Advertisement

Higher Education

, Volume 68, Issue 6, pp 891–908 | Cite as

Understanding the concept of the entrepreneurial university from the perspective of higher education models

  • Chanphirun Sam
  • Peter van der Sijde
Article

Abstract

Over the last few decades, globalization and ever-increasing demands of the knowledge-based economy have caused higher education in most countries around the world to undergo significant transformation. Notwithstanding the dramatic changes in higher education, it is clearly noticed that the influence of the European higher education models is still present despite the fact that the American model has then become dominant on higher education in Europe or even worldwide. The changes have been seen in the evolutionary roles of universities, which share the common trend from traditional missions of teaching and research to the third mission for economic development. Despite various viewpoints about the third mission, the common one concerns the entrepreneurial role of university for socio-economic development, underlying the concept of entrepreneurial university in which the collaboration between university and external stakeholders is emphasized. This paper is aimed to present a review of the taxonomy of the three European higher education models, namely the Humboldtian, Napoleonic, and Anglo-Saxon model, which is followed by a discussion on the emergence of the Anglo-American model of higher education. The paper then presents the third mission in relation to the roles of a university in developed countries, which is followed by the elaboration on the transformation from mode 1 to mode 2 in knowledge production, and a pathway toward entrepreneurial universities.

Keywords

University Research Third mission Entrepreneurial university Globalization Knowledge-based economy/society Mode 1 Mode 2 

References

  1. Adamsone-Fiskovica, A., Kristapsons, J., Tjunina, E., & Ulnicane-Ozolina, I. (2009). Moving beyond teaching and research: Economic and social tasks of universities in Latvia. Science and Public Policy, 36(2), 133–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arthur, L., Brennan, J., & Weert, E. D. (2007). Employer and higher education perspectives on graduates in the knowledge society: Centre for Higher Education Research and Information. The United Kingdom: Open University.Google Scholar
  3. Arthur, L., & Little, B. (2010). The REFLEX study: exploring graduates’ views on the relationship between higher education and employment. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/21279/1/Higher_Education_and_Society._Chapter_2_%2D_The_REFLEX_study.pdf.
  4. Ash, M. G. (2006). Bachelor of what, master of whom? The Humboldt Myth and historical transformations of higher education in German-Speaking Europe and the US1. European Journal of Education, 41(2), 245–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baldini, N. (2006). University patenting and licensing activity: A review of the literature. Research Evaluation, 15(3), 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benner, M., & Sandström, U. (2000). Institutionalizing the triple helix: Research funding and norms in the academic system. Research Policy, 29(2), 291–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bloom, D., Canning, D., & Chan, K. (2006). Higher education and economic development in Africa. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  8. Bocock, J., Baston, L., Scott, P., & Smith, D. (2003). American influence on British higher education: Science, technology, and the problem of university expansion, 1945–1963. Minerva, 41(4), 327–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brooks, H. (1994). Research university and the social contract for science. In L. M. Branscomb (Ed.), Empowering technology (pp. 202–234). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Buchori, M., & Malik, A. (2004). The evoluation of higher education in Indonesia. In P. G. Altbach & T. Umakoshi (Eds.), Asian universities: Historical perspectives and contemporary challenges (pp. 249–277). Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cardoso, A. R., Portela, M., Sá, C., & Alexandre, F. (2008). Demand for higher education programs: The impact of the Bologna process. CESifo Economic Studies, 54(2), 229–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carlsson, B., Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Braunerhjelm, P. (2009). Knowledge creation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth: A historical review. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(6), 1193–1229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carnoy, M. (1999). Globalization and educational reform: What planners need to know. Paris: UNESCO International Institute of Educational Planning.Google Scholar
  14. Clark, B. R. (1995). Places of inquiry research and advanced education in modern universities. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  15. Clark, B. R. (1997). The modern integration of research activities with teaching and learning. The Journal of Higher Education, 68(3), 241–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clark, B. R. (1998a). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Oxford: Pergamon for IEU Press.Google Scholar
  17. Clark, B. R. (1998b). The entrepreneurial university: Demand and response. Tertiary Education and Management, 4(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Commission, European. (1996). Teaching and learning: Toward the learning society White paper. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  19. Davey, T., Baaken, T., Muros, V. G., & Meerman, A. (2011). University-business forum: Innovating together: Partnerships for an entrepreneurial Europe. The Netherlands: Enschede.Google Scholar
  20. Davies, J. L. (1987). The entrepreneurial university. International Journal of Higher education Management, 11(1), 227.Google Scholar
  21. Dill, D. D. (1995). University-industry entrepreneurship: The organization and management of American university technology transfer units. Higher Education, 29(4), 369–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  23. Elton, L. (2008). Collegiality and complexity: Humboldt’s relevance to British universities today. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(3), 224–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Enders, J. (2010). Higher education and labor market. Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente.Google Scholar
  25. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Etzkowitz, H. (2006). The new visible hand: An assisted linear model of science and innovation policy. Science and Public Policy, 33(5), 310–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The triple helix: University–industry–government innovation in action. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Etzkowitz, H., & Dzisah, J. (2007). The triple helix of innovation: Towards a university-led development strategy for Africa. African Technology Development Forum Journal, 4(2), 3–10.Google Scholar
  29. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1999). The future location of research and technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 24(2), 111–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., Terra, B., & Cantisano, R. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Etzkowitz, H., & Zhou, C. (2007). The entrepreneurial university in various triple helix models. Paper presented at the Triple Helix VI Conference Singapore.Google Scholar
  33. Felt, U., & Glanz, M. (2002). University autonomy in Europe: Changing paradigms in higher education policy. Bologna: Magna Charta Observatory.Google Scholar
  34. Fink, F. K., Tongeren, S. V., Simak, B., Nemeth, G., Mazet, L., & Ramos, F. (1999). Continuing professional development programs in university-industry co-operations In Frontiers in Education Conference, 1999. FIE’99. 29th Annual (Vol. 1, pp. 11B17-15): IEEE.Google Scholar
  35. Fisher, D., & Atkinson-Grosjean, J. (2002). Brokers on the boundary: Academy-industry liaison in Canadian universities. Higher Education, 44(3–4), 449–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gellert, C. (1993a). The German model of research and advanced education. In B. R. Clark (Ed.), The research foundations of graduate education Germany, Britain, France, United States, Japan. Los Angeles, California: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  37. Gellert, C. (1993b). Structural and functional differentiation: Remarks on changing paradigms of higher education in Europe. In C. Gellert (Ed.), Higher education in Europe. London: Jessica Kingsley Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Gibb, A., & Hannon, P. (2005). Towards the entrepreneurial university? Retrieved from https://webspace.utexas.edu/cherwitz/www/articles/gibb_hannon.pdf.
  39. Gibbons, M. (1998). Higher education relevance in the 21st century. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  40. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  41. Goddard, E. J. (2009). Reinventing the civic university. Retrieved from http://www.nesta.org.uk/library/documents/Reinventing-Civic-Uni-v2.pdf.
  42. Gornitzka, Å. (1999). Governmental policies and organisational change in higher education. Higher Education, 38(1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Graham, H. D., & Diamond, N. (1997). The Rise of American research universities: Elites and challenges in the postwar era. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J.-C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, 34(6), 932–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Gunasekara, C. (2006). Reframing the role of universities in the development of regional innovation systems. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hackett, S. M., & Dilts, D. M. (2004). A systematic review of business incubation research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 55–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hansemark, O. C. (1998). The effects of an entrepreneurship programme on need for achievement and locus of control of reinforcement. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 4(1), 28–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965–1988. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(1), 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Herbst, M., Olechnicka, A., & Płoszaj, A. (2011). Higher education institutions: Potential, barriers, costs, opportunities. In S. Mazur (Ed.), The resource-integrating state: Development potential vs. the quality of public regulations. The Malopolska School of Public Administration: Cracow University of Economics.Google Scholar
  50. Katz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education: 1876–1999. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kauppinen, I. (2012). Towards transnational academic capitalism. Higher Education, 64(4), 543–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Klofsten, M., & Jones-Evans, D. (2000). Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe—The case of Sweden and Ireland. Small Business Economics, 14(4), 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Krimsky, S., Ennis, J. G., & Weissman, R. (1991). Academic-corporate ties in biotechnology: A quantitative study. Science, Technology and Human Values, 16(3), 275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Laine, K. (2008). Satakunta University for Applied Sciences in Finland—a networked learning laboratory for innovation. In K. Laine, P. V. D. Sijde, M. Lahdeniemi & J. Tarkkanen (Eds.), Higher education institutions and innovation in the knowledge society (pp. 25–35). Rikhardinkatu: Rector’s Conference of Finnish Universities of Applied Sciences ARENE ry.Google Scholar
  56. Laredo, P. (2007). Revisiting the Third Mission of Universities: Toward a renewed categorization of university activities? Higher Education Policy, 20(4), 441–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Levenburg, N. M., Lane, P. M., & Schwarz, T. V. (2006). Interdisciplinary dimensions in entrepreneurship. Journal of Education for Business, 81(5), 275–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lewis, H. (2011). A model of entrepreneurial capability based on a holistic review of the literature from three academic domains. Industry and Higher Education, 25(6), 429–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Little, B. (2001). Reading between the lines of graduate employment. Quality in Higher Education, 7(2), 121–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Maassen, P., & Cloete, N. (2006). Global reform trends in higher education. In N. Cloete, P. Maassen, R. Fehnel, T. Moja, T. Gibbon, & H. Perold (Eds.), Transformation in higher education: Global pressures and local realities. The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  61. Marginson, S. (2010). Higher education in the global knowledge economy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(5), 6962–6980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 43(3), 281–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Markham, S. K. (2002). Moving technologies from lab to market. Research-Technology Management, 45(6), 31–42.Google Scholar
  64. Marques, J. P. C. (2007). Lessons learned from Portuguese business incubators: A model of entrepreneurial university based on empirical data 6th Triple Helix Conference. Singapore.Google Scholar
  65. Marques, J. P. C., Caraça, J. M. G., & Diz, H. (2006). How can university–industry–government interactions change the innovation scenario in Portugal?—the case of the University of Coimbra. Technovation, 26(4), 534–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Mars, M. M., Bronstein, J. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2012). The value of metaphor: Organizations and ecosystems. Organizational Dynamics, 41(4), 271–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Mars, M. M., & Rhoades, G. (2012). Socially oriented student entrepreneurship: A study of student change agency in the academic capitalism context. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(3), 435–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mars, M. M., & Rios-Aguilar, C. (2010). Academic entrepreneurship (re)defined: significance and implications for the scholarship of higher education. Higher Education, 59(4), 441–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Mars, M. M., Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2008). The state-sponsored student entrepreneur. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(6), 638–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Martin, B. R., & Etzkowitz, H. (2000). The origin and evolution of the university Species. Journal for Science and Technology Studies, 13(3–4), 9–34.Google Scholar
  71. Matlay, H., & Westhead, P. (2005). Virtual teams and the rise of e-entrepreneurship in Europe. International Small Business Journal, 23(3), 279–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. McMullan, W. E., & Long, W. A. (1987). Entrepreneurship education in the nineties. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(3), 261–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Mok, K. H. (2005). Fostering entrepreneurship: Changing role of government and higher education governance in Hong Kong. Research Policy, 34(4), 537–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980. Research Policy, 30(1), 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2004). Ivory tower and industrial innovation. University–Industry technology transfer before and after the Bayh-Dole Act. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2001). Patenting and licensing university inventions: Lessons from the History of the Research Corporation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(2), 317–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Mwasalwiba, E. S. (2010). Entrepreneurship education: A review of its objectives, teaching methods, and impact indicators. Education + Training, 52(1), 20–47.Google Scholar
  78. Neave, G. (2003). The Bologna declaration: Some of the historic dilemmas posed by the reconstruction of the community in Europe’s systems of higher education. Educational Policy, 17(1), 141–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Nedeva, M. (2007). New tricks and old dogs? The ‘third mission’ and the re-production of the university. In D. Epstein, R. Boden, R. Deem, F. Rizvi, & S. Wright (Eds.), World Yearbook of Education 2008: Geographies of knowledge, geometries of power: Framing the future of higher education. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  80. Philpott, K., Dooley, L., O’Reilly, C., & Lupton, G. (2011). The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation, 31(4), 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 479–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Rae, D., Martin, L., Antcliff, V., & Hannon, P. (2012). Enterprise and entrepreneurship in English higher education: 2010 and beyond. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 19(3), 380–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Salmi, J. (2001). Tertiary education in the 21st century: Challenges and opportunities. Higher Education Management, 13(2), 105–125.Google Scholar
  85. Sampat, B. N. (2006). Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: The world before and after Bayh-Dole. Research Policy, 35(6), 772–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Schwartzman, S. (2001). Higher education reform: Indonesia and Latin America. Retrieved from http://www.schwartzman.org.br/simon/jakarta.htm.
  87. Schwartzman, S., & Klein, L. (1994). Higher Education and Government in Brazil. In G. Neave & F. A. V. Vught (Eds.), Government and higher education relationships across three continents: The winds of change (Vol. 2): Pergamon Press and the International Association of Universities.Google Scholar
  88. Scott, P. (1998). Massification, internationalization ands globalization. In P. Scott (Ed.), The globalization of higher education (pp. 108–129). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Scott, J. C. (2006). The Mission of the University: Medieval to postmodern transformations. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(1), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Shane, S. (2004). Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh-Dole Act on university patenting in the United States. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 127–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.Google Scholar
  92. Slaughter, S., & Cantwell, B. (2012). Transatlantic moves to the market: the United States and the European Union. Higher Education, 63(5), 583–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Sorlin, S. (2002). Cultivating the places of knowledge. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 21(4), 377–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Steier, F. A. (2003). The changing Nexus: Tertiary education institutions, the marketplace and the state. Higher Education Quarterly, 57(2), 158–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant, basic science and technological innovation. Washington: Brookings Institute Press.Google Scholar
  96. Task Force on Higher Education and Society. (2000). Higher education in developing countries: Peril and promise. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/THE WORLD BANK.Google Scholar
  97. Tuunainen, J. (2005). Contesting a hybrid firm at a traditional university. Social Studies of Science, 35(2), 173–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Van Looy, B., Ranga, M., Callaert, J., Debackere, K., & Zimmermann, E. (2004). Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: Towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect? Research Policy, 33(3), 425–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Vesper, K. H., & Gartner, W. B. (1997). Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(5), 403–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Vorley, T., & Nelles, J. (2009). Building entrepreneurial architectures: A conceptual interpretation of the Third Mission. Policy Futures in Education, 7(3), 284–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Ward, E., & Hazelkorn, E. (2012). Engaging with the community. In S. Bergan, E. Egron-Polak, J. Kohler, L. Purser, & M. Vukasović (Eds.), Handbook on leadership and governance in higher education. Stuttgart: Raabe Verlag.Google Scholar
  102. Welch, A. (2011). Higher education in Southeast Asia: Blurring borders, changing balance. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  103. Wissema, J. G. (2009). Towards the third generation university: Managing the university in transition. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  104. Wright, M. (2012). Academic entrepreneurship, technology transfer and society: where next? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1–13.Google Scholar
  105. Yokoyama, K. (2006). Entrepreneurialism in Japanese and UK Universities: Governance, management, leadership, and funding. Higher Education, 52(3), 523–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Zukas, M. (2012). Regulating the professionals: Critical perspectives on learning in Continuing Professional Development frameworks. In D. N. Aspin, J. Chapman, K. Evans, & R. Bagnall (Eds.), Second International handbook of lifelong learning (pp. 455–467). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Organization Sciences, Faculty of Social SciencesVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations