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

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.

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

Fig. 1

References

  1. Ali, A. (2010) ‘Economic cost of terrorism: A case study of Pakistan’, Strategic Studies Spring/Summer 2010(1–2), Available on http://issi.org.pk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/1299569657_66503137.pdf, Accessed 4 Jan 2018.

  2. Ali, F. (2017) ‘Global Competitiveness Report 2017–2018’, Business Recorder, 30 September, Available on https://fp.brecorder.com/2017/09/20170930222476/, 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.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bienkowski, W., Brada, J. and Stanley, G. (2012) The university in the age of globalization: rankings, resources and reforms, Baskingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Etzkowitz, H. (2008) The triple helix: universityindustrygovernment innovation in action: Routledge.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

  15. Gronn, P. (2000) ‘Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership’, Educational Management and Administration 28(3): 317–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Herriott, R.E. and Firestone. W. A. (1983) ‘Multisite qualitative policy research: Optimizing description and generalizability’, Educational Researcher 12(2): 14–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hofstede, G. (2007) ‘Asian management in the 21st century’, Asia Pacific Journal of Management 24(4): 411–420.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Krumpal, I. (2013) ‘Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review’, Quality and Quantity 47(4): 2025–2047.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Leydesdorff, L. (2013) Triple helix of universityindustrygovernment relations, London: Springer.

    Google 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.

  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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Northouse, P.G. (2007) ‘Transformational leadership’, in Leadership: Theory and Practice 4th ed, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 175–206

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Thomas, R.M. (2003) Blending qualitative and quantitative research methods in theses and dissertations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

    Google 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): 3–26

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Asad Shahjehan.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 13 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shah, S.I., Shahjehan, A. & Afsar, B. Determinants of Entrepreneurial University Culture Under Unfavorable Conditions: Findings from a Developing Country. High Educ Policy 32, 249–271 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-018-0083-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • entrepreneurial culture
  • entrepreneurial university
  • visionary leadership
  • higher education
  • developing country