Public Organization Review

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 497–516 | Cite as

Designing the Entrepreneurial University: The Interpretation of a Global Idea

Article

Abstract

Becoming an entrepreneurial university has been identified as the solution to the problems facing contemporary higher education systems. The idea of becoming an entrepreneurial university can be seen as the result of a more globalised higher education sector where the domestic and institution-specific characteristics of universities are downplayed in favour of a more uniform idea of what a university should do and how it should be organized. This article contributes to this scholarly discussion by analysing how efforts to transform universities into “more complete organisations” are understood and interpreted in terms of organisational structures.

Keywords

University modernization Higher education reforms Matrix organizational structure Strategic actor-hood 

References

  1. Aagaard, K. (2011). Danish University mergers: the case of Aarhus University. Paper presented at the Hedda 10th anniversary conference. Oslo, 4th November.Google Scholar
  2. Aagaard, K., & Mejlgaard, K. (Eds.) (2012). Dansk forskningspolitik efter årtusindskiftet. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
  3. Aarrevaara, T., Dobson, I., & Elander, C. (2009). Brave new world: higher education reform in Finland. Higher Education Management and Policy, 21(2), 2–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. (1977). Boundary spanning roles and organization structure. The Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 217–230.Google Scholar
  5. AU (2008). Strategy 2008-2012: quality and diversity. Aarhus: University of Aarhus.Google Scholar
  6. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Beerkens, E. (2010). Global models for the national research university: adoption and adaptation in Indonesia and Malaysia. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 8(3), 369–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ben-David, J. (1992). Centers of learning. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publ.Google Scholar
  9. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19(1), 69–89. doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., Feller, I., & Burton, R. (2001). Organizational structure as a determinant of academic patent and licensing behavior: an exploratory study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 21–35. doi:10.1023/a:1007828026904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. University of Michigan: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  12. Brignall, S., & Modell, S. (2000). An institutional perspective on performance measurement and management in the ‘new public sector’. Management Accounting Research, 11(3), 281–306. doi:10.1006/mare.2000.0136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (Eds.) (2011). The Ashgate research companion to new public management. Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  14. Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: academic organization in cross-national perspective. Los Angeles, California: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  15. Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: organizational pathways of transformation. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  16. Czarniawska-Joerges, B., & Sevón, G. (2005). Global ideas: how ideas, objects and practices travel in a global economy. Copenhagen: Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
  17. de Boer, H., & Stensaker, B. (2007). An internal representative system: the democratic vision. In P. Maassen, & J. P. Olsen (Eds.), University dynamics and European integration (Vol. 19, pp. 99–118, Higher Education Dynamics). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  18. De Dreu, C. K. W., Harinck, F., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (1999). Conflict and performance in groups and organizations. In C. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 369–414). New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
  19. Debackere, K. (2000). Managing academic R&D as a business at K.U. Leuven: context, structure and process. R&D Management, 30(4), 323–328. doi:10.1111/1467-9310.00186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Drori, I., & Honig, B. (2013). A process model of internal and external legitimacy. Organization Studies, 34(3), 345–376. doi:10.1177/0170840612467153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Etzkowitz, H., & Webster, A. (1998). Entrepreneurial science: the second academic revolution. In E. Etzkowitz, A. Webster, & P. Healey (Eds.), Capitalizing knowledge: new intersections of industry and academia (pp. 21–46). Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  22. Etzkowitz, H., Ranga, M., Benner, M., Guaranys, L., Maculan, A. M., & Kneller, R. (2008). Pathways to the entrepreneurial university: towards a global convergence. Science and Public Policy, 35(9), 681–695. doi:10.3152/030234208x389701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Farazmand, A. (1999). Globalization and public administration. Public Administration Review, 59(6), 509–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Farazmand, A. (2002). Modern organizations: theory and practice. Westport, Conn: Praeger.Google Scholar
  25. Ford, R. C., & Randolph, W. A. (1992). Cross-functional structures: a review and integration of matrix organization and project management. Journal of Management, 18(2), 267–294. doi:10.1177/014920639201800204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Frølich, N. (2005). Implementation of new public management in Norwegian Universities. European Journal of Education, 40(2), 223–234. doi:10.1111/j.1465-3435.2005.00221.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fumasoli, T., Pinheiro, R., Stensaker, B. (2012). Strategy and identity formation in Norwegian and Swiss universities. Paper presented at the CHER conference, September 10–12 Belgrade.Google Scholar
  28. Galbraith, J. R. (1971). Matrix organization designs: how to combine functional and project forms. Business Horizons, 14(1), 29–40. doi:10.1016/0007-6813(71)90037-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Galbraith, J. R. (1973). Designing complex organizations. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.Google Scholar
  30. Galbraith, J. R. (2008). Designing matrix organizations that actually work: how IBM, Proctor & Gamble and others design for success. San Francisco: Wiley.Google Scholar
  31. Gibbons, M., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Gornitzka, Å., & Larsen, I. M. (2004). Towards professionalisation? Restructuring of administrative work force in universities. Higher Education, 47(4), 455–471. doi:10.1023/B:HIGH.0000020870.06667.f1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gornitzka, Å., Kyvik, S., & Larsen, I. M. (1998). The bureaucratisation of universities. Minerva, 36(1), 21–47. doi:10.1023/a:1004382403543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gornitzka, Å., Stensaker, B., Smeby, J.-C., & De Boer, H. (2004). Contract arrangements in the Nordic countries: solving the efficiency-effectiveness dilemma? Higher Education in Europe, 29, 87–101. doi:10.1080/03797720410001673319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. (1988). Organizational design types, tracks and the dynamics of strategic change. Organization Studies, 9(3), 293–316. doi:10.1177/017084068800900301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. (1993). Understanding strategic change: the contribution of archetypes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5), 1052–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371. doi:10.1080/19416520.2011.590299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hatakenaka, S., & Thompson, Q. (2010). Aarhus University: reform review: Final Report. Arhus.Google Scholar
  39. Hay, C., & Wincott, D. (1998). Structure, agency and historical institutionalism. Political Studies, 46(5), 951–957.Google Scholar
  40. Holm-Nielsen, L. B. (2012). Mergers in higher education: University reforms in Denmark–the case of Aarhus university. Presentation at the seminar “University Mergers: European Experiences”, Lisbon.Google Scholar
  41. Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities: interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56(3), 303–324. doi:10.1007/s10734-008-9128-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Joyce, W. F. (1986). Matrix organization: a social experiment. The Academy of Management Journal, 29(3), 536–561. doi:10.2307/256223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kehm, B. M., & Stensaker, B. (2009). University rankings, diversity, and the new landscape of higher education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  44. Kerr, C. (2001). The uses of the university. Massachusets: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Krücken, G. (2003). Learning the ‘New, New Thing’: on the role of path dependency in university structures. Higher Education, 46(3), 315–339. doi:10.1023/a:1025344413682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Krücken, G., & Meier, F. (2006). Turning the university into an organizational actor. In G. S. Drori, J. W. Meyer, & H. Hwang (Eds.), Globalization and organization: world society and organizational change (pp. 241–257). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Kuprenas, J. A. (2003). Implementation and performance of a matrix organization structure. International Journal of Project Management, 21(1), 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Leihy, P., & Salazar, J. (2012). Institutional, regional and market identity in Chilean public regional universities. In R. Pinheiro, P. Benneworth, & G. A. Jones (Eds.), Universities and regional development: a critical assessment of tensions and contradictions (pp. 141–160). Milton Park and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Maassen, P. (2009). The modernisation of European higher education. In A. Amaral, I. Bleiklie, C. Musselin (Eds.), From governance to identity (Vol. 24, pp. 95–112, Higher Education Dynamics). Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  50. Maassen, P., & Olsen, J. P. (Eds.). (2007). University dynamics and European integration. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Maassen, P., & Stensaker, B. (2011). The knowledge triangle, European higher education policy logics and policy implications. Higher Education, 61(6), 757–769. doi:10.1007/s10734-010-9360-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Martin, B. R. (2012). Are universities and university research under threat? Towards an evolutionary model of university speciation. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36(3), 543–565. doi:10.1093/cje/bes006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations: a synthesis of the research. Harlow: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  54. Mohrman, K., Ma, W., & Baker, D. (2008). The research university in transition: the emerging global model. Higher Education Policy, 21(1), 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Morris, S. S., & Snell, S. A. (2007). Relational archetypes, organizational learning, and value creation: extending the human resource architecture. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 236–256. doi:10.5465/amr.2007.23464060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Musselin, C. (2007). Are universities specific organisations? In G. Krücken, A. Kosmützky, & M. Torka (Eds.), Towards a multiversity? Universities between global trends and national traditions (pp. 63–84). Bielefeld: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  57. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective. Stanford, California: Stanford Business Books.Google Scholar
  58. Pinheiro, R. (2012a). The future of the (entrepreneurial) university: Resolving or propelling the tensions between the regional and the global? Paper presented at CHER 2012 conference, Belgrade Sept. 1012.Google Scholar
  59. Pinheiro, R. (2012b). In the region, for the region? A comparative study of the institutionalisation of the regional mission of universities. Oslo: University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  60. Pinheiro, R. (2012c). University ambiguity and institutionalization: a tale of three regions. In R. Pinheiro, P. Benneworth, & G. A. Jones (Eds.), Universities and regional development: A critical assessment of tensions and contradictions (pp. 35–55). Milton Park and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. Pinheiro, R., Benneworth, P., & Jones, G. A. (Eds.). (2012). Universities and regional development: a critical assessment of tensions and contradictions. Milton Park and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  62. Powell, W., & Colyvas, J. (2008). Microfoundations of institutional theory. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 276–298). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  64. Ramirez, F. O. (2010). Accounting for excellence: transforming universities into organizational actors. In V. Rust, L. Portnoi, & S. Bagely (Eds.), Higher education, policy, and the global competition phenomenon (pp. 43–58). Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  65. Rip, A. (2004). Strategic research, post-modern universities and research training. Higher Education Policy, 17(2), 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rothblatt, S., & Wittrock, B. (1993). The European and American university since 1800: historical and sociological essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rowlinson, S. (2001). Matrix organizational structure, culture and commitment: a Hong Kong public sector case study of change. Construction Management and Economics, 19(7), 669–673. doi:10.1080/01446190110066137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Salminen, A. (2003). New public management and Finnish public sector organisations: the case of universities. In A. Amaral, V. L. Meek, & I. M. Larsen (Eds.), The higher education managerial revolution? (pp. 55–75). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sbragia, R. (1984). Clarity of manager roles and performance of R&D multidisciplinary projects in matrix structures. R&D Management, 14(2), 113–126. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.1984.tb01150.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schwartzman, S. (Ed.). (2008). University and development in Latin America: successful experiences of research centers (Global Perspectives in Higher Education). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  71. Scott, W. R. (2008a). Institutions and organizations: ideas and interests. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  72. Scott, W. R. (2008b). Approaching adulthood: the maturing of institutional theory. Theory and Society, 37(5), 427–442. doi:10.1007/s11186-008-9067-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Selznick, P. (1966). TVA and the grass roots : a study in the sociology of formal organization. New York, N.Y.: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  74. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore, N.J.: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Stensaker, B., & Harvey, L. (2011). Accountability in higher education: global perspectives on trust and power. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  76. Tapper, T., & Palfreyman, D. (2011). Oxford, the Collegiate University: conflict, consensus and continuity. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vorley, T., & Nelles, J. (2012). Scaling entrepreneurial architecture: the challenge of managing regional technology transfer in Hamburg. In R. Pinheiro, P. Benneworth, & G. A. Jones (Eds.), Universities and regional development: a critical assessment of tensions and contradictions (pp. 181–198). Milton Park and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  78. Vukasovic, M., Maassen, P., Nerland, M., Pinheiro, R., Stensaker, B., & Vabø, A. (2012). Effects of higher education reforms: change dynamics. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Welch, A. R. (2005). The professoriate: profile of a profession. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Whitley, R. (2008). Constructing universities as strategic actors: limitations and variations. In L. Engwall & D. Weaire (Eds.), The university in the market (pp. 23–37). London: Portland Press Ltd.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AgderforskningKristiansand SNorway
  2. 2.University of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations