Advertisement

Innovation Ecosystems and Universities

  • Erkan Erdil
  • Dirk Meissner
  • Joanna Chataway
Chapter
Part of the Science, Technology and Innovation Studies book series (STAIS)

Abstract

During the last decades the number of universities extending their initial education and teaching missions towards the triple helix and knowledge triangle paradigms, e.g. knowledge and technology transfer and innovation has increased substantially. In line with this evolution the term ‘entrepreneurial university’ became increasingly popular however until recently there is hardly a common understanding of ‘entrepreneurial universities’. The main perception of ‘entrepreneurial universities’ rests with a visible and measurable contribution of universities to innovation and entrepreneurship in a broader sense. Although this perception is plausible and convincing it raises many open questions which mainly point to university governance models. The innovation and entrepreneurial university paradigm requires a holistic view on university governance approaches which include the full set of universities missions and respective management routines. In this respect it’s of utmost importance that universities keep a “healthy balance” between their missions. This statement is frequently used in many instances yet thus far there is no clear indication what a “healthy balance” implies. The chapter provides first indications about entrepreneurial university governance and respective management approaches.

Keywords

Entrepreneurial university Knowledge triangle Triple helix Innovation Knowledge transfer 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The book was prepared within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) and supported within the framework of the subsidy granted to the HSE by the Government of the Russian Federation for the implementation of the Global Competitiveness Program.

References

  1. Anra Y, Yamin M (2017) Relationships between lecturer performance, organizational culture, leadership, and achievement motivation. Foresight STI Gov 11(2):92–97.  https://doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2017.2.92.97 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Audretsch D, Lehmann E, Meoli M, Vismara S (2016) University evolution, entrepreneurial activity and regional competitiveness. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boulton G, Lucas C (2008) What are universities for? LERU, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  4. Carayannis EG, Meissner D, Edelkina A (2017) Targeted innovation policy and practice intelligence (TIP2E): concepts and implications for theory, policy and practice. J Technol Transf 42(3):460–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Casson M (2015) Evolution of the concept of entrepreneurship. In: Hayter CS, Link AN (eds) Concise guide to entrepreneurship, technology and innovation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 82–89Google Scholar
  6. Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1989) Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. Econ J 99(397):569–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collini S (2012) What are universities for? Penguin Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooper AC (1985) The role of incubator organizations in the founding of growth-oriented firms. J Bus Ventur 1:75–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eliasson GS, Fölster TL, Pousette T, Taymaz E (1990) The knowledge-based information economy. The Industrial Institute for Economic and Social Research, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  10. Eurydice (2005) Focus on the structure of higher education in Europe 2004/05. Eurydice, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  11. Evans GR (2002) Academics and the real world. Open University Press, Milton KeynesGoogle Scholar
  12. Evans M (2004) Killing thinking. The death of the university. Continuum, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Fayolle A, Redford DT (2014) Handbook on the entrepreneurial university. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Foray D (2004) The economics of knowledge. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Gibb AA, Haskins G (2014) The university of the future: an entrepreneurial stakeholder learning organization? In: Fayolle A, Redford DT (eds) Handbook on the entrepreneurial university. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 25–63Google Scholar
  16. Gibb AA, Haskins G, Robertson I (2013) Leading the entrepreneurial university: meeting the entrepreneurial development needs of higher education institutions. In: Altmann A, Ebersberger B (eds) Universities in change: managing higher education institutions in the age of globalization. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Gokhberg L, Meissner D, Sokolov A (2016) Foresight: turning challenges into opportunities. In: Gokhberg L, Meissner D, Sokolov A (eds) Deploying foresight for policy and strategy makers. Springer, Switzerland, pp 1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gombrich R (2003) Review on universities: the recovery of an idea by Gordon Graham. Philos Q 53:630–632Google Scholar
  19. Graham G (2002) Universities. The recovery of an idea. Imprint Academic, ExeterGoogle Scholar
  20. Greene FJ, Mole KF, Storey DJ (2008) Three decades of enterprise culture. Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Kline SJ, Rosenberg N (1986) An overview of innovation. In: Landau R, Rosenberg N (eds) The positive sum strategy: harnessing technology for economic growth. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp 275–305Google Scholar
  22. Latour B (1979) Laboratory life: the construction of scientific fact. Sage, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  23. Latour B (1987) Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Latour B (2005) Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Meissner D (2017) Entrepreneurial universities – towards a revised paradigm. STI Policy Rev 8(1):23–40Google Scholar
  26. Meissner D, Gokhberg L, Sokolov A (eds) (2013a) Science, technology and innovation policy for the future: potentials and limits of foresight studies. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  27. Meissner D, Roud V, Cervantes M (2013b) Innovation policy or policy for innovation?—In search of the optimal solution for policy approach and organisation. In: Meissner D, Gokhberg L, Sokolov A (eds) Science, technology and innovation policy for the future, vol 2013. Springer, Berlin, pp 247–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moore MH (1995) Creating public value. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Murphy AE (1986) Richard Cantillon entrepreneur and economist. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Nelson RR, Winter SG (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. OECD (2005) Oslo manual, guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  32. OECD (2012) A guiding framework for entrepreneurial universities. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  33. Perez Vico E, Schwaag Serger S, Wise E, Benner M (2017) Knowledge triangle configurations at three Swedish universities. Foresight STI Gov 11(2):68–82.  https://doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2017.2.68.82 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Polanyi M (1966) The tacit dimension, reprint. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  35. Pyka A, Hanusch H (2006) Applied evolutionary economics and the knowledge-based economy. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schibany A, Reiner C (2014) Can basic research provide a way out of economic stagnation? Foresight-Russia 8(4):54–63Google Scholar
  37. Schumpeter JA (1908) The nature and essence of economic theory, reprint 2010. Transactions, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  38. Schumpeter JA (1934) The theory of economic development, reprint 1983. Transactions, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  39. Sin C, Veiga A, Amaral A (2016) European policy implementation and higher education. Palgrave Macmillan, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stam E (2006) A process of locational change in entrepreneurial firms: an evolutionary process. In: Pyka A, Hanusch H (eds) Applied evolutionary economics and the knowledge-based economy. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  41. Storey DJ (1994) Understanding the small business sector, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1496214
  42. Unger M, Polt W (2017) The knowledge triangle between research, education and innovation – a conceptual discussion. Foresight STI Gov 11(2):10–26.  https://doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2017.2.10.26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ODTÜ-TEKPOL Research Center and Department of EconomicsMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.National Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussia
  3. 3.SPRU—Science Policy Research UnitUniversity of SussexBrightonUK

Personalised recommendations