TOWARD ENTREPRENEURIAL UNIVERSITY: BUILDING A SYSTEMATIC FRAMEWORK Aurik Gustomo* School of Business and Management (SBM), Institut Teknologi Bandung [email protected] Astri Ghina School of Economics and Business, Telkom University [email protected] Presented at the: SIBR Hong Kong 2016 Conference on Interdisciplinary Business and Economics Research, 24th-25th September 2016, Hong Kong ABSTRACT The importance of creating an entrepreneurial university is vital to achieve the sustainability economic growth has been widely recognized. Despite numerous studies conducted to elaborate an entrepreneurial university conceptualization, framework and measurement, the results are mostly fragmented and somehow at its embryonic stage. This research thus proposes a systematic framework for entrepreneurial university as the preliminary stage for further development in research and practice. Key words: entrepreneurial, entrepreneurial conceptualization, systematic framework

university,

entrepreneurial

university

1. INTRODUCTION Entrepreneurial University (EU) plays a significant role in the knowledge economy. In recent years, a variety of beneficiaries of this phenomenon tried to elaborate the concept. While there is a considerable amount of literature on university and academic entrepreneurship, less than ten solid and relevant entrepreneurial university conceptualization and model are offered by scholars (Sooreh et al., 2011). It is now generally accepted that universities are an important instrument in the facilitation of the contemporary knowledge – based economy. Since much knowledge is developed within universities and government research establishments, they are seen as important catalysts for regional economic and social development, through the spin-off of new, innovative enterprises that add value through knowledge creation. Hence it is largely, though not exclusively, for this reason that Governments around the world, and not just in Europe, are attempting to create more Entrepreneurial Universities (Kirby, 2002b). This research is preliminary stage to build the systematic framework for entrepreneurial university. The focus of this research is exploring the entrepreneurial university conceptualization from the ontological, epistemological, and methodological viewpoint. This stage is very important in fulfilling the need for more holistic view to build the systematic framework of this phenomenon. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW METHODOLOGY The method adopted are for the purpose to provide a comprehensive and critical literature

review of empirical research in Entrepreneurial University. A schematic representation of literature review method adopted in this research is given in Figure 1. The issues of database selection, articles selection, articles classification, and analysis of classified articles will be discussed under the literature review schematic as follow: Selection of database: Emerald and ScienceDirect

STEP 1

Articles selection: Search for “Entrepreneurial University” in article title

STEP 2

Classification for each research article: Entrepreneurial University Framework Institutional Environment Entrepreneurial Activities Entrepreneurial Impacts

STEP 3

Analysis after classification of articles: Types of research, Scope, Unit of Analysis

STEP 4

1. 2. 3. 4.

1. Gaps identified

2. Significant findings

3. Future direction

Figure 1 Literature Review Method (Ghina et al., 2015) Step 1: Selection of database The articles were collected from Emerald and ScienceDirect Step 2: Article selection Emerald Database The exact phrases “Entrepreneurial University” (18.014 total results) was searched for in journal-article title. From the first 200 results displayed through each keyword, articles were selected by their titles’ relevance to the entrepreneurial competencies topic. The search was limited to the first 200 articles of each keyword because it was already saturated. The keyword “Entrepreneurial University” resulted in 9 articles. Next, the articles were selected by reading the abstracts relating to the entrepreneurial university which covering of Entrepreneurial University Framework, Measurement, Institutional Environment, Entrepreneurial Activities, and Entrepreneurial Impacts. The results are 5 articles, 4 articles were eliminated because of irrelevant to the research topic. The illustration of articles’ selection can be seen in Table 1. ScienceDirect Database The exact phrases “Entrepreneurial Competencies” (23.330 total results) was searched for in journal-article title. From the first 200 results displayed through each keyword, articles were

selected by their titles’ relevance to the entrepreneurial university topic. The search was limited to the first 200 articles of each keyword because it was already saturated. The keyword “Entrepreneurial University” resulted in 10 articles. Next, the articles were selected by reading the abstracts relating to the entrepreneurial university which covering of Entrepreneurial University Framework, Measurement, Institutional Environment, Entrepreneurial Activities, and Entrepreneurial Impacts. The results are 8 articles, 2 articles were eliminated because of irrelevant to the research topic. The illustration of articles’ selection can be seen in Table 1. Table 1 Articles’ Selection from Emerald and ScienceDirect DATABASE Emerald ScienceDirect

TOTAL RESULTS

18.014 (Search limited to the first 200 articles in display) 23.330 (Search limited to the first 200 articles in display) TOTAL

SELECTION-I (By Title) 9

SELECTION-II (By Abstract) 5

10

8

19

13

Step 3: Classification of articles In this step, the 13 selected articles were critically analyzed for classification. Initial attempts to analyze this collection of articles stemmed from the goal of this research, which is an attempt to develop a conceptualization, framework and measurement of entrepreneurial competencies. This framework of categorization is based on an analytical review of Entrepreneurial University Accreditation based on ACEEU (Accreditation Council for Entrepreneurial and Engaged Universities and criteria of the Entrepreneurial University of the Year at the Times Higher Education Awards, sponsored by National Centre for Entrepreneurship in Education (NCEE). According to ACEEU, an entrepreneurial university is oriented towards and strategically positioned to deliver a range of societal contributions, with a focus on economic impacts. The institution undertakes education that is focused on the development of entrepreneurial mind-sets and skills, and promotes a wide range of career opportunities, including intrapreneurship, selfemployment, and entrepreneurship. Research leads to income and intellectual contributions with a high potential for commercialization. The priority in third mission activities is entrepreneurship and the university accordingly develops its people and organizational capacity to foster innovation. An entrepreneurial university is an influential stakeholder within the entrepreneurial ecosystem and is focused on greater economic impacts in the region (ACEEU, 2016). The Entrepreneurial University Award, sponsored by the National Centre for Entrepreneurship in Education, is an opportunity to recognize institutions that have embedded entrepreneurial activity into the fabric of their institution to the extent that their environment and culture not only fosters enterprising thinking among all members of its community but also delivers significant entrepreneurial impact at regional, national and international levels. The criteria to judge the quality of universities to fulfill the requirement of this award are (NCEE, 2015): a. Institutional Environment 1) How has the university transformed its culture to provide environments conducive for

supporting student enterprise and graduate entrepreneurship? 2) How is institutional leadership for driving enterprise and entrepreneurship throughout the institution demonstrated? b. Student Engagement 1) How are students and graduates demonstrating their ability to apply the enterprising and entrepreneurial mindsets and behaviors learnt through their university experiences? 2) How has the student experience enhanced a positive attitude towards enterprise and entrepreneurship as a career and life choice? c. Innovative and Entrepreneurial Staff 1) How have staffs demonstrated innovation and growth in their approach to the design and delivery of the institution’s enterprise and entrepreneurship offerings? 2) How are staff incentivized and rewarded for developing excellence in enterprise and entrepreneurship practice? d. Entrepreneurial Impact 1) What impact has the institution had on the entrepreneurial outcomes of staff, students and graduates? 2) What step-change has been achieved in the delivery of regional and national entrepreneurship goals? 3) What enterprise and entrepreneurship good practice and effectiveness has been demonstrated? 4) In what ways has the institution’s experiences influenced policy and practice in the wider environment? In particular judges will be looking for: a. Vision and strategy: how has the university transformed its vision and strategy to place enterprise, entrepreneurship and innovation at the heart of the organization? b. Culture and mindset: how has the university stimulated an environment that supports entrepreneurial mindsets and behaviors in both staff and students? c. Entrepreneurial impact: how have the university’s efforts affected the nature of entrepreneurial activity among staff, students and alumni and stimulated a strong entrepreneurial impact locally, nationally or internationally? d. Policy and practice: have the university’s experiences and activities influenced policy at all levels and clearly demonstrated good practice and effectiveness? The results of analytical review from the standard of ACEEU and NCEE, the scopes of entrepreneurial university have to cover several aspects, namely: Entrepreneurial University Framework, Institutional Environment, Entrepreneurial Activities, and Entrepreneurial Impacts. The characteristics of article classification can be seen in Table 2.

NO 1

2

Table 2 Characteristics of Article Classification CLASSIFICATION CHARACTERISTICS Entrepreneurial University All elements of learning that are important for an Framework entrepreneurial university. There are the main valuable aspects of input, process, output, and outcome. Institutional Environment Vision & strategy, culture, mindset, institutional leadership, network / stakeholders’ engagement and policy and practice of university.

NO 3

4

Table 2 Characteristics of Article Classification CLASSIFICATION CHARACTERISTICS Entrepreneurial Activities The university’s efforts (resources: human, financial, facilities) affected the nature of entrepreneurial activity among staff, students and alumni and stimulated a strong entrepreneurial impact locally, nationally or internationally. Entrepreneurial Impacts The entrepreneurial outcomes of staff, students and

graduates; achievement in the delivery of regional and national entrepreneurship goals; an enterprise and entrepreneurship good practice and effectiveness; the institution’s experiences influenced policy and practice in the wider environment.

Step 4: Analysis of classified articles This step identifies the similarities and differences of classified articles to find research gaps of Entrepreneurial University in empirical research, in addition to presenting significant findings from existing literature. Today, the importance of creating an entrepreneurial university is vital to achieve the sustainability economic growth of country. Universities, especially the entrepreneurial ones, are important actors in the "Triple Helix" of University-IndustryGovernment relations that promote the science-based innovative sphere of the whole globe (Etzkowitz, 2006). Despite the scholars have become quite active in the now vibrant field of entrepreneurial university, the academic literature remains rather fragmented because the growing literature on entrepreneurial university has not yet been reviewed in a systematic and comprehensive way, it is difficult to assess what is known to date; consequently, scholars have little guidance on how to fruitfully focus their attention in the future (Rothaermel, et al., 2007). The entrepreneurial university conceptualization, framework and measurement, the results are mostly fragmented and somehow at its embryonic stage (Guerrero and Urbano, 2010; Salamzadeh, et al., 2011). As mentioned by Zhou (2008), "The dawn of the entrepreneurial university models are emerging", then the need for a more holistic view is inevitable. This gap calls for a detailed review and in-depth analysis of the existing literature to build a systematic framework for entrepreneurial university. This research position is purposing to better understand the phenomena and to provide some guidance for future agenda. The university has to transform its culture to provide environments conducive for supporting to become entrepreneurial university. The case study that conducted by Philpott, et al. (2012) has revealed that all academics felt a top-down approach to promoting the entrepreneurial university would actually reduce entrepreneurial activity within the university rather than enhance it. The impetus for entrepreneurial activity must originate from the individual as opposed to the institution. From the case, in order to become an entrepreneurial university, then university management must first address the obstacles such as lack of understanding of the entrepreneurial university concept, a lack of entrepreneurial academic role models, the absence of a unified entrepreneurial culture, and the presence of an academic promotional model that professionally penalizes academic entrepreneurs.

The results emerging from the work that conducted by Culkin, N. (2016) suggest a need for regional policy makers to embrace a innovation-supportive culture, which actually enables firms and systems to evolve over time would be far more effective than those proposed in the latest Comprehensive Spending Review. Another study, Zhou (2008) found the pathway to an entrepreneurial university begins with government pulled and industry-university collaboration, to university-industry collaboration and interaction triple helix. This may be followed by a gradually developing “university-industry collaboration” in which companies fund academic research with potential industrial use, the beginning of a university pushed triple helix. There are several articles were reported that institutional facilities could support institution to become entrepreneurial university. Baydali, et al. (2015) has reviewed that the USA experience in creating the new element of national innovative infrastructure for Russia — the Proof of Concept Center (POOC). It highlights the correlation between the establishment of POCC and the increasing number of innovative companies. Another study was conducted by Chang, et al. (2016) show the regressions suggest that both levels of Research Ambidexterity (RA) facilitate departmental and individual commercial performance, respectively. Moreover, there exist multilevel positive relationships between perceived organizational flexibility, departmental RA, and individual RA and opportunity exploitation. The paper concludes that the development of RA in entrepreneurial universities should be considered as multilevel relationships between universities, departments and individuals. Liu (2012) stated that in China, universities have always been linked with industry. Huazhong University of Science and Technology originated from the needs of industrial development. Alexandera & Evgeniy (2012) states that Russia has built an innovative infrastructure, created entrepreneurial culture, and moved towards an entrepreneurial university. Universities were the original drivers of the triple helix model. TUSUR is the example of the first entrepreneurial university in Russia and the core of the regional IT and electronics innovation cluster. Ziyae & Tajpour (2016) has proposed the model of driver factors toward entrepreneurial university. The result of their study has suggested the positive and significant effect of the organizational, individual, institutional, and environmental factors on entrepreneurial university in the science and technology parks. Another model of entrepreneurial university proposed by Guerrero, et al. (2015) has serves as a conduit of spillovers contributing to economic and social development through its multiple missions of teaching, research, and entrepreneurial activities. In particular, the outcomes of its missions are associated with the determinants of production functions (e.g. human capital, knowledge capital, social capital, and entrepreneurship capital). The results of the exploratory analysis that conducted by Guerrero, et al. (2015) show the positive and significant economic impact of teaching, research, and entrepreneurial activities. Interestingly, the higher economic impact of the United Kingdom’s entrepreneurial universities (the Russell Group) is explained by entrepreneurial spin-offs. However, our control group composed by the rest of the country’s universities, the highest economic impact is associated with knowledge transfer (knowledge capital). There are four classifications of articles with related issues in EU: Entrepreneurial University Framework, Institutional Environment, Entrepreneurial Activities, and Entrepreneurial Impacts. Most authors perform empirical studies with main focus of entrepreneurial activities and entrepreneurial environment. Few studies present conceptualization of EU and even fewer build on framework to elaborate the conceptualization of EU. The mapping of literature review can be seen in Table 3 (Appendix-1).

3. BUILDING THE PROPOSED SYSTEMATIC FRAMEWORK A systematic framework is a well-organized basic structure of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality, showing a comprehensive (complete and includes all aspects that are important) assemblage of facts or principles in a particular field of knowledge, also it has clearly-structured responsibility of key stakeholders and clear patterns of interaction among its key stakeholders (Ghina et al., 2015). Conceptual framework possesses ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions, and each concept within a conceptual framework plays an ontological or epistemological role. The ontological assumptions relate to knowledge of the way things are, the nature of reality, real existence, and real action. The epistemological assumptions relate to how things really are and how things really work in an assumed reality. The methodological assumptions relate to the process of building the conceptual framework and assessing what it can tell us about the real world (Jabareen, 2009). The procedures to build a conceptual framework are as follows: Phase 1: Mapping definition of entrepreneurial university (ontological assumptions). The ontological assumptions relate to knowledge of the way things are, the nature of reality, real existence, and real action (Jabareen, 2009). Based on the title of Building A Systematic Framework for Entrepreneurial University: The Ontological, Epistemological, and Methodological View; the meaning of entrepreneurial university will be discussed as the ontological assumptions. Ontology is defined as the study of being (Crotty, 2003). It is concerned with what kind of world we are investigating, with the nature of existence, with the structure of reality as such. Guba & Lincolin (1989 as cited in Adam, 2014) state that the ontological assumptions are those that respond to the question of what is there that can be known? or what is the nature of reality? Blaikie (2000 as cited in Adam, 2014) states that ontology refers to claims and assumptions that are made about the nature of social reality, claims about what exists, what it looks like, what units make it up and how these units interact with each other. The reality of what exists is ontology. It is about asking about what constitutes reality and how we understand its existence. Ontology is the science or the analysis of what is and how it is (Foerster, 1996 as cited in Adam, 2014). Ontology is all about the nature of the world around us. Particularly, it is about the small part of reality which the researcher chooses to address. Based on the topic of this research, the ontological questions are what is the form and nature of reality in the entrepreneurial university? and how can we understand its existence of entrepreneurial university? The answer to these questions, the nature of reality for the entrepreneurial university is external to the researcher and represented by objects in space. The reality of the entrepreneurial university can be captured by our senses and predicted. The nature of reality is that the role of entrepreneurial universities which are the result of the second revolution in the mission of universities (Etzkowitz et al., 2000), are playing a paramount role in economic development of different countries. Universities, especially the entrepreneurial ones, are important actors in the "Triple Helix" of University-IndustryGovernment relations that promote the science-based innovative sphere of the whole globe (Etzkowitz, 2006). This means the reality of entrepreneurial university is assumed to be the most important aspect in economic development. But in reality, some beneficiaries of this phenomenon have the ambiguity starting from its conceptualization, framework, and

measurement. In other words, there is a lack of holistic view of literatures that could guide the universities to act entrepreneurially. The reality of low entrepreneurial impact both locally and globally, leads universities to stimulate job and wealth creation through excelling in education, research, and enhancing the third mission of service that are expected to create commercializing research, licensing of technology, creating university spin-offs, introducing entrepreneurship programs, and expanding university-industry relations. Universities are being encouraged to take an entrepreneurial turn (Foss & Gibson, 2015). In turn, the entrepreneurial universities lead to the creation of economic and social development. An entrepreneurial university is objectively interpreted and constantly emerges through a series of entrepreneurial processes (creative processes) within higher education boundaries. This ontological position directly influences the view of what knowledge about entrepreneurial university means. The next task is to map the spectrum of disciplinary literature regarding the phenomenon of entrepreneurial university. This process includes identifying text types and other sources of data. The word entrepreneurial university can be found in the discipline of education within the entrepreneurship context. The words of Entrepreneurial University are defined based on previous literatures. The mapping of the definitions that adapted from Garcia-Aracil et al. (2013) can be seen in Table 3. Table 4 Mapping of the Definition of Entrepreneurial University (García-Aracil et al., 2013) (Ontological Assumptions) WORD DEFINITION REFERENCES Universities that are considering new sources of funds like Etzkowitz (1983) patents, research under by contracts and entry into a partnership with a private enterprise. The entrepreneurial university involves the creation of new Chrisman, Hynes and business ventures by university professors, technicians, or Fraser (1995) students. University technology transfer is defined as formal efforts to Dill (1995) capitalize upon university research by bringing research outcomes to fruition as commercial ventures. Formal efforts are in turn defined as organizational units with explicit responsibility for promoting technology transfer. An entrepreneurial university, on its own, seeks to innovate in Clark (1998) how it goes to business. It seeks to work out a substantial shift in organizational character so as to arrive at a more promising Entrepreneurial posture for the future. Entrepreneurial universities seek to University become “stand-up” universities that are significant actors in their own terms. An entrepreneurial university can mean three things: the Röpke (1998) university itself, as an organization becomes entrepreneurial; the member of the university are turning themselves somehow into entrepreneurs; and the interaction of the university with the environment. The entrepreneurial university is characterized by close Subotzky (1999) university-business partnerships, by greater faculty responsibility for accessing external sources of funding, and by a managerial ethos in institutional governance, leadership and planning. As at the heart of any entrepreneurial culture, entrepreneurial Kirby (2002) universities have the ability to innovate, recognize and create

Table 4 Mapping of the Definition of Entrepreneurial University (García-Aracil et al., 2013) (Ontological Assumptions) WORD DEFINITION REFERENCES opportunities, work in teams, take risks and respond to challenges. Just as the university trains individual students and sends them Etzkowitz (2003) out into the world, the entrepreneurial university is a natural incubator, providing support structures for teachers and students to initiative new ventures: intellectual, commercial and conjoint. An entrepreneurial university is based both commercialization Jacob, Lundqvist and (customs made further education courses, consultancy services Hellsmark (2003) and extension activities) and commoditization (patents, licensing or student owned star-ups. ….is nothing more than a seller of services in the knowledge Williams (2003) industry…. Entrepreneurialism is a reflection both of institutional Shattock (2008) adaptiveness to a changing environment and of the capacity of universities to produce innovation through research and new ideas.

Thus, according to definition from previous literatures, the entrepreneurial university can be understood as a flexible organization that interacts with its social and economic environment leads itself to stimulate job and wealth creation through excelling in education, research, and enhancing the third mission of service that are expected to create commercializing research, licensing of technology, creating university spin-offs, introducing entrepreneurship programs, expanding university-industry relations, and other entrepreneurial activities. Phase 2: Identifying and naming concepts (epistemological assumptions) The aim in this phase is to read and reread the selected data and discover concepts. This phase answers the question of how do we know what entrepreneurial university really are? Generally, this phase allows concepts to emerge from the literature. Epistemology is a way of understanding and explaining how we know what we know. Epistemology is also concerned with providing a philosophical grounding for deciding what kinds of knowledge are possible and how we can ensure that they are both adequate and legitimate (Crotty, 2003). According to Blaikie (2000 as cited Adam, 2014) epistemology is the possible ways of gaining knowledge of social reality, whatever it is understood to be. Epistemology refers to the theory of knowledge, particularly how we acquire knowledge. It is best understood as the science to analyze the way of human beings comprehend knowledge about what is perceived to exist (Niehaves, 2005 as cited in Adam, 2014). Epistemological assumptions about a research issue under investigation concern the criteria by which valid knowledge about that phenomenon may be constructed (Chua, 1986 as cited in Adam, 2014). It is the theory about reality and is concerned with how we come to know what we know. There is a connection between a theory of reality (epistemology) and reality itself (ontology) (Adam, 2014). For the epistemological question of how do we know what entrepreneurial university really are? The answer is constrained by the answer to the ontological question above. This

means that any relationship cannot be assumed. The knowledge of the entrepreneurial university is objective and generated deductively from theory of entrepreneurship. The knowledge and concept of the entrepreneurial university are created in interaction between people and their environment (learning process) within higher education boundaries. With this view, knowledge of the entrepreneurial university is seen as objective constructs. This epistemological assumption directly influences how the knowledge of Entrepreneurial University is produced. An important factor that cannot be ignored from the entrepreneurial university is their mission; to stimulate job and wealth creation through excelling in education (teaching), research, and enhancing the third mission of service that are expected to create commercializing research, licensing of technology, creating university spin-offs, introducing entrepreneurship programs, and expanding university-industry relations. Universities are being encouraged to take an entrepreneurial turn to identify the transition that challenge the university as institution, beyond their first mission (education/teaching) and second mission (research) (Foss & Gibson, 2015). Phase 3: Constructing the methodological assumptions of the entrepreneurial university Methodology is the strategy, plan of action, process or design lying behind the choice and use of particular methods and linking the choice and use of the methods to the desired outcomes (Crotty, 2003). The methodological aspect of the theory of knowledge (epistemology) explains how a researcher forms perceptions about a phenomenon being investigated. The methodology refers to the modes of acquiring knowledge about the phenomena. One way of achieving this is through induction. Induction is understood as the extension from individual cases to universal cases. An inductive conclusion means the transfer from (observed, empirical) individual cases to a universal law. On the other hand, knowledge can be acquired through a deductive method. Deduction is the derivation of a statement from other statements with the help of logical conclusions. It is the derivation of the individual from the universal (Becker & Niehaves, 2007 as cited in Adam, 2014). The question under the methodological assumptions is of how a researcher forms perceptions about the phenomenon of the entrepreneurial university? The transactional nature of this research topic is acquired through the deductive method. It is important to study the previous literature regarding how to develop entrepreneurial university, so that it can be synthesized in building a systematic framework. To answer the methodological question of how the researcher will go about finding whatever his/her believes can be known is through other statements with the help of logical conclusions. The methodological assumptions of how to develop entrepreneurial university is a longitudinal process of social interaction within higher education boundaries and it should have consequences for the theoretical framework of entrepreneurial university and use of theory in the entrepreneurship field. Phase 4: Integrating concept The aim in this phase is to integrate the process in phases 1, 2 and 3; and to group together the concept that emerges from literatures. This phase describes the ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions related to entrepreneurial graduate. The framework path is illustrated in Figure 1.

ONTOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS: What is the form and nature of reality in the entrepreneurial university? How can we understand the existence of entrepreneurial university? The reality of low entrepreneurial impact both locally and globally, leads universities to stimulate job and wealth creation through excelling in education, research, and enhancing the third mission of service that are expected to create commercializing research, licensing of technology, creating university spin-offs, introducing entrepreneurship programs, and expanding university-industry relations. Entrepreneurial University is objectively interpreted and it is constantly emerge through a series of entrepreneurial processes (creative process) within higher education boundaries.

EPISTEMOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS: How do we know what the entrepreneurial university really are? Objective and generate deductively from theory: The knowledge and concept of entrepreneurial university are created in interaction between people and their interpreted environment within higher education boundaries.

METHODOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS: How does a researcher form perceptions about the phenomenon of entrepreneurial university? Deductive method: Developing the entrepreneurial university is a longitudinal process of social interaction within higher education boundaries and should have consequences for the theoretical framework of entrepreneurial university and use of theory in the entrepreneurship field.

Figure 1 The Framework Path of Entrepreneurial University Phase 5: Synthesis and making sense of it all The aim in this phase is to synthesize concepts into a theoretical framework. This process is iterative and includes repetitive synthesis until the general theoretical framework makes sense. This phase is explained through an in-depth discussion of how to build entrepreneurial university. The conceptual framework starts from three missions within University which consist of Teaching Activities, Research Activities, and Service Activities. a. The first mission: Teaching Activities Universities educate and train students, who become jobseekers or job creators after graduation. Hence, entrepreneurial universities could have an impact on economic notions about human capital. Human capital refers to the stock of competencies, knowledge, abilities, and skills gained through education and training. Therefore, entrepreneurial universities could contribute to economic impacts through the generation, attraction, and retention of talented human capital and entrepreneurs (Guerrero et al., 2015). The outcomes of the first mission are

entrepreneurial mindsets and skills, and promote wide range of career opportunities including intrapreneurs, self-employment, and entrepreneurs (ACEEU, 2016). The Entrepreneurship Education within university has goals to develop entrepreneurial graduates as human capital who achieve standards of competencies, whether as professionals or entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurial Graduate is a person who has successfully completed a study that has the spirit or mindset, behavior, attitude, and skills of an entrepreneur, such as opportunityseeking, initiative-taking, ownership of development, commitment to see things through, personal locus of control (autonomy), intuitive decision-making with limited information, networking capacity, strategic thinking, negotiation capacity, selling/persuasive capacity, achievement orientation, and the willingness to take risk in order to make a profit, and addresses economic and social needs (Ghina et al., 2015). The institutional goals can be placed on the input side as a trigger to develop the graduates’ competencies. In order to support their goals, the university creates course content and establishes it into curricula related to its goals and target audiences, and it needs an appropriate learning approach to deliver it effectively. To achieve goals effectively, there are three key actors involved within a university setting, namely students, staff, and institution. They have their own attributes in the education process, such as the ability, opportunity and incentive aspects (Piper, 1993). This framework is used as a guideline for effective learning within a university (Ghina et al., 2015). The framework for Entrepreneurship Education as the guideline to fulfill the first mission can be seen in Figure 2.

STUDENTS

LECTURER

INSTITUTION

What makes learning effective?

What makes teaching effective?

What makes a teaching university effective?

HAVE ABILITY TO LEARN: Recruitment and selection of students

IMPROVING ABILITY TO LEARN: Learning evaluation (Direct Assessment)

IMPROVING ABILITY TO TEACH: Recruitment and selection of lecturer; Training; Workshop; Internship; Performance appraisal

HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN: Integrated Curriculum; Program supports (company visit, guest lecturer, competition, exhibition, etc.) Facilities supports (incubator, entrepreneurship center, fund allocation, etc.)

IMPROVING OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN: Teaching methods; Mentoring / Supervision

IMPROVING OPPORTUNITY TO TEACH: Workload; Trainer / Consultant Knowledge sharing; Learning Material Support;

HAVE INCENTIVE TO LEARN: Grants; Grading schema (weighting)

IMPROVING INCENTIVE TO LEARN: Rewards within and outside class; Peer Review for teamwork

IMPROVING INCENTIVE TO TEACH: Pay and incentive schema; Life and health insurance; Rewards for innovative teaching

   

ASSURANCE OF LEARNING Desirable qualities of the graduates must be stated explicitly. Use an outcome-based approach to gain the key area of learning. Systematically gather evidence from measurement Analyze and interpret evidence to ensure goals are met and to get continuous improvement.

Figure 2 The Framework of The First Mission (Ghina et al., 2015). There are three conditions that are necessary for students to perform satisfactorily: they must have the ability to learn in order to undertake their studies involved (recruitment and selection); they must have the opportunity to learn to conduct the studies satisfactorily (curriculum, institutional support); and they must have incentives to learn in order to encourage their willingness to study (grants, grading schema). The important aspects for lecturer to teach effectively are that they can improve their students’ ability to learn (learning evaluation); their students’ opportunity to learn in order to conduct their studies satisfactorily (teaching method, lecturer role); and their students’ incentive to learn in order to encourage their willingness to study (rewards, participation). The environment is necessary for an educational institution to make a teaching organization effective. It needs to improve the ability to teach its lecturer (recruitment and selection, training and development, performance appraisal, pay schema); improve opportunities to teach its lecturer to perform their work satisfactorily (workload, knowledge sharing, freedom in teaching, learning material support, fund allocation); and improve incentives so that its lecturer are encouraged to do their work satisfactorily (incentive schema, life and health

insurance, rewards for innovative teaching). Those three conditions are necessary as requirements for effective learning. The university management can gain a better understanding of the three key stakeholders’ needs, so they can make priorities to develop entrepreneurial graduates as the human capital. Based on all aspects of learning proposed, this systematic framework can be used to identify the areas of opportunity for learning improvement within the university context. b. The second mission: Research Activities Research activities are another legitimate university function. This function has been identified as the generation, transfer, and commercialization of new knowledge. Examples of knowledge creation include copyrights, patents, licenses, and trademarks. Several authors identify this phenomenon as academic entrepreneurship occurring at the boundaries of different scientific and professional backgrounds, creating a need for support mechanisms to transcend those boundaries. Thus, the economic and social impact of entrepreneurial universities could be associated with the generation, attraction, and retention of prestigious researchers who facilitate innovation and knowledge transfers (Guerrero et al., 2015). The outcomes of the second mission are income and intellectual contributions with a high potential for commercialization (ACEEU, 2016). STUDENTS

LECTURER

INSTITUTION

What makes doing research effective?

What makes doing research effective?

What makes a research university effective?

HAVE ABILITY TO DO RESEARCH: Research Embedded Curriculum

IMPROVING ABILITY TO DO RESEARCH FOR STUDENTS: Direct Review / Feedback

IMPROVING ABILITY TO DO RESEARCH: Training; Workshop; Internship / Partnership with industry; Performance evaluation

HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO DO RESEARCH: Final assignment of course Thesis Research center

IMPROVING OPPORTUNITY TO DO RESEARCH FOR STUDENTS: Mentoring / Supervising

IMPROVING OPPORTUNITY TO DO RESEARCH: Workload; Supervision Knowledge sharing; References support; Fund allocation for research / publication; IPR center; Research bureaucracy support; Research contract with industry; Collaboration research support; Staff flow to industry and vice versa

HAVE INCENTIVE TO DO RESEARCH: Grading schema Publication of research

IMPROVING INCENTIVE TO DO RESEARCH FOR STUDENTS: Peer Review for Teamwork Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) – knowledge / technology commercialization

IMPROVING INCENTIVE TO TO DO RESEARCH: Incentive schema; Rewards for the best researcher / publication; Career planning

Figure 3 The Framework of The Second Mission

c. The third mission: Third Stream Activities Third Mission complements the mission of teaching and the mission of research. Alongside their more traditional roles of teaching and research, universities and public sector research establishments need to play a greater role as stimulators and facilitators of knowledge transfer to and with, business and society. Third Mission supports the structures, processes and outcomes of interaction between universities and the wider community. Via third mission activities universities seek to generate, apply and use knowledge and capabilities outside academic environments. The third mission covers not only the commercialization of academic knowledge through collaboration with industry, patenting and licensing, creation of spin-off companies; it also includes participation in policy-making, and involvement in social and cultural life. The complexity of this issue reflects the richness of the bounds linking HEIs to the society at large (Molas-Gallart et al., 2002). The third mission is interpreted as entrepreneurial activities of university to wider community. In the context of this study, the entrepreneurial activities means all the actions carried out by universities or their departments to set up new firms to exploit existing university capabilities (either knowledge “stock” or existing infrastructure), or carry out new research. Entrepreneurial activities can take a variety of forms. Joint ventures, spin-offs, startups and incubators, and science parks are some of the tools used by universities to promote the development of new businesses. Universities also set up business ideas competitions, and establish “pre-seed” funding and loan facilities to support entrepreneurial activities (Molas-Gallart et al., 2002). Moreover, entrepreneurial activities focus on the creation of new companies that could enhance local job growth and regional development by promoting partnerships in key regional clusters that identify and meet needs. As a result, entrepreneurship is a phenomenon observed at all university levels: university management, academicians, researchers, and potential entrepreneurs among the undergraduate and postgraduate students. Entrepreneurship is another element in the production function, because entrepreneurship contributes to output and growth by serving as a conduit for knowledge spillovers, increasing competition, and injecting diversity. Thus, an entrepreneurial university could attract or generate new enterprises that promote competition and diversity. Consequently, these impacts could produce several externalities in terms of demography, economy, infrastructure, culture, mobility, education, and society challenges that will later be reflected in productivity, competitive advantages, regional capacities, regional networks, regional identity, and regional innovation (Guerrero et al., 2015). The outcome of the third mission is innovation (ACEEU, 2016).

STUDENTS

LECTURER

INSTITUTION

What makes doing entrepreneurial activities effective?

What makes doing entrepreneurial activities effective?

What makes entrepreneurial university effective?

HAVE ABILITY TO DO ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITIES: Entrepreneurship Embedded Curriculum

IMPROVING ABILITY TO DO ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITIES FOR STUDENT: Direct evaluation

IMPROVING ABILITY TO DO ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITIES: Training; Workshop; Internship; Performance evaluation

HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO DO ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITIES: Final assignment of course Thesis Community service center

IMPROVING OPPORTUNITY TO DO ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITIES FOR STUDENT: Mentoring Lecturer’s participation

IMPROVING OPPORTUNITY TO DO ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITIES: Workload; Knowledge sharing; Fund allocation; Flexible bureaucracy support; Join ventures; spin-offs; startups; incubator; science park; nonacademic dissemination; social networking; commercialization of facilities

HAVE INCENTIVE TO DO ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITIES: Grading schema Soft skills acknowledgement

IMPROVING INCENTIVE TO DO ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITIES FOR STUDENT: Peer Review for Teamwork Facilitate job opportunity Facilitate application of knowledge / technology commercialization

IMPROVING INCENTIVE TO TO DO ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITIES: Incentive schema; Partnering with industry (trainer / facilitator); Advisory work / consultancy

Figure 4 The Framework of The Third Mission Phase 6: Resynthesize the concept and build the entrepreneurial university framework The challenge after proposing the framework of entrepreneurial university is to adapt it in a systematic framework with logical sense. This phase is a resynthesize from several concepts and is reintegrated to build the systematic framework of EU in order developing entrepreneurial university. The framework of entrepreneurial university covers the basic distinction between what universities have (abilities), what they support (opportunity), and what they give (incentive) in each three basic activities (Teaching, Research, and Service). Within each basic activity, the framework provides three important stakeholders (student, lecturer, and institution) with their own roles in the university. The effective condition for fulfilling the three missions of university is the stakeholder’s ability in the university meet with appropriate opportunity and they would get appropriate incentive if the activities have been done; it is called as engagement. The outcome of the first mission is engagement with learning and it can be characterized by creation of entrepreneurial students / graduates as human investment. The outcome of the second mission is engagement with research and it can be characterized by creation of science / technology commercialization as knowledge investment. The outcome of the third mission is engagement with communities (society, industry, government, non-government organization)

and it can be characterized by applicability and exploitation of science / technology commercialization as social investment. Universities can provide the right environments for student and lecturer / academic staff to do their own roles effectively. The environments should conducive to transform institution to become entrepreneurial university. In such environment, there should be clarity of vision and strategy, good leadership and governance, good policy and practice; how these support to build the entrepreneurial culture and mindset. The entrepreneurial university builds from co-innovation and co-creation from the three missions of university for sustainability. A systematic framework for entrepreneurial university can be seen in Figure 5.

INTERNAL ENVIRONMENT OF UNIVERSITY:    

Vision and strategy; Leadership and governance; Culture and mindset; and Policy and practice

The first mission outcomes: “engagement with learning”

TEACHING

THIRD STREAM  Student (have ability, opportunity, and incentive to do entrepreneurial activities)  Lecturer (can improve ability, opportunity, and incentive to do entrepreneurial activities for student)  Institution (can improve ability, opportunity, and incentive to do entrepreneurial activities)

 Student (have ability, opportunity, and incentive to learn)  Lecturer (can improve ability, opportunity, and incentive to learn)  Institution (can improve ability, opportunity, and incentive to teach)

EU

The third mission outcomes: “engagement with community”

RESEARCH

 Student (have ability, opportunity, and incentive to do research)  Lecturer (can improve ability, opportunity, and incentive to do research for student)  Institution (can improve ability, opportunity, and incentive to do research)

The second mission outcomes: “engagement with research”

Figure 5 The Framework of Entrepreneurial University (EU) 4. DISCUSSION The main finding from this conceptual research is the conceptual model analysis of a systematic framework for EU to develop entrepreneurial university. This framework covers all key actors within the university; each actor has its own role to create an effective teaching, research, and third stream activities. The scientific contribution from this research is the use of this proposed systematic framework for several goals: (a) as a guideline for effective teaching to create human investment; (b) to understand the priorities for effective teaching to create human investment; (c) to identify areas of opportunity for teaching improvement; (d) as a guideline for effective research to create knowledge investment; (e) to understand the priorities for effective research to create knowledge investment; (f) to identify areas of opportunity for research improvement; (g) as a guideline for effective third stream activities to create social investment;

(h) to understand the priorities for effective third stream activities to create social investment; (i) to identify areas of opportunity for third stream activities improvement; (j) to help university management to understand the key stakeholders’ needs to develop entrepreneurial university. The study conducted by Salamzadeh et al. (2011) proposed a systematic framework for an entrepreneurial university using the Input-Process-Output-Outcome (IPOO) Model. The framework covers all elements of learning that are important for an entrepreneurial university. According to the IPOO model, there are the main valuable aspects of input, process, output, and outcome, but there is unclear structured responsibility regarding the key stakeholders within the university (students, staff, institution) related to those main valuable aspects. The IPOO model does not show the pattern of interaction among its key stakeholders and the assurance of learning. Meanwhile, Ropke (1998 as cited in Salamzadeh, 2011) considers the entrepreneurial university as an Entrepreneur Organization that views three items: first, a university as an organization adopts an entrepreneurial management style (institution); second, its members act entrepreneurially (student and staff); and third, it follows an entrepreneurial pattern to interact with its environment (student, staff, and institution). The systematic framework proposed from this study is covering three important key stakeholders within university, namely student, lecturer, and institution. All key stakeholders have their own role and responsibility regarding the three core activities within university: teaching activities, research activities, and third stream activities. The effective process toward developing an entrepreneurial university is through engagement with the three core activities in university. This systematic framework can be used as the guidelines to identify the priority needs in developing an entrepreneurial university to make continuous improvement for sustainability. 5. CONCLUSION There are several important findings from this conceptual research. The first aspect is a systematic framework as a guideline for effective teaching, research, and third stream activities to develop entrepreneurial university. The second aspect is that the institution has to manage three key stakeholders to achieve these goals, namely students, staff, and the institution itself. The aspect from first mission is the assurance of learning to guarantee the students’ learning effectiveness that also has to be well-managed by the institution. Previous studies mostly discussed driver factors of entrepreneurial university partially. They mostly focused their research on the entrepreneurial activities and institutional environment. Few explored the cocreation among several aspects of entrepreneurial university and ways to develop the EU. This research offers a fully-systematic approach in exploring abilities, opportunities and incentives to build engagement of key stakeholders of university. This systematic framework is expected to review the roles of the students, lecturer and the institution in creating satisfactory core mission activities within university. The scientific contribution of this research is a building process of proposed systematic framework and the usage of a concept structure that is arranged according to a system that functions as a guideline to view reality. It can be used to describe successful practices in managing university capabilities and activities to develop entrepreneurial university. This approach is expected to enable the exploration of all aspects, instead of only some aspects, which are necessary for effective core mission activities to occur within university. It is expected that this conceptual research provides a guideline for practitioners such as policy-makers, lecturers, researchers, and curriculum developers for the development of a systematic framework for EU that is useful to develop entrepreneurial university, thus creating

more knowledge / technology commercialization that could improve job creation and sustainability economic growth. The future research suggested is conduct-mapping and evaluation to gain a better understanding of the core mission effectiveness of university in order to develop entrepreneurial university. This mapping and evaluation should be applied in several universities in order to gain insight regarding the best learning practices. Cross-case analysis can be conducted to discover patterns that can be used to build a theory of entrepreneurial university. REFERENCES ACEEU. (2016). Accreditation types and levels. Retrieved from https://www.aceeu.org/index/accreditationtypes, accessed at September, 15th, 2016. Adam, I. O. (2014). The ontological, epistemological and methodological debates in information systems research: a partial review. Unpublished essays from Dissertation. University for Development Studies, School of Business and Law, University of Ghana. Retrieved March 8, 2015, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2411620. Baydali, S., D. Budnickiy, A., A. Terehov, S. (2015). Proof of concept center — A promising Tool for innovative development at entrepreneurial universities. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 166, pp. 240 – 245, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.518. Alexandera, U. & Evgeniy, P. (2012). The entrepreneurial university in Russia: from idea to reality. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 52, pp. 45 – 51, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.440. Chang, Y. C., Yang, P. Y., Martin, B. R., Chi, H. R., & Tsai-Lin, T. F. (2016). Entrepreneurial universities and research ambidexterity: A multilevel analysis. Technovation, Vol. 54, pp. 7–21, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2016.02.006. Crotty, M. (2003). The foundations of social research: meaning and perspectives in the research process (3rd Edition). London: Sage Publications. Culkin, N. (2016). Entrepreneurial universities in the region: the force awakens?. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 22, No.1, pp. 4 - 16, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-12-2015-0310. Dabic, M., Gonzalez-Loureiro, M., & Daim, T. U. (2015). Unraveling the attitudes on entrepreneurial universities: The case of Croatian and Spanish universities. Technology in Society, Vol. 42, pp. 167-178, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2015.05.007. 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, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 313–330. Etzkowitz, H. (2016). Innovation Lodestar: The entrepreneurial university in a stellar knowledge firmament. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Article in press, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.04.026. Etzkowitz, H. (2006). Triple Helix twins: innovation and sustainability. Science and Public Policy, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 77-83. Foss, L. & Gibson, D. V. (2015). The entrepreneurial university: Context and institutional change. USA: Routledge. García-Aracil, A., Castro-Martínez, E., Jiménez-Sáez, F., & Arroyo-Vázquez, M. (2013). What might an entrepreneurial university constitute?. Proceedings of the 2013 EU-Studies of Policies for Research and Innovation Forum Conference, Madrid 10-12 April 2013.

Ghina, A., Simatupang, T. M., & Gustomo, A. (2015). Building a Systematic Framework for Entrepreneurship Education. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Vol.18, No.2, pp. 73-98. Guerrero, M., Cunninghamb, J. A., & Urbano, D. (2015). Economic impact of entrepreneurial universities’ activities: An exploratory study of the United Kingdom. Research Policy, Vol. 44, pp. 748–764, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.10.008. Guerrero, M. & Urbano, D. (2010). The development of an entrepreneurial university. Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 37, No.1, pp. 43-74, DOI: 10.1007/s10961-010-9171-x. Jabareen, Y. (2009). Building a conceptual framework: philosophy, definitions, and procedure. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(4), 49-62. Kalar, B. & Antoncic, B. (2015). The entrepreneurial university, academic activities and technology and knowledge transfer in four European countries. Technovation, Vol. 3637, pp. 1–11, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.11.002. Kirby, D.A. (2002b). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: A Consideration. School of Management. Working Paper, University of Surrey. Liu, Y. (2012). Does entrepreneurial university really exist in China?. Journal of Knowledgebased Innovation in China, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 88 103, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17561411211235703. Molas-Gallart, J., Salter, A., Patel, P., Scott, A., & Duran, X. (2002). Measuring third stream activities. Final Report to the Russell Group of Universities. SPRU, University of Sussex. NCEE. (2015). NCEE is proud to announce the 2015 Times Higher Education Award winner of Entrepreneurial University of the Year as The University of Leeds. Retrieved from http://ncee.org.uk/20152016-2/, accessed at September, 15th, 2016. Philpott, K., Dooley, L., O’Reilly, C., & Lupton, G. (2011). The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation, Vol. 31, pp.161–170, doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2010.12.003. Piper, D.W. (1993). Quality management in university (Volume 1). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Reyes, C. N. (2016). Framing the entrepreneurial university: the case of the National University of Singapore. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, Vol. 8, No.2, pp. 134 - 161, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-09-2015-0046. Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 691–791, doi:10.1093/icc/dtm023 Salamzadeh, A., Salamzadeh, Y. & Daraei, M.R. (2011). Toward a systematic framework for an entrepreneurial university: a study in Iranian context with an IPOO model. Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal, 3(1), 30-31. Retrieved January 29, 2015, from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED530376.pdf. Sooreh, L. K., Salamzadeh, A., Safarzadeh, H., & Salamzadeh, Y. (2011). Defining and Measuring Entrepreneurial Universities: A Study in Iranian Context Using ImportancePerformance Analysis and TOPSIS Technique. Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 182-199. Zhou, C. (2008). Emergence of the entrepreneurial university in evolution of the triple helix. Journal of Technology Management in China, Vol. 3, No.1, pp. 109 - 126, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17468770810851539.

Ziyae, B. & Tajpour, M. (2016). Designing a comprehensive model of entrepreneurial university in the science and technology parks". World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 12, No.3, pp. 267 280, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/WJEMSD-04-2016-0022.

N O

Author / Title / Publication

1

A. Baydali, S., D. Budnickiy, A., A. Terehov, S. (2015). Proof of concept center — A promising Tool for innovative development at entrepreneurial universities. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol.166, pp. 240 – 245, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.518

2

Alexandera, U. & Evgeniy, P. (2012). The entrepreneurial university in Russia: from idea to reality. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol.52, pp. 45 – 51, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.440

Types of Research

Types of Article

Purpose

Scope

Descriptive

Conceptual paper

To reviews the USA experience in creating the new element of national innovative infrastructure for Russia — the Proof of Concept Center (POOC)

Descriptive

Conceptual paper

To explore the process of transition towards an entrepreneurial university in Russia, the government’s role, key lessons learned and a few challenges remaining

Proof of Concept Center (POOC); POCC was defined as an important instrument of stimulating technology commercializati on for technologies at the early stage of development; it also encourages growing number of companies established at universities, and, thus, transfer university technologies into the economy of the country Triple Helix Interactions

Analytical Approach

Units of Analysis

Sampling Strategy

Types of Data

Occurrence

Inductive

POOC

-

-

Cross sectional

Deductive

-

-

-

Cross sectional

N O

Author / Title / Publication

Types of Research

Types of Article

3

Chang, Y. C., Yang, P. Y., Martin, B. R., Chi, H. R., Tsai-Lin, T. F. (2016). Entrepreneurial universities and research ambidexterity: A multilevel analysis. Technovation, Vol.54, pp. 7–21, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technov ation.2016.02.006

Explanatory

Empirical research

4

Culkin, N. (2016). Entrepreneurial universities in the region: the force awakens?. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 22, No.1, pp. 4 16, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR12-2015-0310

Descriptive

Empirical research

5

Dabic, M., Gonzalez-Loureiro, M., Daim, T. U. (2015). Unraveling the attitudes on entrepreneurial universities: The case of Croatian and Spanish universities. Technology in Society, Vol.42, pp. 167-178, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc .2015.05.007

Descriptive

Empirical research

Purpose

Developing the notion of research ambidexterity (RA) in the context of the entrepreneurial universities. Two levels of research ambidexterity are elaborated – departmental and individual. The putative multilevel relationships between university's antecedents, departmental/individual research ambidexterity and commercial performance are examined. To consider the needs of the micro and small business (MSB) ecosystem through the lens of the entrepreneurial university as a regional anchor institution

Presenting evidence of whether there are different types of supportive faculty members and, in the event of a positive response, their characteristics in supporting entrepreneurial university.

Scope

Analytical Approach

Units of Analysis

Sampling Strategy

Types of Data

Occurrence

Conceptual framework: a cross-level analysis of research ambidexterity in universities

Deductive

634 faculty members, 99 departments , and six universities in Taiwan

NonProbability

Quantita tive

Cross sectional

The concept of Regional Innovation System (RIS); the way universities can take a lead role as an anchor institution within their region. Triple helix model, types of attitudes towards entrepreneurial orientation

Deductive

Eight Entrepreneu rial Universities of the Year Award winners

NonProbability: purposive

Qualitati ve

Cross sectional

Deductive

Staff from Croatian and Spanish universities

NonProbability

Quantita tive

Cross sectional

N O

Author / Title / Publication

6

Etzkowitz, H. (2016). Innovation Lodestar: The entrepreneurial university in a stellar knowledge firmament. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Article in press, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfor e.2016.04.026

7

8

Types of Research

Types of Article

Purpose

Scope

Analytical Approach

Units of Analysis

Descriptive

Conceptual paper

Analyzing the stages and phases of development of the entrepreneurial university, incorporating the classic Humboldtian dualistic academic model that unites teaching and research, into a Triple Helix of university–industry– government interactions

Concept of entrepreneurial university

Deductive

Articles

Guerrero, M., Cunninghamb, J. A., Urbano, D. (2015). Economic impact of entrepreneurial universities’ activities: An exploratory study of the United Kingdom. Research Policy, Vol.44, pp. 748–764, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2 014.10.008

Explanatory

Empirical research

To contribute to a better understanding of the economic impact of entrepreneurial universities’ teaching, research, and entrepreneurial activities.

Conceptual framework of entrepreneurial university, assessment

Deductive

Kalar, B. & Antoncic, B. (2015). The entrepreneurial university, academic activities and technology and knowledge transfer in four European countries. Technovation, Vol. 36-37, pp. 1–11, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technov ation.2014.11.002

Explanatory

Empirical research

To provide an insight into academics’ perceptions of an entrepreneurial university

Traditional academics activities vs. entrepreneurial academics activities

Deductive

147 universities located in 74 Nomenclatu re of Territorial Units for Statistics-3 (NUTS-3) regions of the United Kingdom Four European universities (University of Amsterdam, University of Antwerp, University of Ljubljana and the University of Oxford)

Sampling Strategy

Types of Data

Occurrence

-

-

Cross sectional

NonProbability

Quantita tive

Longitudinal

NonProbability: purposive

Quantita tive

Cross sectional

N O

Author / Title / Publication

Types of Research

Types of Article

9

Liu, Y. (2012). Does entrepreneurial university really exist in China?. Journal of Knowledge-based Innovation in China, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 88 - 103, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/1756141 1211235703

Descriptive

Empirical research

10

Philpott, K., Dooley, L., O’Reilly, C., Lupton, G. (2011). The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation, Vol. 31, pp.161–170, doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2010.1 2.003

Descriptive

Empirical research

11

Reyes, C. N. (2016). Framing the entrepreneurial university: the case of the National University of Singapore. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, Vol. 8, No.2, pp. 134 161, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEEE09-2015-0046

Descriptive

Empirical research

Purpose

Scope

To reveal the characteristics and evolution path of entrepreneurial university in China, through a case study of Huazhong University of Science and Technology (HUST) which has the reputation of “Chinese miniature of higher education” and in which entrepreneurial practice displays “Chinese characteristics” To provide deeper insight into the views of the academic community regarding the entrepreneurial university ideal and to examine how the concept is manifesting itself within the European university context.

Model of entrepreneurial university

To explore issues and situations affecting the entrepreneurial university via frame analysis to determine how institutional members frame the National University of Singapore (NUS) as an entrepreneurial university and provide key insights on how it has been manifested in reality.

Analytical Approach

Units of Analysis

Sampling Strategy

Types of Data

Occurrence

Deductive

Civitas academics of HUST

NonProbability: purposive

Qualitati ve

Cross sectional

Entrepreneurial university spectrum of activity and it contributions to economic development

Deductive

Thirteen professors from across the various disciplines of the university

NonProbability: purposive

Qualitati ve

Cross sectional

Conceptualizati on, entrepreneurshi p policy in Singapore, frame analysis

Deductive

18 institutional members from the NUS

NonProbability: purposive

Qualitati ve

Cross sectional

N O

Author / Title / Publication

12

Zhou, C. (2008). Emergence of the entrepreneurial university in evolution of the triple helix. Journal of Technology Management in China, Vol. 3, No.1, pp. 109 - 126, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/1746877 0810851539

13

Ziyae, B. & Tajpour, M. (2016). Designing a comprehensive model of entrepreneurial university in the science and technology parks". World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 12, No.3, pp. 267 - 280, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/WJEMS D-04-2016-0022

Types of Research

Types of Article

Purpose

Scope

Analytical Approach

Descriptive

Conceptual paper

Disclosing the evolution process to an entrepreneurial university in the government-pulled triple helix in China through the analysis of MIT and Stanford model of “university-pushed triple helix” in which academic institutions take the lead in regional innovation

The pathway to an entrepreneurial university

Deductive

Explanatory

Empirical research

To shed light on the entrepreneurial university and to develop a theoretical framework relating entrepreneurship education in the third generation of universities. Therefore, the future research could be carried out to identify and apply the presented model

Research conceptual model that relates to entrepreneurial university

Deductive

Units of Analysis

Sampling Strategy

Types of Data

Occurrence

Based on a case study of the Northeaster n University (NEU), which is located in the Northeast China where there is a dominant government -pulled triple helix and with the establishme nt of China’s first science park in which a highly successful software company (Neusoft) was created 100 knowledgebased firms in the science and technology parks

NonProbability: purposive

Qualitati ve

Cross sectional

Probability: stratified random sampling

Quantita tive

Cross sectional