Higher Education Policy

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 249–271 | Cite as

Determinants of Entrepreneurial University Culture Under Unfavorable Conditions: Findings from a Developing Country

  • Syed Imad Shah
  • Asad ShahjehanEmail author
  • Bilal Afsar
Original Article

This qualitative research examines entrepreneurial cultures of private and public sector universities in an apparently hostile economy such as Pakistan, and how it is affected by a nexus of its internal and external environmental factors. The phenomenon is explored through viewpoints and understanding of the social actors who experience it firsthand through 32 interviews with faculty members of 4 public and 4 private sector universities. A top-down, government-pull model approach driven by visionary leaders was found more viable and suggested in promoting entrepreneurial culture rather than bottom-up, university-push model approach. Furthermore, to achieve entrepreneurial cultures, private universities are restrained by profit motives, whereas public ones are inhibited by administrative procedures. The proposed framework offers empirical guidelines for the purposes of contextualizing entrepreneurial university culture and its underlying factors under unfavorable conditions.


entrepreneurial culture entrepreneurial university visionary leadership higher education developing country 

Supplementary material

41307_2018_83_MOESM1_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 13 kb)


  1. Ali, A. (2010) ‘Economic cost of terrorism: A case study of Pakistan’, Strategic Studies Spring/Summer 2010(1–2), Available on, Accessed 4 Jan 2018.
  2. Ali, F. (2017) ‘Global Competitiveness Report 2017–2018’, Business Recorder, 30 September, Available on, Accessed 18 Jan 2018.
  3. Beugelsdijk, S. (2010) ‘Entrepreneurial culture, regional innovativeness and economic growth’ in A. Freytag and R. Thurik (eds.) Entrepreneurship and Culture, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 129–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bienkowski, W., Brada, J. and Stanley, G. (2012) The university in the age of globalization: rankings, resources and reforms, Baskingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bjugstad, K., Thach, E.C., Thompson, K.J. and Morris, A. (2006) ‘A fresh look at followership: A model for matching followership and leadership styles’, Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management 7(3):304.Google Scholar
  6. Bramwell, A. and Wolfe D.A. (2008) ‘Universities and regional economic development: The entrepreneurial University of Waterloo’, Research Policy 37(8):1175-1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchanan, D. and Bryman, A. (2009) The SAGE handbook of organizational research methods, London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, B. (2001) ‘The entrepreneurial university: New foundations for collegiality, autonomy, and achievement’, Higher Education Management 13(2): 9–24.Google Scholar
  9. Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (1990) ‘Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons and evaluative criteria’, Zeitschrift für Soziologie 19(6):418–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Creswell, J.W. (2013) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches, London: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) ‘Building theories from case study research’, Academy of Management Review 14(4):532–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Etzkowitz, H. (2008) The triple helix: universityindustrygovernment innovation in action: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C. and Cantisano Terra, B.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
  14. Etzkowitz, H. and Zhou, C. (2007) Regional innovation initiator: the entrepreneurial university in various triple helix models. Theme Paper; Triple Helix 6th Conference; 16–18 May; National University of Singapore, Singapore.Google Scholar
  15. Gronn, P. (2000) ‘Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership’, Educational Management and Administration 28(3): 317–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Herriott, R.E. and Firestone. W. A. (1983) ‘Multisite qualitative policy research: Optimizing description and generalizability’, Educational Researcher 12(2): 14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hofstede, G. (2007) ‘Asian management in the 21st century’, Asia Pacific Journal of Management 24(4): 411–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. and Minkov, M. (1991) Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Vol. 2, London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  19. Jacob. M., Lundqvist, M. and Hellsmark, H. (2003) ‘Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish University system: the case of Chalmers University of Technology’, Research Policy 32(9):1555-1568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kitagawa, F. (2015) ‘Research, Development and Innovation: International, National and Regional Perspectives’ in J. Huisman, H. de Boer, D. D. Dill and M. Souto-Otero (eds). The Palgrave International Handbook of Higher Education Policy and Governance, London: Springer, pp. 243–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krumpal, I. (2013) ‘Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review’, Quality and Quantity 47(4): 2025–2047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Laukkanen, M. (2003) ‘Exploring academic entrepreneurship: drivers and tensions of university-based business’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 10(4): 372–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leydesdorff, L. (2013) Triple helix of universityindustrygovernment relations, London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Masa’deh, R., Shannak, R., Maqableh, M. and Tarhini, A. (2017) ‘The impact of knowledge management on job performance in higher education: The case of the University of Jordan’, Journal of Enterprise Information Management 30(2): 244–262.Google Scholar
  25. McGuire, S., Drost, E. and Zhang, Y. (2016) Convergent and Discriminant Validity of a Model of Entrepreneurial Culture. Paper presented at the The XXVII ISPIM Innovation Conference; 19–22 June; Porto, Portugal.Google Scholar
  26. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook, London: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Moreno, A.M. and Casillas, J.C. (2008) ‘Entrepreneurial orientation and growth of SMEs: A causal model’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 32(3): 507–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Murphy, G.B., Tocher, N. and Ward, B. (2016) ‘An examination of public private academic partnerships: Does program success enhance university performance outcomes?’, Public Organization Review 16(1): 95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Northouse, P.G. (2007) ‘Transformational leadership’, in Leadership: Theory and Practice 4th ed, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 175–206Google Scholar
  30. 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 37(1): 1–16.Google Scholar
  31. Philpott, K., Dooley, L., O’Reilly, C. and Lupton, G. (2011) ‘The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions’, Technovation 31(4): 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ring, P.S. and Perry, J.L. (1985) ‘Strategic management in public and private organizations: Implications of distinctive contexts and constraints’, Academy of Management Review 10(2): 276–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scott, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000) ‘The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research’, Academy of Management Review 25(1): 217–226.Google Scholar
  34. Singleton Jr, R., Straits, B.C., Straits, M.M. and McAllister, R.J. (1988) Approaches to social research, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Terry, L.D. (1993) ‘Why We Should Abandon the Misconceived Quest to Reconcile Public Entrepreneurship with Democracy: A Response to Bellone and Goerl’s” Reconciling Public Entrepreneurship and Democracy’, Public Administration Review 53(4): 393–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thomas, E. and Magilvy, J.K. (2011) ‘Qualitative rigor or research validity in qualitative research’, Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing 16(2): 151–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thomas, R.M. (2003) Blending qualitative and quantitative research methods in theses and dissertations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Varghese, N.V. (2006) Growth and expansion of private higher education in Africa, Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning.Google Scholar
  39. Woods, P.A. (2004) ‘Democratic leadership: drawing distinctions with distributed leadership’, International Journal of Leadership in Education 7(1): 3–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yin, R.K. (2013) Case study research: Design and methods, London: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Yukl, G., Gordon, A. and Taber, T. (2002) ‘A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior: Integrating a half century of behavior research’, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 9(1): 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Universities 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Management StudiesUniversity of PeshawarPeshawarPakistan
  2. 2.Department of Management SciencesHazara UniversityMansehraPakistan

Personalised recommendations