Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Engaged and Entrepreneurial University: A Model for Success for Smaller Programs

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Developing Engaged and Entrepreneurial Universities

Abstract

In this chapter we offer a model for the development of engaged and entrepreneurial relationships from the university’s perspective, where we concentrate largely on smaller university programs and their partners. We start by describing engaged and entrepreneurial universities and then move on to how they build relationships with outside partners. Many of the processes driving the formation of dyadic relationships between universities and firms are often inefficient and unclear (Calcagnini et al. in Small Bus Econ 46(1):31–43, 2016). We therefore utilize the general stages of group development (Tuckman in Psychol Bull 63(6):384–399, 1965) which have been examined and explored as a building block for our proposed process model for university-industry collaborative relationships. Following Santoro and Chakrabarti (Res Policy 31:1163–1180, 2001) typology, we focus on industrial firms that are considered ‘Targeted Players’; small firms, often with limited resources that need problems specific to their business solved within a relatively short time horizon. We then discuss process spanning issues and conclude with implications for theory, practice and future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abreu, M., Demirel, P., Grinevich, V., & Karatas-Ozkan, M. (2016). Entrepreneurial practices in research-intensive and teaching-led universities. Small Business Economics, 47, 695–717.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z., Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1994). R&D spillovers and innovative activity. Managerial and Decision Economics, 15(2), 131–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison, G. (1971). Essence of decision. New York: Little Brown Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, B., & Konzelman, S. (2008). In search of a useful theory of the productive potential of intellectual property rights. Research Policy, 37(1), 12–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aranha, E. A., & Garcia, N. A. P. (2014). Dimensions of a metamodel of an entrepreneurial university. African Journal of Business Management, 8(10), 336–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. (2014). From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 313–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betts, S. C., & Healy, W. (2015). Having a ball catching on to teamwork: An experiential learning approach to teaching the phases of group development. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 19(2), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betts, S. C., & Santoro, M. D. (2011). Somewhere between markets & hierarchies; controlling industry university relationships for success. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 19–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjerregaard, T. (2009). Universities-industry collaboration strategies: A micro-level perspective. European Journal of Innovation Management, 12(2), 161–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakeslee, W. D. (2012). Licensing, partnering, strategic alliances and university relationships. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 18(2), 68–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breznitz, S. M., & Feldman, M. P. (2012). The engaged university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(2), 139–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodbeck, P. W. (2002). Implications for organization design: Teams as pockets of excellence. Team Performance Management, 8(1/2), 21–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnside, B., & Witkin, L. (2008). Forging successful university-industry collaborations. Research Technology Management, 51(2), 26–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calcagnini, G., Giombini, G., Liberati, P., & Travaglini, G. (2016). A matching model of university-industry collaborations. Small Business Economics, 46(1), 31–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Alexander, J. (1999). Winning by co-opeting in strategic government-university-industry R&D partnerships: The power of complex, dynamic knowledge networks. Journal of Technology Transfer, 24(2–3), 197–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chia, R. (2014). From relevance to relevate. The Journal of Management Development, 33(5), 443–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crespo, M., & Dridi, H. (2007). Intensification of university-industry relationships and its impact on academic research. Higher Education, 54(1), 61–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Decter, M. H. (2009). Comparative review of UK-USA industry-university relationships. Education & Training, 51(8/9), 624–634.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deller, S. C. (2015). Is regional science the embodiment of the engaged university? The Review of Regional Studies, 45(1), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeRosa, D. M., Hantula, D. A., Kock, N., & D’Arcy, J. (2004). Trust and leadership in virtual teamwork: A media naturalness perspective. Human Resource Management, 43(2–3), 219–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dueñas Quintero, D. M., & Duque Oliva, E. J. (2015). Quality of university-industry relations. Pensamiento & Gestión, 38, 147–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (2013). Anatomy of the entrepreneurial university. Social Science Information, 52(3), 486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frasquet, M., Calderón, H., & Cervera, A. (2012). University-industry collaboration from a relationship marketing perspective: An empirical analysis in a Spanish university. Higher Education, 64(1), 85–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, R., Araujo, V., & Mascarini, S. (2013). The role of geographic proximity for university-industry linkages in Brazil: An empirical analysis. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 19(3), 433–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamner, J. B., Wilder, B., Avery, G., & Byrd, L. (2002). Community-based service learning in the engaged university. Nursing Outlook, 50(2), 67–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare, A. P. (1976). Handbook of small group research (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, J., McAdam, R., & Leonard, D. (2006). Reflecting on a TQM-based university/industry partnership. Management Decision, 44(10), 1422–1440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hikins, J. W., & Cherwitz, R. A. (2010). The engaged university: Where rhetorical theory matters. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38(2), 115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonsson, L., Baraldi, E., Larsson, L., Forsberg, P., & Severinsson, K. (2015). Targeting academic engagement in open innovation: Tools, effects and challenges for university management. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 6(3), 522–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakpetch, P., & Lorsuwannarat, T. (2012). Knowledge transfer effectiveness of university-industry alliances. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 20(2), 128–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., & Rees, J. (1990). Firm size, university based research and returns to R&D. Small Business Economics, 2(1), 25–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J., & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. London: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. L. (2003). The stages of group development: A retrospective study of dynamic team processes. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 20(2), 121–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen, H., Halla, M., & Alin, P. (2015). Openness in university-industry collaboration: Probing managerial perceptions. European Journal of Innovation Management, 18(4), 493–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, B. B., Salas, E., & Glickman, A. S. (1993). An analysis of team evolution and maturation. The Journal of General Psychology, 120(3), 277–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nurmi, R. (1996). Teamwork and team leadership. Team Performance Management, 2(1), 9–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philbin, S. (2008). Measuring the performance of research collaborations. Measuring Business Excellence, 12(3), 16–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plewa, C., & Quester, P. (2008). A dyadic study of “champions” in university-industry relationships. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 20(2), 211–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramos-vielba, I., & Fernández-esquinas, M. (2012). Beneath the tip of the iceberg: Exploring the multiple forms of university-industry linkages. Higher Education, 64(2), 237–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray, D., & Bronstein, H. (1995). Team up. New York: McGraw Hill Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, C. (2015). What makes an engaged university? The Tyee. https://thetyee.ca/Presents/2015/10/19/Engaged-University. Accessed 9 October 2017.

  • Rothwell, R. (1989). Small firms, innovation and industrial change. Small Business Economics, 1(1), 51–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, V., Aubé, C., Savoie, A. (2006). Teamwork behaviors: A review and an integration of frameworks. Small Group Research, 7(5), 540–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santoro, M. D., & Betts, S. C. (2002). Making industry-university partnerships work. Research-Technology Management, 45(3), 42–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santoro, M. D., & Chakrabarti, A. (2001). Corporate strategic objectives for establishing relationships with university research centers. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 48(2), 157–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santoro, M. D., & Chakrabarti, A. (2002). Firm size and technology centrality in industry–university interactions. Research Policy, 31, 1163–1180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiller, D. (2006). Nascent innovation systems in developing countries: University responses to regional needs in Thailand. Industry and Innovation, 13(4), 481–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shibayama, S. (2012). Conflict between entrepreneurship and open science, and the transition of scientific norms. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(4), 508–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. (2001). Group development: A review of the literature and a commentary on future research directions. Group Facilitation, 3, 14–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Styhre, A., & Lind, F. (2010). Balancing centripetal and centrifugal forces in the entrepreneurial university: A study of 10 research centres in a technical university. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22(8), 909–924.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turk-Bicakci, L., & Brint, S. (2005). University-industry collaboration: Patterns of growth for low- and middle-level performers. Higher Education, 49(1–2), 61–89.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. William Paterson University, Wayne, NJ, USA

    Stephen C. Betts

  2. Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA

    Michael D. Santoro

Authors
  1. Stephen C. Betts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael D. Santoro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael D. Santoro .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Science-to-Business Marketing Research Centre, Münster University of Applied Sciences, Münster, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany

    Thorsten Kliewe

  2. APOLLON University of Applied Sciences, Bremen, Bremen, Germany

    Tobias Kesting

  3. Adelaide Business School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

    Carolin Plewa

  4. Science-to-Business Marketing Research Centre, Münster University of Applied Sciences, Münster, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany

    Thomas Baaken

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Betts, S.C., Santoro, M.D. (2019). The Engaged and Entrepreneurial University: A Model for Success for Smaller Programs. In: Kliewe, T., Kesting, T., Plewa, C., Baaken, T. (eds) Developing Engaged and Entrepreneurial Universities. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8130-0_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation