7. pp. 797-809. Styhre, A. and Lind, F. (2010a) 'Balancing centripetal and centrifugal forces in the entrepreneurial university: A study of 10 research centres in a technical university', Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 22, No. 8. pp. 909-924. Styhre, A. and Lind, F. (2010b) 'The softening bureaucracy: Accommodating new research opportunities in the entrepreneurial university', Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 26, No. 2. pp. 107-120. Subotzky, G. (1999) 'Alternatives to the entrepreneurial university: New modes of knowledge production in community service programs', Higher education, Vol. 38, No. 4. pp. 401440. Svensson, P., Klofsten, M. and Etzkowitz, H. (2012) 'An entrepreneurial university strategy for renewing a declining industrial city: The norrkoping way', European Planning Studies, Vol. 20, No. 4. pp. 505-525. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003) 'Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review', British Journal of Management, Vol. 14, No. 3. pp. 207-222. Trippl, M., Sinozic, T. and Smith, H.L. (2015) 'The role of universities in regional development: Conceptual models and policy institutions in the uk, sweden and austria', European Planning Studies, Vol. 23, No. 9. pp. 1722-1740. 33

Tuunainen, J. (2005) 'Hybrid practices? Contributions to the debate on the mutation of science and university', Higher education, Vol. 50, No. 2. pp. 275-298. Tuunainen, J. and Knuuttila, T. (2009) 'Intermingling academic and business activities a new direction for science and universities?', Science Technology & Human Values, Vol. 34, No. 6. pp. 684-704. Urbano, D. and Guerrero, M. (2013) 'Entrepreneurial universities: Socioeconomic impacts of academic entrepreneurship in a european region', Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 1. pp. 40-55. van Burg, E., Gilsing, V.A., Reymen, I.M.M.J. and Romme, A.G.L. (2013) 'The formation of fairness perceptions in the cooperation between entrepreneurs and universities', Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 30, No. 4. pp. 677–694. Van Looy, B., Landoni, P., Callaert, J., van Pottelsberghe, B., Sapsalis, E. and Debackere, K. (2011) 'Entrepreneurial effectiveness of european universities: An empirical assessment of antecedents and trade-offs', Research Policy, Vol. 40, No. 4. pp. 553-564. Vogel, A. and Kaghan, W.N. (2001) 'Bureaucrats, brokers, and the entrepreneurial university', Organization, Vol. 8, No. 2. pp. 358-364. Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (2008) Social network analysis: Methods and applications, 17. Auflage ed. Cambridge: University Press. Watson, D., Hollister, R.M., Stroud, S.E. and Babcock, E., eds., (2011) The engaged university: International perspectives on civic engagement, New York and London: Routledge. Wong, P.-K., Ho, Y.-P. and Singh, A. (2007) 'Towards an "entrepreneurial university" model to support knowledge-based economic development: The case of the national university of singapore', World Development, Vol. 35, No. 6. pp. 941-958. Wonglimpiyarat, J. (2015) 'The process of entrepreneurial revolution: Case study of the national research university of thailand', International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, Vol. 12, No. 5. Ylijoki, O.H. (2005) 'Academic nostalgia: A narrative approach to academic work', Human Relations, Vol. 58, No. 5. pp. 555-576. Yokoyama, K. (2006) 'Entrepreneurialism in japanese and uk universities: Governance, management, leadership, and funding', Higher education, Vol. 52, No. 3. pp. 523-555. Yusof, M. and Jain, K.K. (2010) 'Categories of university-level entrepreneurship: A literature survey', International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1. pp. 81-96.

34