Abstract
The success of entrepreneurial universities depends to a large extent on the system of beliefs, relationships, and rules that shape their research and innovation projects. In this light, entrepreneurial universities can be seen as focal actors of hybrid networks in which heterogeneous subjects, characterized by different perceived interests and multiple institutional logics, interact in a systemic way. Consequently, each entrepreneurial university is immersed in a complex organizational field that influences and is influenced by their actions. This chapter draws on the institutional logics perspective to investigate how entrepreneurial universities respond to logic multiplicity. With this purpose, we analyze the case studies of one Continental European, one Anglo-Saxon, and one Asian entrepreneurial university. Then, we develop a framework that relates their key performance indicators to the nine institutional logics individuated at the organizational field level. Theoretical and managerial contributions will be discussed along the chapter.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Almandoz, J. (2012). Arriving at the starting line: The impact of community and financial logics on new banking ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1381–1406.
Ardito, L., Ferraris, A., Petruzzelli, A. M., Bresciani, S., & Del Giudice, M. (2019). The role of universities in the knowledge management of smart city projects. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 142, 312–321.
Battaglia, D., Landoni, P., & Rizzitelli, F. (2017). Organizational structures for external growth of university technology transfer offices: An explorative analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 45–56.
Bentley, P. J., Gulbrandsen, M., & Kyvik, S. (2015). The relationship between basic and applied research in universities. Higher Education, 70(4), 689–709.
Bryman, B., & Bell, E. (2011). Business research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
CEC. (2005). European universities: Enhancing Europe’s research base. European Commission.
Chau, V. S., Gilman, M., & Serbanica, C. (2017). Aligning university–industry interactions: The role of boundary spanning in intellectual capital transfer. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 199–209.
Clark, B. R. (1998). The entrepreneurial university: Demand and response. Tertiary Education and Management, 4(1), 5–16.
De Bernardi, P., Bertello, A., & Forliano, C. (2019). Unpacking Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) performances through the institutional logics lens. In IFKAD 14th international forum on knowledge assets dynamics-knowledge ecosystems and growth (pp. 1537–1555). Institute of Knowledge Asset Management (IKAM)-Arts for Business Institute-University of Basilicata.
Dumay, X., Draelants, H., & Dahan, A. (2017). Organizational identity of universities: A review of the literature from 1972 to 2014. Theory and Method in Higher Education Research, 3, 99–118.
E3M. (2010). Needs and constraints analysis of the three dimensions of third mission activities. E3M: European Indicators and Ranking Methodology for University Third Mission.
Easton, G. (2010). Critical realism in case study research. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 118–128.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Etzkowitz, H. (1983). Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepreneurial universities in American academic science. Minerva, 21(2–3), 198–233.
Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32(1), 109–121.
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.
Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (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.
Ezzamel, M., Robson, K., & Stapleton, P. (2012). The logics of budgeting: Theorization and practice variation in the educational field. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(5), 281–303.
Fini, R., Rasmussen, E., Wiklund, J., & Wright, M. (2019). Theories from the lab: How research on science commercialization can contribute to management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 56(5), 865–894.
Forliano, C., De Bernardi, P., Bertello, A., & Temperini, V. (2020). Innovating business processes in public administrations: Towards a systemic approach. Business Process Management Journal., 26, 22.
Forliano, C., De Bernardi, P., & Yahiaoui, D. (2021). Entrepreneurial universities: A bibliometric analysis within the business and management domains. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 165, 120522.
Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2009). The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva, 47(1), 93–114.
Gibb, A., Haskins, G., & Robertson, I. (2009). Leading the entrepreneurial university. University of Oxford.
Gillham, B. (2005). Research interviewing: The range of techniques: A practical guide. McGraw-Hill.
Gleeson, R. E. (2010). The third mission and the history of reform in American higher education. The community engagement and service mission of universities, pp. 121–137.
Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 27–48.
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371.
Grimaldi, D., & Fernandez, V. (2017). The alignment of University curricula with the building of a Smart City: A case study from Barcelona. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 298–306.
Guerrero, M., Cunningham, J. A., & Urbano, D. (2015). Economic impact of entrepreneurial universities’ activities: An exploratory study of the United Kingdom. Research Policy, 44(3), 748–764.
Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Fayolle, A., Klofsten, M., & Mian, S. (2016). Entrepreneurial universities: Emerging models in the new social and economic landscape. Small Business Economics, 47(3), 551–563.
Hayes, D. (Ed.). (2017). Beyond McDonaldization: Visions of higher education. Taylor & Francis.
Huynh, M. Q., Umesh, U. N., & Valacich, J. S. (2003). E-learning as an emerging entrepreneurial enterprise in universities and firms. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12(1), 3.
Jelfs, P. (2016). Financial performance analysis of spin-off companies from a UK ‘regional’ university: A case study of the University of Birmingham. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 29(2), 271–286.
Kraatz, M. S., & Block, E. S. (2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. In The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (Vol. 840, pp. 243–275). Sage.
Kraatz, M. S., & Block, E. S. (2017). Institutional pluralism revisited. In The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (Vol. 2, pp. 635–662). Sage.
Maassen, P. (2017). The university’s governance paradox. Higher Education Quarterly, 71(3), 290–298.
Macfarlane, B. (2013). Intellectual leadership in higher education: Renewing the role of the university professor. Routledge.
Marginson, S., & Van der Wende, M. (2007). To rank or to be ranked: The impact of global rankings in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 306–329.
McGrath, J. E., Martin, J. M., & Kulka, R. A. (1982). Judgment calls in research (Vol. 2). Sage.
Meissner, D., & Shmatko, N. (2017). “Keep open”: The potential of gatekeepers for the aligning universities to the new knowledge triangle. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 191–198.
Miller, K., McAdam, M., & McAdam, R. (2014). The changing university business model: A stakeholder perspective. R&D Management, 44(3), 265–287.
Murray, F. (2010). The oncomouse that roared: Hybrid exchange strategies as a source of distinction at the boundary of overlapping institutions. American Journal of Sociology, 116(2), 341–388.
Netval. (2018). XIV Rapporto Netval. In L. Ramaciotti & C. Daniele (Eds.), La rete del trasferimento tecnologico si rafforza con la clinical innovation. Edizioni ETS.
Ocasio, W., Thornton, P. H., & Lounsbury, M. (2017). Advances to the institutional logics perspective. In The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism. Sage.
Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751–760.
Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage.
Philpott, K., Dooley, L., O’Reilly, C., & Lupton, G. (2011). The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation, 31(4), 161–170.
Pierce, P., Ricciardi, F., & Zardini, A. (2017). Smart cities as organizational fields: A framework for mapping sustainability-enabling configurations. Sustainability, 9(9), 1506.
Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.). (2012). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. University of Chicago Press.
Qiu, Y., Chen, H., Sheng, Z., & Cheng, S. (2019). Governance of institutional complexity in megaproject organizations. International Journal of Project Management, 37(3), 425–443.
QS ranking. (2020). QS World University Ranking. Retrieved from https://www.topuniversities.com/qs-world-university-rankings
Rinaldi, C., Cavicchi, A., Spigarelli, F., Lacchè, L., & Rubens, A. (2018). Universities and smart specialisation strategy. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education.
Scott, W. R. (1991). Unpacking institutional arguments. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutional in organizational analysis (pp. 162–182). University of Chicago Press.
Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Sage.
Scott, P. (2001). Conclusion: Triumph and retreat. The state of UK higher education–managing change and diversity (pp. 186–204). Routledge.
Secundo, G., Ndou, V., Del Vecchio, P., & De Pascale, G. (2019). Knowledge management in entrepreneurial universities. Management Decision, 57(12), 3226.
Secundo, G., Perez, S. E., Martinaitis, Ž., & Leitner, K. H. (2017). An intellectual capital framework to measure universities’ third mission activities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 229–239.
Siegel, D. S., & Zervos, V. (2002). Strategic research partnerships and economic performance: Empirical issues. Science and Public Policy, 29(5), 331–343.
Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20–24.
Silverman, D. (2013). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. Sage.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1998). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research, grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage.
Tang, H. H. H. (2018). Academic profession, entrepreneurial universities and scholarship of application: The imperative of impact. Journal of Comparative and International Higher Education, 10(3), 3–5.
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801–843.
Trencher, G., Yarime, M., McCormick, K. B., Doll, C. N., & Kraines, S. B. (2014). Beyond the third mission: Exploring the emerging university function of co-creation for sustainability. Science and Public Policy, 41(2), 151–179.
University of Milano-Bicocca. (2020). Piano strategico 2020/2022. Retrieved from https://www.unimib.it/sites/default/files/allegati/piano-strategico-2020_1.pdf
Von Schomberg, R. (2012). Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In M. Dusseldorp & R. Beecroft (Eds.), Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren (pp. 39–61). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-93468-6_2
Wang, J. (2018). Innovation and government intervention: A comparison of Singapore and Hong Kong. Research Policy, 47(2), 399–412.
Wooten, M., & Hoffman, A. J. (2008). Organizational fields: Past, present and future. In The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (Vol. 1, pp. 131–147). Sage.
Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage.
Zietsma, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2010). Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(2), 189–221.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Forliano, C., De Bernardi, P., Bertello, A., Ricciardi, F. (2022). Institutional Logics to Unveil Entrepreneurial Universities’ Performances: A Cross-Country Comparative Study. In: Caperchione, E., Bianchi, C. (eds) Governance and Performance Management in Public Universities. SIDREA Series in Accounting and Business Administration. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85698-4_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85698-4_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-85697-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-85698-4
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)