Understanding universities and entrepreneurship educationeprints.gla.ac.uk/117835/1/117835.pdf ·...

Understandinguniversitiesandentrepreneurshipeducation

Towardsacomprehensivefutureresearchagenda

CHEPSWORKINGPAPER08/2015

PaulBenneworth.CHEPS(UniversityofTwente)

[email protected]

MikeOsborne.CentreforResearchinAdultandLifelongLearning(UniversityofGlasgow)

[email protected]

(ThisispublishedjointlyasaCR&DALLWorkingPaper)TobecitedasBenneworth,P.&Osborne,M.(2015)“Understandinguniversitiesand

entrepreneurshipeducation:towardsacomprehensivefutureresearchagenda”CHEPS‐CRADALLWorkingPaperCHEPS08/2015;CR&DALL101/2015,CHEPS:Enschede(NL)

andCR&DALL,Glasgow(UK).

Series Editor Contact: Paul Benneworth, Katharina Lemmens-Krug & Nadine Zeeman Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies University of Twente P.O. Box 217 7500 AE Enschede The Netherlands T +31 53 – 4893263 F +31 53 – 4340392 E [email protected] W www.utwente.nl/cheps

CHEPSWorkingPaper08/2015inAssociationwithCR&DALLWorkingPaperSeries

2

ContentsContents..................................................................................................................................................................2

Abstract...................................................................................................................................................................3

1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................................4

2. Thepolicyurgencyandtheenduringproblematic.....................................................................5

3. Entrepreneurshipanduniversities....................................................................................................7

4. Universitieshostingentrepreneurshipknowledgecommunities........................................9

5. Thepoorfitofentrepreneurshipknowledgecommunitiesinuniversityinstitutionalstructures............................................................................................................................................................12

6. Howthings‘fit’inuniversityinstitutionalstructures,astakeholderapproach..........14

7. Mapping the fit of entrepreneurship knowledge communities into universityinstitutionalarchitectures...........................................................................................................................17

8. Conclusionsandfutureresearchdirections................................................................................20

References...........................................................................................................................................................22

PaulBenneworth&MikeOsborne

3

AbstractUnderstandingthepotentialanddynamicsofentrepreneurshipandeducationrequiresbetterunderstandingofhowuniversities functionasknowledgecommunities,and therole of students in such milieu. This can reveal how universities’ teaching activitiesinfluencethedevelopmentofstudents’entrepreneurialorientationsandcompetencies.This article argues that entrepreneurship education has not yet fulfilled its potentialpartlybecauseofapoorfitwithotherknowledgeactivitiesofuniversities.Itproposesthatafutureresearchagendaforuniversities’entrepreneurshipeducationshouldfocusmore upon how entrepreneurship activities fit with universities’ core knowledgecommunity activities. This would allow a coherent understanding to emerge of thepotentials and limitations of universities’ contributions to the inculcation ofentrepreneurialattitudes.

Keywords:entrepreneurshipeducation,universityinstitutionalarchitecture,knowledgecreation, communities of practice, innovation policy, university enterprise, universityentrepreneurship.


4

1. IntroductionThere is increasing interest in using university education as a means of stimulatingentrepreneurship.Thisisatrendthathasbeendevelopingoverrecentdecades,butithasreceivedaparticularimpulse,notablywithinEurope,becauseofthepowerbywhichthenotionof“entrepreneurship”hasbeenimbuedbypolicy‐makersseekingtodriveawidereconomic recovery from the global crisis of 2008. The European Commission havecreatedanimportant linkbetweensupportingentrepreneurship inHEandtheEurope2020strategy1thatsetsoutEU’sintentionsofachievingsmart,sustainableandinclusivegrowth (Commission of the European Communities, 2010). The EC’s proposedMultiannual Financial Framework 2014‐2020 reinforces this strategy by considerablyincreasing investment in education, research and innovation2 (see alsoBrennanetal.,2014).

Underlyingthisisasometimesimplicitargumentthateducation,andmostparticularlyhigher education, is a key driver for human capital development and thatentrepreneurship education is vital to leverage wider benefits from human capitalinvestments. Although there are anumberof definitionsof entrepreneurship, for thepurposesofthispaperwearguethatthedefinitionsetmadebyEntrepreneurshipUnitofDGEnterpriseandIndustryof theEuropeanCommissionprovidesan illustrativegoodworkingdefinition:

Entrepreneurship refers to an individual’s ability to turn ideas into action. Itincludescreativity, innovationandrisktaking,aswellas theability toplanandmanageprojects inorder toachieveobjectives. (Directorate‐GeneralEnterpriseandIndustry2012:7)

Yet,thisdefinitionhasnotyetbeenreflectedintoresearchonstudententrepreneurship,withthemajorityofresearchfocusingonstudentandgraduateenterpriseactivities,butthere is much less written in a conceptually coherent way about how education canimprove and support entrepreneurship in this broader sense encompassing this“creativity, innovation and risk‐taking” We argue that there has been a tendency byresearcherstoreducethewaysthatuniversitiescontributetoentrepreneurshiptoratherperipheralprojectssupportingenterprise,focusingontheentrepreneurialactratherthantheeducativeact. This thereforeexcludes lookingatotherwaysthatuniversitiesmaystimulate entrepreneurship, that contributes to leveraginghumancapital, butwithoutbeingdirectlylinkedwithasubsequentactofenterprise.Giventhatuniversitieseducatefarmorestudentsthanthosethatcreatenewenterprises,thisdistractsfromconsideringthebulkofuniversitycontributions.Wethereforearguethattoproperlyunderstandtherole of universities, there should be a core concern in better understanding how

1 See http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm 2 See http://ec.europa.eu/budget/biblio/documents/fin_fwk1420/fin_fwk1420_en.cfm


5

entrepreneurship education fitswithuniversity coreprocesses rather thanperipheralprojects.

Understandingthepotentialanddynamicsofentrepreneurshipandeducationrequiresbetterunderstandingofhowuniversities functionasknowledgecommunities,and theroleofstudentsinthesesuchmilieu.Thiscanrevealhowuniversities’teachingactivitiesinfluencethedevelopmentofstudents’entrepreneurialorientationsandcompetencies.We contend that entrepreneurship education has not yet fulfilled its potential partlybecauseof apoor fitwithotherknowledgeactivities of universities. We concludebyarguingthatafutureresearchagendaforuniversities’entrepreneurshipeducationshouldfocusmoreuponhowentrepreneurshipactivitiesfitwithuniversities’coreknowledgecommunityactivities.Thisallowsacoherentunderstandingtoemergeofthepotentialsand limitations of universities’ contributions to the inculcation of entrepreneurialattitudes.

2. ThepolicyurgencyandtheenduringproblematicEuropeanHEIsare increasinglybeing invitedtoplayanexplicit role indevelopingtheEuropean economy by raising the growth potential of stocks of human capital.Entrepreneurshiphasbeenportrayedbypolicy‐makersasameansofleveraginghumancapitalbyensuringinnovationtakesplacenotonlywithinlargeR&DintensivefirmsbutalsoinSMEs,thepublicsectorandwidercivilsociety.ManyEUinitiativeshavesoughttoadvance this agenda, notably complemented by a range of national interventions,including in Finland (Ministry of Education 2009), Ireland (within the government’sFramework for Sustainable Economic Renewal, Department of the Taioiseach 2008),Norway(anactionplanforEntrepreneurshipinEducationandTrainingfromcompulsoryschooling to higher education 2009‐2014), the Netherlands (the Education andEntrepreneurship Action Programme of 2007), and the UK (a National Centre forEntrepreneurshipinEducation(NCCE)).

Entrepreneurship is embedded into a number of important strands of EuropeanCommission policy imbuing it with an appearance of being unavoidable within theEuropeanHigherEducationpolicylandscape.EntrepreneurshipcentralitywithinEurope2020strategyisintendedtoconsolidateandbuildsynergiesbetweenanumberofrecentpiecemeal initiatives, including the European Research Area, the European HigherEducationArea(‘Bologna’)andlatterlytheEuropeanInnovationArea.HigherEducationInstitutions(HEIs)haveparticularlyimportantrolestoplayinHorizon2020baseduponenhancedstructuralco‐operationbetweenHEIs,governmentandbusinessesfordrivinginnovation(CEC,2011a;2011b)to:

stimulatethedevelopmentofentrepreneurial,creativeandinnovationskillsinalldisciplines and in all three cycles, andpromote innovation in higher educationthrough more interactive learning environments and strengthened knowledgetransferinfrastructure.(CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities2011b:72)


6

Part of this intervention has come through creating neworganisations tomobilise aninterest community aroundentrepreneurship education. TheCommission formed theUniversity‐BusinessForumin2008toencouragethesharingofideas,goodpracticeandstimulatinginnovationbetweenHEIs,companies,students,NGOsandpolicymakersattheEuropean level (COM 2009 158 Final). This forum brings together universities,businesses,associations,intermediariesandpublicauthoritiesintoacommonspacefromwhicheffortstomodernisehighereducation,attuningitinparticulartotheneedsoftheEuropean job‐market. The forum has developed a prototype Self‐assessment Tool forEntrepreneurial Universities, whilst the Knowledge Alliances pilot project seeks toencourage structured, ‘results‐driven’ cooperation ventures between universities andcompaniesinparticularsectors.

Conversely, the notion of entrepreneurship has entered a range of other policy areassalienttoHE,oftenunderthegeneralheadingof“modernisation” bywhichtheEuropeanCommissionmeansreforminguniversitiestooptimisetheirsocietalservice,stressingtheinvolvement of all disciplines and the three HE cycles (undergraduate, postgraduate,Ph.D.). The Commission referred to a need to equip graduates with knowledge andcompetences forhighly‐skilledoccupations and criticisedHEIs foroftenbeing slow inresponding to the need for curriculum change, failing to anticipate the needs of theeconomy,noting:

Involvingemployersandlabourmarketinstitutionsinthedesignanddeliveryofprogrammes, supporting staff exchanges and including practical experience incoursescanhelpattunecurriculatocurrentandemerging labourmarketneedsandfosteremployabilityandentrepreneurship.(EC2011b,p.5)

Othermorespecificpolicyfieldshavealsostartedtoemphasiseentrepreneurship.TheEC’s 2012 Communication, Rethinking Education: Investing in skills for better socio‐economic outcomes 3 published in 2012 also considers HE’s role in developingentrepreneurial skills aswell as recognising theopportunity of business creation as acareerdestination.Itspeaksoftheneedtodeveloptransversalskills,including‘theabilityto think critically, take initiative, problem solve and work collaboratively’ to prepareindividuals for varied, unpredictable career paths. The Communication calls for toembeddingrealworldexperience,throughproblem‐basedlearningandenterpriselinks,withinalldisciplineswithappropriatecustomisationtoalllevelsofeducation,includingHE.TherecentlyadoptedECCommunicationontheEntrepreneurship2020ActionPlan4specificallystatesthatuniversities‘shouldbecomemoreentrepreneurial’.ThisreferstotheEC’scollaborationwithOECDtodevelopaframeworkforentrepreneurialuniversitiesfacilitating university self‐assessment in this in improving their entrepreneurship

3 See COM(2012) 669 final, http://ec.europa.eu/education/news/rethinking/com669_en.pdf 4 See COM (2012) 795 final, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0795:FIN:EN:PDF


7

capabilitieswithtailor‐madelearningmodules.AnumberoftheEC’sstatedActionPlaninterventionswouldclearlyaffectthedevelopmentofentrepreneurshipinHE,including:

Disseminate the entrepreneurial university guidance framework in early 2013;facilitate exchange between universities interested in applying the framework;graduallypromoteittotheEUHigherEducationInstitutions;and

Endorsesuccessfulmechanismsofuniversity‐drivenbusinesscreation(spin‐offsetc.)andemerginguniversity‐businessecosystemsaroundkeysocietalchallenges.

ItalsonotablyinvitedMemberStatesto:

Ensure that the key competence ‘entrepreneurship’ is embedded into curriculaacrossprimary,secondary,vocational,higherandadulteducationbeforetheendof2015.

Pressures have also come from Commission‐associated organisations, including theEuropean Institute of Technology (EIT)5 in Budapest, which pioneeredentrepreneurship’sroleasakeyinnovationenableronaEUlevel,championingmakingproblem‐solving and ‘learning by doing’more centralwithin university curricula. TheEIT’sKnowledgeandInnovationCommunities(KICs)bringstogetherkeyactorsfromHE,otherresearchandbusiness,inthematiccommunities,currentlyClimateChange,ICTandSustainableEnergyandEIT.HEI’sdegreesanddiplomasawardedinthecontextoftheKICs,andentrepreneurshipeducationprovidedbyKICsareseenasbeingkeymeanstocreateEuropeanvaluewhilstsidesteppingtraditionaluniversitygovernance’slimitations(Brennanetal.2014:34),namelyalackofresponsivenessandunwillingnesstoworkwithexternalstakeholders(cfAmaral,etal,2003;Shattock,1999).

Entrepreneurship has also become part of the successor to the Lifelong LearningProgramme,theErasmus+programme,whoseKeyAction2concerns ‘co‐operationforinnovation and the exchange of good practices’ (EC 2014:3), in part through 400Knowledge Alliances and Sector Skills Alliances. Knowledge Alliances are large‐scalepartnershipsbetweenHEIsandbusinesseswhoseexplicitobjectivesinclude‘developingentrepreneurshipmind‐set and skills’ (EC 2014: 109) amongst students, researchers,educatorsandotherHEstaff.SectorSkillsAlliancesarepartnershipsbetweeneducation,training providers and businesses to promote employability by creating new sector‐specificcurriculaanddevelopinginnovativevocationalteachingandtrainingforms.

3. EntrepreneurshipanduniversitiesEffortstostimulateuniversityentrepreneurshipeducationlongprecededtheserecentECefforts, but we contend that this recent policy emphasis suggests that these earlyexperiments failed to lead towidespread transformation.Moreover, entrepreneurship

5 See http://eit.europa.eu


8

educationhasremainedperipheraltoinstitutions,embeddedwithindiscreteunitsandprojectsratherthanasthisnewpolicyframeworkseeks,tobeanindivisibleelementofuniversity education. Many universities offering modules and activities to stimulateentrepreneurshiparewithoutanydoubthighlysuccessful(interaliaHills,1988;Garavan&O’Cinneide,1994;Souitarismetal.,2007).Buttheproblemremainsthatthisdoesnotequate with all university training inculcating people with entrepreneurshipcompetenciesensuringthateventhoseindividualswhodonotfollowenterprisepathwayshelp to contribute to a more dynamic, innovative Europe. We further argue thatentrepreneurshipeducationactivitieshaveremainedperipheraltouniversitiesbecauseofafundamentaltensionbetweenthreegroups:

policy‐makers who want to raise universities’ contribution to entrepreneurialpotential,

studentsactingas(potential)entrepreneurswhoareconcernedwithevaluatingandexploitingaparticularopportunityforthem,and

universitieswhoareconcernedwiththestewardshipoftheircoreeducationalandresearchactivities.

Muchrecentresearchhasfocusedontheprocessesandresourcesthatuniversitiesmakeavailableto(aspiring)entrepreneursviaparticularuniversityactivitiesorprojects.Yet,given persistent policy demands for more entrepreneurship in the curriculum, weconcludethatentrepreneurshiphasnotyetbecomeacoreuniversityeducationvalueinEurope, and remains outwith universities’ core teaching and research activities.Promoting entrepreneurial potential has become simply yet another mission for thealready overloaded higher education sector (De Boer etal., 2009) rather than a coreuniversityvalue.Tobecomemorecentral,thevalueofpromotingentrepreneurshipmustmove to the centre ofHEIs’ institutional architectures (cf. Vorley&Nelles, 2008) andclearlyhelpuniversities toreachtheircore institutionalgoalsofhighquality teaching,research,infrastructure,employmentconditionsandpartnersatisfaction.

Our starting point for understanding how entrepreneurship education fits withinuniversity institutional architectures is the ideaofentrepreneurialpotential, a conceptused to explain individuals’ propensities, faced with the choice of becoming (or notbecoming) an entrepreneur to positive choose to become an entrepreneur (Krueger,1993; Krueger and Brazeal, 1994). This extended Shapero’s (1982) idea of theentrepreneurialevent,wherean individual is stimulatedbysomekindofdisruption tobecome an entrepreneur. Krueger and Brazeal (1994) considered pathways bywhichindividualsprogressedpriortoindividualentrepreneurialevents,arguingthreekindsofpreconditioncharacteristicaffectedentrepreneurialpotential:

Perceiveddesirability:theperceptiontheindividualhasthatbeingentrepreneurialisrewardingforthem(whetherintrinsic/sociallyorextrinsic/economically)

Perceivedfeasibility:theperceptiontheindividualhasthattheyhavethenecessaryskillstobeaneffectiveandsuccessfulentrepreneur.


9

Propensity to act: the individual personality trait of being willing to take anuncertain/risky courseof action that nevertheless can be rationally justified intermsofitsrewards.

KruegerandBrazeal(1994)arguedthatthefirsttwovariablescametogethertorepresent‘credibility’, theextent towhich individualsbelieved that followinganentrepreneurialcourseofactioncouldberewardingforthem.Combinedwiththethirdvariable,namelypropensity to act, thisdefined an individual’s entrepreneurialpotential,which in turnaffected the individual’s propensity to become an entrepreneur when faced with aconcreteprecipitatingevent.TheirmodelisshowninFigure1below.

Figure1Asimplifiedmodelofentrepreneurialpotential

Source:KruegerandBrazeal(1994)

Althoughthismodelistwodecadesold,theKrueger‐Bazealmodelretainsitssaliencyforunderstanding what determines entrepreneurial potential (e.g. Guerrera et al., 2008;Hindleetal.,2009;Fitzsimmonsetal.,2011).Thisalsoprovidesabasisforunderstandinghowuniversitiessupportentrepreneurialpotential,namelytheycontributetothesethreestagesoftheprocessby:

Creatingasensethatentrepreneurialactivityisacrediblechoiceforanindividualtoundertake(awarenessraising)

Creatingan identitythatanindividualcanbeanentrepreneurwhenpresentedwithanopportunity(identityforming)

Driving the decision to engage in a particular activity and to commit to thatparticularcourseofactivity(opportunityactivation)

4. UniversitieshostingentrepreneurshipknowledgecommunitiesThere are a range of ways by which universities may promote Krueger‐BazealEntrepreneurial Potential (KBEP): we group these along two dimensions, firstly by


10

following the entrepreneurial journey from norm formation to post‐entrepreneurialevent,andsecondly,byconsidering thenatureof theuniversity input. Understandingwhatkindofuniversityactivitymaycontribute to theentrepreneurial journey in turnhelps clarify whatmakes institutions act to support that potential.We here draw onBenneworth et al. (2009) who distinguish four kinds of university activity: teaching,research,serviceandknowledgeexchange.

Fayolle’s (2013) comprehensive review of entrepreneurship education suggests thatthere is a strongagreement that learningaboutentrepreneurship takesplace throughinteractiveandsocialisedlearningprocesses:

Lookingat the literatureon [entrepreneurship education], anumberof articlesemphasizethe importanceof ‘active’,experiential’, ‘learningbydoing’and ‘real‐world’pedagogies.(ibid,p.5).

This fitswith the KBEPmodel,where KBEP is raised by shaping identity, norms andmotivation,ratherthansimplyinvolvingtheaccretionofaseriesofresourcesandskills.suggests that these university activities can be understood as ‘collective learningprocesses’. Understanding knowledge exchange programmes using post‐graduateassociatesandtheuniversity’sentrepreneurialculturecanbeunderstoodasasasociallearningcommunity(suchasacommunityornetworkofpractice(Benneworth,2007;Raeetal., 2010;Gertneretal., 2011;cf.Wenger, 1998;Benner, 2003). In contrast tocommunity of practices (CoPs) contained within organisations, these knowledgeexchangeCommunitiesofPracticehaveacorelocatedattheorganisationalperiphery.InGertneretal.’s example, the knowledge transfer associate spansbetween auniversityresearchdevelopment(centredaroundthescientificresearcher)andthefirm’sresearchanddevelopment (R&D) team.Knowledge is createdacrossorganisationalboundariesandtheassociatespansbetweentwoknowledgedomains,scientificandeconomic.

A range of cognate approaches have latterly been deployed to conceptualiseentrepreneurshipeducation(e.g.Schrooten,2009;CopeandDown,2010;Pitawayetal.,2011; Rae, 2012). From this perspective, university activities offer collective learningarenas where students undertake concrete tasks in which their KBEP increases evenwherethatisnottheapparentpurposeofthetask.Asociallearningcommunityfunctionsbycreatingcollectivetacitknowledge(Polayni,1967)betweenstudentsandacademics.Thistacitknowledgecanpartlybecodifiedintoscripts,butalsoimportantarecollectiveknowledge vectors, participantswho stay and transfer this sharedknowledge to otherparticipantsinthecommunity.

Inthecontextofentrepreneurshipeducationactivities, thereareanumberofkindsofindividualswhocanberegardedasfulfillingthiscollectiveknowledgevectorrole.Mostimportantlyandobviouslyareuniversitystaffparticipatingintheparticularactivitywhoknowthe‘tricks’ toensurethataparticularinstrumentaltaskdevelopsKBEPamongststudents.Likewise,universityresearchersinvolvedwithentrepreneurshipresearchmayprovidematerialinputintoactivities.Externalexpertsinvolvedintheseactivities–such


11

as business advisers, financial planners, or patent lawyers – can also contribute theirknowledge. Universities’ commercialisation offices actively engaged in promotingentrepreneurshiphavedetailedunderstandingofhowlocalentrepreneurshipprocessesfunction.Part‐timeentrepreneursstilllocatedinorconnectedtotheuniversitymayoffertheir tacit knowledge in mentoring individuals undergoing entrepreneurial journeys(Benneworth&Hospers,2007).Studentsmayself‐organiseassociations,organisationsand networks that in turn ensure continuity of activity between years and cohorts.Externalcompetitions,networksandorganisationsmayprovideconcreteactivities(e.g.businessplancompetitions)tofocusknowledge,supportandexpertiseinimplementingentrepreneurialactivitiesinaHEsetting.

Aparticularentrepreneurship activity canbe regardedasmobilising awider learningcommunitywhocollectivelyraisestudents’KBEP.Thiscommunity’score is formedbyimmediateparticipants,withan immediateperiphery formedbytheuniversity,wheretwo different layers are evident. Firstly are the university technology transferinfrastructuresthathelptoembedentrepreneurialstudentsinentrepreneurialactivities(seespin‐offcompaniesbelow).Thereisalsoawideruniversitycommunityincludingthestudents,theirclubs,andalsothosewhoarepartofthelearningcommunitywhilstnotbeing formally part of the university. The most obvious example of this is start‐upcompanieswhereentrepreneurshave laboratoryoroffice spacewithin theuniversity,formingpartofthatuniversity’sentrepreneurialcommunity,andpotentiallycontributingtotheseentrepreneurialactivities.

University media activities may support learning, potentially identifying iconicentrepreneurs,publicising competitions, laudingwinners, andotherkindsof activitiesthat promote entrepreneurial norm and identity formation. Outside this communityanchored immediately around the university, there is a wider network of practiceconstituted through various epistemic and professional networks and associations. Astylised map of the wider learning community, and its three elements (the corecommunity, the peripheral community and the network) are represented in Figure 2below. The diagram is ‘messy’, representing a complex situation where diverseorganisationaland institutionalelementsare fulfillingdifferent functions: consider forexampleincubatorsandhatcheriesthatmayormaynotbeinvolvedinstudentuniversityentrepreneurshippromotion(andthisiswhytheyspantheboundaryhere).


12

Figure2Thesociallearningcommunityassociatedwithuniversitycontributionstoraisingentrepreneurialpotential

Source:owndesignafterBenneworth(2007).

5. The poor fit of entrepreneurship knowledge communities inuniversityinstitutionalstructures

Althoughtherehasbeenarangeofgoodexamplesofhighlyentrepreneurialuniversities,withinnovativecurriculaoverthelast30years(FayolleandGailly,2009),moregenerallystimulating university entrepreneurship has proven problematic (O’Shea et al., 2005;Bercovitzetal.,2008).Withtheexceptionoftherelativelylimitednumberofinstitutionsthatregardthemselvesas‘entrepreneurialuniversities’,promotingentrepreneurshipisrarely a direct strategic mission for universities. Therefore, although the bulk ofuniversitiesmayengageinentrepreneurialactivities,theyareoftensubordinatetocoreteaching and researchmissions. Even though it has been common to talk of a ‘thirdengagementmission’foruniversities(whetherbusiness,community,publicorsocietal,cf.NCCPE,2010;SchuetzeandInman2010;Duke,OsborneandWilson2013),therealityhas been that excellent engagement tends to be a consequence of performing coremissionswell,ratherthanbeingamissioninitsownright(Benneworth,2013).

Butengagement isabroadmission,andentrepreneurship justoneof theengagementactivities (Benneworth etal., 2009). Universities face a huge range of pressures fromexternalorganisationsfortheirattentionandsupport,andsupportingentrepreneurshipaddstothecomplexityofmanaginguniversitieswhofacewhatDeBoeretal.havecalled


13

‘mission overload’ (2007). Research consistently demonstrates that although thirdmissionincomeisagrowingshareinmanycountries’HEsectors,thistendstocomefromincreasing numbers of research and consultancy contracts from firms to universitiesrather than through entrepreneurial activities. Indeed, by their very nature,entrepreneurscanbedifficultcustomersfromwhichuniversitiesmaygenerateincome(Bruneeletal.,2010).Atbest,entrepreneurs’timescalesandneeds(‘effectuation’)areentirelyoutofstepwiththoseofuniversities’administrativestructures(‘causation’)(VanBurg et al., 2008; Sarasvasthy, 2009). At worst, the necessarily effectuative andopportunistic nature of the entrepreneurship process (which can be likened to adesperate scramble for resources where the ends justify the means) can hinderuniversitiesworkingeffectivelywithentrepreneurs(Guerrero&Urbano,2012).

And it must also be acknowledged that despite the promoting entrepreneurship andentrepreneurial potential not necessarily being a core university business, manyuniversitiesarerathergoodatit(seeforexampleClark,1998;d’Este&Perkman,2010),as there are structural reasons why universities can be supportive environments forentrepreneurs. Universities are by their very nature a loose agglomeration of manyoverlapping and interlinked communities involved with creating, developing andapplyingnewknowledge,includinginbusinesssettings(Benneworth,2014).Themostentrepreneurial universities open themselves up as abundant eco‐systems forentrepreneurs and potential entrepreneurs, educating a cadre of entrepreneurs withgoodknow‐howandknow‐whooftheuniversity,thenpermittingandregulatingthoseentrepreneurstoaccessthenecessaryresourcestocreatenewbusinesses(e.g.Moraetal.,2010). It isherewhereweseethepolicyproblematicemerging;entrepreneurshippromotion policies to date have tended to be rather top‐down and implicitly haveassumed that the purpose of universities is exclusively to work with innovativebusinesses (Rasmussen, 2008). This can in turn lead to policy‐making that seeks tostimulates one‐off projects that neither strengthen the university’s entrepreneurialcompetencies nor increase aggregate levels of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurialpotential(HarrisonandLeitch,2010).

Effectively stimulating universities to contribute to raising entrepreneurial potentialneedstorecognisethreetensions:

Whatentrepreneurswanttogetfromuniversitiesisnotalwaysintheuniversities’bestinterests(e.g.alivelihoodthatisnotadegree)

Universitiesaregenerallyunwillingtostrategicallysupportentrepreneurshipatthe cost of their core activities, (e.g. training their students to leave beforegraduation),and

Policy‐makersthereforeshouldnotattempttostrategicallysteeruniversitiestoencourageentrepreneurialpotentialwhereitisnotintheuniversities’bestinterests.

ThesetensionsformthebasisforourapproachforfurtherinvestigatingtheenablingofentrepreneurshipinHE:inordertoencourageuniversitiestostimulateentrepreneurial


14

potential, it isnecessarytounderstandnotonly thecomplexityofwhatentrepreneursneed and benefit from, but also how that fits with universities as these complexorganisations.Therehasbeentodateatendencytodealwiththiscomplexitybyfocusingononesideortheotheroftherelationship,lookingateitherentrepreneursoruniversities(Pinheiroetal.,2012).Anyeffectiveinterventionneedsbebasedonunderstandinghowuniversitiesascomplexinstitutionsandcommunitiesengagewithentrepreneursontheirindividually‐complexinnovationjourneys.Thisunderstandingthereforeformsthebasisofconceptualframeworksforthesituationofentrepreneurialarenasthatweintroduceinthelatterpartofthisarticle(seeFigure2).

6. How things ‘fit’ in university institutional structures, astakeholderapproach

InourviewresearchshouldexplorehowthecollectiveentrepreneurshiplearningarenasillustratedinFigure2operatewithintheoverallinstitutionalarchitectureofuniversities.Theseactivitiesarenotfree‐standing,buthavearangeofinterdependenciesandfeedbackloops with other kinds of university undertakings: they fit into a wider institutionalarchitecture, and their effectiveness is influenced by the goodness of fit with thatinstitutionalarchitecture.Thekeyquestionintermsofinstitutionalfitishoweffectivelydo entrepreneurship projects contribute to core strategic goals and missions. Tounderstandhowuniversitiespermitcollectiveentrepreneurshiplearningarenastobuildupwithintheirinstitutionalarchitecture,weshouldrecognisetherelationshipofthesecollective learningarenastotheotherelementsoftheuniversity, includingwhatClark(1988)referredtoasthe‘steeringcore’(Benneworthetal.,2013).

Thehighereducationmodernisationprocessofthelastthirtyyearshassoughttosensitiseuniversitiestosocietalstakeholders(Jenniskens1997;DeBoeretal.,2007).Thishasledtoasituationwhereuniversitiesfaceincreasingnumbersofdemands,atatimewhentheyhavetomakestrategicchoices,leadingtoasituationtermed‘missionoverload’(Ćulum,RončevićandLedić2013;Damme2009;EndersandBoer2009).Thishasforcedthemtobecomestrategicallyselectiveandtofocusingeffortsexclusivelyonactivitiescontributingtocoregoals.Thisposesadirect threat touniversityentrepreneurshipactivities,bothactivelyandpassively(BenneworthandOsborne,2013).Actively,thismayconcentrateresources on core activities andmake it harder to bring resources together to createexperimental and permissive spaces for more peripheral activities. Passively, re‐regulation of universities to optimise strategic management can create barriers toentrepreneurialindividualsparticipatinginthesecommunities.

Therefore,wearguethatfutureresearchshouldfocusatleastpartlyuponthequestionofhow these entrepreneurial activities can be made more strategically important touniversities,identifyingwhattheydotoachievethat,thebarrierstheyfaceandhowtheyaddressthosebarriers.AusefulstartingpointisprovidedbyRaeetal.(2010)whomap(Figure3)howanentrepreneurial culturebuildsup in theuniversity.Central to theirargument is that the changeagent isan “entrepreneurial learning team”, anemergent


15

groupingthatformsbetweenpeopleeachtryingtomobilisetheirowncollectivelearningarenas and who join forces at some level to mutually reinforce the desirability ofentrepreneurial activities within the university. The “entrepreneurial learning team”throughthismobilisationcanleverageanysuccesstheymayenjoy.Theirexperimentsincreatingcoreuniversityvaluefromexperimentalentrepreneurshipactivitiesmayhaveademonstrativevaluethatisabletoinfluenceotherspheresoftheuniversity,itsmission,thecurriculum,students,externalcommunitiesandthirdstreamactivities. Partofthesuccess of this depends on the extent towhich the team is able to build connectionsbetweenthevariousparticipants,andcreatesharedresourcesthatatthesametimearevaluedbyotheruniversityconstituencieswhoarechangingwhattheyaredoingtobeinpartmoreentrepreneurial.

Figure3Fivekeyareasofinteractionfortheentrepreneuriallearningteam

SourceRaeetal.,2010.

ExtendingRaeetal.’sanalysisandincorporatingFigure2wearguethatitisnotjusttheentrepreneurial learning team embedded in these networks, but rather each different


16

groupwithintheteamthathasitsowncommunities.Thus,tounderstandthedynamicswemustunderstandhowthedifferentinterestsofteammembersareinturnshapedandinfluenced by their own stakeholders (Jongbloed et al., 2008). Stakeholders are anindividual,grouporinstitutionwithastakeoraninterestinanorganisation’ssuccess:thatinterestmightbeinitsactivities,inhelpingittoreachitsgoals,orinthewidersuccessof those activities. Stakeholders influence ‐ either negatively or positively ‐ anorganisation’sscopetotakeparticularcoursesofaction.Withuniversitiesfacingmanydivergentdemandsfrommanystakeholders,effectiveuniversitystrategicmanagementdepends on identifying which demands can be adequately fulfilled, the activitiesnecessarytofulfilthem,andthencreatingsynergiesbetweenthesedifferentactivities.

AstakeholdermodelprovidesameanstounderstandhowpromotingKBEPcanbecomemoreimportanttouniversities,somethingwhich,followingBenneworthandJongbloed(2009) requires sufficient consensus amongst internal and external stakeholders thatthey value these activities as helping to meet their core purposes. In responding tocompetingdemands,auniversityitselfevolvesandthatchangesthesituationofparticularactivities within the wider institutional architecture, and successful activities becomeincreasingly strategically anchored. Ultimately, they can affect the entire institutionalculture(cf.Raeetal.,2010)becomingmorecentral,moreformalisedandestablished,andultimately,theuniversitybecomingmoreentrepreneurial(Clark,1998;Raeetal.,2010).Table 1 below provides a categorisation of university stakeholders, taken fromBenneworthandJongbloed(2009).

Table1Stakeholdercategoriesandconstitutivegroups

Stakeholdercategory Constitutivegroups,communities,etc.

Governingentities Stateandfederalgovernment;governingboard;boardoftrustees,bufferorganisations;sponsoringreligiousorganisations

Administration President(vice‐chancellor);senioradministrators

Employees Faculty;administrativestaff;supportstaff

Clienteles Students; parents/spouses; tuition reimbursement providers;servicepartners;employers;fieldplacementsites…

Suppliers Secondary education providers; alumni; other colleges anduniversities; food purveyors; insurance companies; utilities;contractedservices

Competitors Direct:privateandpublicprovidersofpost‐secondaryeducationpotential:distanceproviders;newventures

Substitutes:employer‐sponsoredtrainingprogrammes


17

Donors Individuals (includes trustees, friends, parents, alumni,employees,industry,researchcouncils,foundations,…)

Communities Neighbours; school systems; social services; chambers ofcommerce;specialinterestgroups…

Governmentregulators

Ministry of Education; buffer organisations; state and federalfinancial aid agencies; research councils; federal researchsupport;taxauthorities;socialsecurity;PatentOffice

Non‐governmentalregulators

Foundations;institutionalandprogrammaticaccreditingbodies;professionalassociations;churchsponsors

Financialintermediaries

Banks;fundmanagers;analysts

Joint venturepartners

Alliances and consortia; corporate co‐sponsors of research andeducationalservices

Source:BenneworthandJongbloed(2009)afterBurrows(1999)

7. Mappingthefitofentrepreneurshipknowledgecommunitiesintouniversityinstitutionalarchitectures

UsingTable1,itisthereforepossibletocreateauniversity‐levelviewofhowparticularentrepreneurship activities are anchored within the university’s institutionalarchitectures, encompassing this broader stakeholder set. Entrepreneurship activitiesexistpartlywithintheuniversityinstitutionalspace,aninstitutionalspacealsooccupiedby other internal stakeholders, including the governing body, management,administration and the core functional activity. The university at the same time facespressurefromitsexternalstakeholders,whichwehereclassifyintofivemaintypes:

System stakeholders: these are other actors in the higher education network,includingcompetitors,regulatorsandpolicy‐makers,concernedwiththeoverallproductionofHEoutputs.

Financialstakeholders:theseareactorswhoprovidefinancetotheuniversityforits services, whether public policy‐makers and research councils, or private,(donorsandbankers).

Corporatestakeholders:theseactorshaveaninterestinthecommercialsuccessoftheuniversityinitsvariousaspects,includingitsbankers,aswellasjointventurepartners.

Commercialstakeholders:theseareactorsthathaveaformalsupplyrelationshipwiththeuniversity,eitherassuppliersorserviceusersoftheuniversity

Contentstakeholders:theseareactorsthatbenefitfrompositivespill‐overeffectsfromthepresenceoftheuniversitysuchasthelocalcommunityandmedia.


18

ThisarrangementisshowninFigure4below.

Figure4Strategicstakeholdersinuniversityentrepreneurshippromotionactivity

Source:owndesignafterBenneworthandJongbloed(2008)

Tomeaningfullyunderstandhowuniversitiescancontributetoraisingentrepreneurialpotential beyond one‐off projects (extremely dissatisfying to policy‐makers), it isnecessary tounderstandhow these activities relate to thiswider ‘web’ of stakeholderrelationships. In our conceptual framework (Figure 5 below), an entrepreneurshipactivitywilltendtobesuccessfulwithinauniversitywhensupportedbyastrongcoalitionof internal and external beneficiaries. Internal beneficiariesmay be supportive of theactivity because of the benefits that the tacit knowledge generated in the communitybringstotheirownteachingandresearchefforts;furthertheactivitiesmighthelpprovideusefulemployabilityexperienceandtransferrableskillsforstudents,andenrichcoursesimprovingstudentsatisfaction.Commercialexternalbeneficiariesmaywelcomeattemptstocreatenewbusinessesthatthenbecometheirclients(forexamplebankers),policy‐makers may welcome improved firm formation rates, whilst local stakeholderspotentiallybenefitfromnewlycreatedjobs.

Understandinghowuniversitiesmayimprovetheirentrepreneurialpotentialthereforerequiresunderstandinghowdifferentmodelsofentrepreneurshipactivities(collectivelearning arenas which successfully develop KBEP) co‐exist. The first element of theconceptual framework suggests that at theheart of thisprocess are entrepreneurshipactivities that involve collective learning between students and university internalstakeholders. These activities develop entrepreneurial potential by developingentrepreneurial norms, helping people form entrepreneurial identities, motivatingpeople to pursue entrepreneurial opportunities and supporting the pursuit andexploitation of those activities. The endeavours ultimately not only improve


19

entrepreneurialperformance,intermsofthegenerationofnewstart‐upsandspin‐offs,but also encourage social entrepreneurship and intra‐company entrepreneurship(‘intrapreneurship’).

Thesecondelementoftheconceptualframeworkarguesthattheseactivitiesshouldbesuccessfully embedded within universities’ wider (external) stakeholder networks.Entrepreneurshipactivitiescreateassetsdirectlyaccessiblebyarangeofcoreinternalstakeholders: researchers studyingentrepreneurshipprocesses, teachersandstudentsbenefitingfromassetsenrichingcourses,andcommercialstakeholdersbenefitingfromassetsfacilitatingknowledgeexchangeandco‐creation(cf.Schutte,2000).Thefactthattheseentrepreneurshipactivitiescreateassetswhichsupportcoreuniversityactivitiesinturn mean that they are supported and valued by peripheral internal stakeholders,universitymanagementandadministration,fortheircontributiontotheoverallgoalsofthe university. Through their contribution to the overall goals of the university,contributingtoastable,successfulinstitution,theseactivitiesareinturnvaluedbytheexternalstakeholders.ThevalueoftheconceptualframeworkliesinitscapacitytoenableustoidentifydifferentmodelsofchangeintheentrepreneurialactivitiesofHEIs.Itallowsus to see where the strengths and weaknesses of these activities lie, and to identify,throughthedistinctiveelementsandapproachesHEIsemployandwithreferencetotherangeofallpartiesinvolved,notonlymodelsofsuccessfulchangebutalsohowsuccessisachieved.

Figure5Conceptualframeworkforthesituationofentrepreneurialarenaswithintheinstitutionofuniversity


20

Wethereforearguethatafutureresearchagendashouldthereforeattempttodealwithtwo key lacuna or empty spaces in current understandings of entrepreneurshipeducation,universityinstitutionalarchitectureandstakeholdermodels:

how do particular curricular and extracurricular activities contribute to thedevelopmentofentrepreneurialpotentialinstudents?

howdoentrepreneurialactivities(curricular/extracurricular)becomeembeddedinparticularuniversities?

These questions are action‐oriented because they push enquiry beyond simplyinformationgatheringtoidentifyingbothreasonswhysomepracticesareeffectivebutothers less so, and themeans bywhich, within different HEI contexts, theymight beintroduced and developed. By way of example, crucial information‐seeking fieldworkquestions to stakeholders such as ‘What new approaches exist in order to integrateentrepreneurship in curricula design and teaching methodology?’ and ‘Are there(significant) differences among different disciplines?’ would provide data needed toaddressthefirstkeyresearchquestion:‘Howdoparticularcurricularandextracurricularactivities contribute to the development of entrepreneurial potential in students?’.Similarly,afieldworkquestionsuchas‘Whataretheexistingmeasuresandapproachesusedtoassessentrepreneurialteachingandoutcomes?’wouldprovideaknowledgebaseforthesamekeyquestion,whichinturnwillprovideacontext fora furtherfieldworkquestion,‘Whataretheapproaches’strengthsandweaknesses?’

Thesecondkeyquestion‘Howdoentrepreneurialactivities(curricular/extracurricular)becomeembedded inparticularuniversities?’offersadeeperperspectiveto indicativefieldwork questions such ‘Towhat extent does the involvement of entrepreneurs andbusiness practitioners in education enhance entrepreneurship as an extracurricularactivity?What outcomes are related to this activity?’ and ‘(What are the) key successfactors forenhancingopportunities forentrepreneurship inextracurricularactivities?’Theflexibilityoftheconceptualframeworkofferedheremeansthatithasthecapacitytoidentifyandaccommodateunanticipatedprocesses,stakeholdertypesandperspectivesthroughacasestudyapproachthusensuringthatanalysisnotonlynewunderstandingbutalsotheopportunityformethodologicaldevelopmentinthefieldofentrepreneurialskillsacquisition,developmentandapplication.

8. Conclusionsandfutureresearchdirections.Although a comparatively small number of universities characterise themselves as‘entrepreneurial universities’, entrepreneurial activities for most HEIs remain oneelementoftheirthirdmissionofengagementwithlowerprioritythantheirmainresearchandteachingmissions.AlthoughtherehasbeenattemptsbytheEuropeanCommissiontoencourage Member States to embed entrepreneurship competencies into universitycurricula,co‐ordinatedactioninthisregardhasbeenhinderedbytheverydifferentlevelsofcontroltheseStateshaveoverHEcurricula.Inthispaperwehavesoughttoofferan


21

alternativeperspectiveontheplaceofentrepreneurshipeducationinhighereducation,and to transcend the notion that it is produced exclusively through specificentrepreneurship education activities (which often in reality could better becharacterisedasenterprise).Itsnatureasasetofloosely‐anchoredlearningcommunitiesmeans that university entrepreneurship education is best promotedwhen a range ofbeneficiariesvaluethateducationasaneffectivewayofachievingtheircoregoals.Thisinturnhelpsustorelativizeclaimsanddemandsfromsomepolicyquartersforhighereducationtobecomemoreentrepreneurialasifthatwereatasktobeundertakenwithoutreferencetouniversities’othermissionsnorthecontemporaryrealityofHEfacingmanypressurestoadoptnewmissions.

As previously highlighted the EU strategy for themodernisation of higher education6stresses the involvement of all disciplines and in all three cycles. Likewise, the EUsEntrepreneurship2020ActionPlan7specificallystates thatuniversities ‘shouldbecomemoreentrepreneurial’.Suchdifferentialcontrol,anditseffectsonentrepreneurialskillsdevelopmentinHEIs,isoneoftwokeytensionsthatourconceptualframeworkseekstoaccommodateinaddressingtheoverarchingresearchquestionswhichwehaveidentifiedascore.

The other tension is that between the needs of the university and the needs of theentrepreneuralongwiththeirsupporting‘casts’ofstakeholdersasshowninFigure5.Aswehavepreviouslynoted,thetimescales,needsandphilosophiesofentrepreneursanduniversitiesmeantheyfunctionquitedifferently.Theconceptualframeworkenablesusto move the focus of attention away from tensions such as national boundaries and‘university versus entrepreneurial needs’, in favour of activities offering a variety ofmodelsof‘entrepreneurialactivities’carriedoutin‘collectiveentrepreneurshiplearningarenas’ situated within university institutional architectures that affect but do notcompletelydeterminetheseoutcomes.Theframeworkenablesusnotonlytocompareactivitiesindifferentuniversitiesacrossdifferentcountries,butmoreimportantly,toask:How can these entrepreneurial activities be made more strategically important touniversities.Inthiswayboththeconceptualframeworkandourquestionsenableustofocusresearchonidentifyingwhatuniversitiesdotoachievethatgoal,andhowtheydealwiththebarriers.

Theemphasisofresearchquestionson‘how’activitiescancontributetothedevelopmentofentrepreneurialpotentialinstudents,and‘how’theactivitiescanbeembeddedintheuniversities ensure that the focus is on the intended impact of the activities and themannerandextenttowhichthisissupportedbythestakeholderswho,inanumberofguisesandgradations,willbeinternalorexternaltotheuniversity.Forthepurposesof

6 COM (2011) 567 final, http://ec.europa.eu/education/higher‐education/doc/com0911_en.pdf 7 See COM (2012) 795 final, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0795:FIN:EN:PDF


22

proposedfutureresearch,entrepreneurialactivitiesconstitutethecasesanditisthecasesthatprovidethedata.However,itisnotthedataontheactivitypersewhichinterestsusprimarily but rather the way that those activities plug entrepreneurship into thearchitecture (informalpracticesand formal structures)bywhichuniversitiesorganisetheiractivitiesandmeettheneedsoftheirmanystakeholders.

ReferencesAmaral,A.,Meek,V.L.andLarsen,I.M.(Eds.)(2003).Thehighereducationmanagerialrevolution?

Dordrecht:KluwerAcademicPublishers.Benneworth, P. S. (2007) ‘Seven Samurai Opening Up the Ivory Tower? The Construction of

NewcastleasanEntrepreneurialUniversity,EuropeanPlanningStudies,15(4):487‐509.Benneworth, P. (2013) ‘University Engagement with Socially Excluded Communities’; in P.

Benneworth(ed.)Universityengagementwithsociallyexcludedcommunities,Dordrecht:Springer.

Benneworth,P.(2014)“Decodinguniversityidealsbyreadingcampuses”inP.Temple(ed.)Thephysicaluniversity,London:Routledge.

Benneworth,P.S.,Charles,D.R.,Conway,C.,Hodgson,C.,&Humphrey,L.(2009)“Howthesocietalimpact of universities can be improved both conceptually and practically” SharingResearchAgendasonKnowledgeSystems:FinalResearchProceedings,UNESCO:Paris,France.

Benneworth,P.Charles,D.,Hodgson,C.andHumphrey,L.(2013)TheRelationshipofCommunityEngagement with Universities’ Core Missions’ in P. Benneworth (ed.) Universityengagementwithsociallyexcludedcommunities,Dordrecht:Springer.

Benneworth, P. S.&Hospers,G.‐J. (2007) “Urban competitiveness in the knowledgeeconomy:Universitiesasnewplanninganimateurs”Progressinplanning,67(2):99‐198.

Benneworth, P. and Jongbloed, B.W.A (2009) ‘Who matters to universities? A stakeholderperspectiveonhumanities,artsandsocialsciencesvalorisation’HigherEducation59(5),567–88.DOI10.1007/s10734‐009‐9265‐2.

Benneworth,P.andOsborne,M.(2013)Knowledge,engagement,andhighereducationinEurope.InB.HallandR.Tandon(eds)HigherEducationintheWorld5,Knowledge,EngagementandHigherEducation:RethinkingSocialResponsibility,London:Palgrave

Bercovitz, J., and Feldman,M. (2008). ‘Academic Entrepreneurs: Organizational Change at theIndividualLevel.’OrganizationScience,19(1):69‐89.

Brennan,J.,Broek,S.,Durazzi,N,Kamphius,B.,Ranga,M.andRyan,S.(2014)StudyonInnovationinHigherEducation.Luxembourg:PublicationsOfficeoftheEuropeanUnion

Bruneel,J.,D’Este,P.,andSalter,A.(2010)."Investigatingthefactorsthatdiminishthebarrierstouniversity–industrycollaboration."ResearchPolicy,39(7):858‐868.

Burrows, J. (1999), Going beyond labels: a framework for profiling institutional stakeholders,ContemporaryEducation,70(4):5‐10.

CentreforEducationalResearchandInnovation(1982)Theuniversityandthecommunity:theproblemsofchangingrelationships,Paris:OECD

CEDEFOP (2008) Future skill needs in Europe Medium‐term forecasthttp://www.cedefop.europa.eu/EN/Files/4078_en.pdf(Accessed1December2014)

Clark, B. (1998) Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways ofTransformation,Oxford:Pergamon/IAUPress.

CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities(2010)EUROPE2020Astrategyforsmart,sustainableand inclusive growth URL:http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:2020:FIN:EN:PDF(Accessed1December2014)

CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities(2009)CommunicationfromtheCommissiontotheEuropeanParliament,theCouncil,theEuropeanEconomicandSocialCommitteeandthe


23

CommitteeoftheRegions,Anewpartnershipforthemodernisationofuniversities:theEU Forum for University Business Dialogue8. http://eur‐lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0158:FIN:EN:PDF (Accessed 1December2014)

CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities(2011a)CommunicationfromtheCommissiontotheEuropeanParliament,theCouncil,theEuropeanEconomicandSocialCommitteeandtheCommitteeoftheRegions:Horizon2020‐TheFrameworkProgrammeforResearchandInnovation.Brussels:EC

CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities(2011b)Supportinggrowthandjobs–anagendaforthe modernization of Europe’s higher education systems, URL:http://ec.europa.eu/education/highereducation/doc/com0911_en.p (Accessed 1December2014)

Cope, J.andDown,S.(2010) ‘I thinkthereforeI learn?Entrepreneurialcognition, learningandknowinginpractice(summary),’FrontiersofEntrepreneurshipResearch30(6),Article7.

Ćulum,B.,Rončević,N.,andLedić,J.(2013).‘FacingNewExpectations—IntegratingThirdMissionActivitiesintotheUniversity.’InB.Kehm&U.Teichler(eds)TheAcademicProfessioninEurope:NewTasksandNewChallenges,Dordrecht:Springer,pp.163‐195.

D’Este, P., and Perkmann, M. (2011). "Why do academics engage with industry? Theentrepreneurial university and individual motivations." The Journal of TechnologyTransfer,36(3),316‐339.

Damme,D. V. (2009) ‘The Search for transparency: convergence and diversity in theBolognaProcess’ in F. van Vught (ed.) Mapping the higher education landscape: towards aEuropeanclassificationofhighereducation,Dordrecht:Springerpp.39‐55.

DeBoer,H.F.,Enders,J.andLeisyte,L.(2007)."PublicsectorreforminDutchhighereducation:Theorganizationaltransformationoftheuniversity."PublicAdministration85(1):27‐46.

Department of the Taioiseach (2008) Building Ireland’s Smart Economy ‐ A Framework forSustainableEconomicRenewal.Dublin:StationaryOffice.

Directorate‐General Enterprise and Industry (2012) Effects and Impacts of EntrepreneurshipProgrammes in higher education. Brussels: DG Enterprise and Industry, Unit forEntrepreneurship.

Duke,C.,Osborne,M.,andWilson,B.(2013)ANewImperative:RegionsandHigherEducationinDifficultTimes.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.

Enders,J.,andBoer,H.(2009).‘ThemissionimpossibleoftheEuropeanuniversity:Institutionalconfusionandinstitutionaldiversity.’EuropeanIntegrationandtheGovernanceofHigherEducationandResearch,159‐178.

EuropeanCommission(2014)Erasmus+ProgrammeGuide.Brussels:ECEURYDICE (2012) Entrepreneurship Education at School in Europe – National Strategies,

Curricula and Learning Outcomes. Brussels: DG Education and Culture.http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/Education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/135EN.pdf.Doi:10.2797/80384(accessedDecember14th2014).

Fayolle,A.(2013).Personalviewsonthefutureofentrepreneurshipeducation.Entrepreneurship&RegionalDevelopment,25(7‐8),692‐701.

Fayolle, A., and B. Gailly (2009). ‘Assessing the Impact of Entrepreneurship Education: AmethodologyandThreeExperimentsfromFrenchEngineeringSchools,’inHandbookofUniversity‐WideEntrepreneurshipEducation.Eds.G. P.West, E. J.Gatewood andK.G.Shaver.Northampton,MA:EdwardElgar,203–214.

Fitzsimmons,J.R.,andDouglas,E.J.(2011).‘Interactionbetweenfeasibilityanddesirabilityintheformationofentrepreneurialintentions.’JournalofBusinessVenturing,26(4),431‐440.

vonGraevenitz,G.,Harhoff,D.,andWeber,R.(2010).‘Theeffectsofentrepreneurshipeducation.’JournalofEconomicBehaviorandOrganization,76(1),90‐112.

8 See http://eur‐lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0158:FIN:EN:PDF


24

Guerrero,M.,andUrbano,D. (2012). "Thedevelopmentofanentrepreneurialuniversity."TheJournalofTechnologyTransfer,37(1),43‐74.

Garavan,T.N.,&O'Cinneide,B.(1994).EntrepreneurshipEducationandTrainingProgrammes::AReviewandEvaluation–Part1.JournalofEuropeanindustrialTraining,18(8),3‐12.

Hills,G.E.(1988).Variationsinuniversityentrepreneurshipeducation:anempiricalstudyofanevolvingfield.JournalofBusinessVenturing,3(2),109‐122.

Guerrero, M., J. Rialp, and D. Urbano (2008) ‘The impact of desirability and feasibility onentrepreneurialintentions:Astructuralequationmodel.’InternationalEntrepreneurshipandManagementJournal4(1):35‐50.

Hindle,K.,KlyverandJennings,D.F.(2009)An‘Informed’IntentModel:IncorporatingHumanCapital,SocialCapital,andGenderVariablesintotheTheoreticalModelofEntrepreneurialIntentions, inA.L.CarsrudandM.Brännback(eds)Understandingtheentrepreneurialmind.NewYork:Springer.

Jenniskens,I.(1997)GovernmentalSteeringandCurriculumInnovations:AComparativeStudyofthe Relation Between Governmental Steering Instruments and Innovations in HigherEducationCurricula,Maarssen:Elsevier/DeTijdstroom.

Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., and Salerno, C. (2008) Higher education and its communities:Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56, pp.303‐324.

Krueger, N. F. (1993). The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of newventurefeasibilityanddesirability.EntrepreneurshipTheoryandPractice,18(1),5–21.

Krueger, N. F., and Brazeal, D. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs.EntrepreneurshipTheoryandPractice,18(3),91–104.

Lazzeretti, L. & Tavoletti, E. (2005) “Higher Education Excellence and Local EconomicDevelopment:TheCaseoftheEntrepreneurialUniversityofTwente”,EuropeanPlanningStudies13(3):475‐492.

NCCPE (NationalCoordinatingCommittee forPublicEngagement inHigherEducation) (2010)TheEngagedUniversity:ManifestoforPublicEngagement,Bristol:NCCPE.

Osborne,M.andThomas,E.(Eds.)(2003)LifelongLearninginaChangingContinent:ContinuingEducationintheUniversitiesofEurope.Leicester:NIACE

O'Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., and Roche, F. (2005). ‘Entrepreneurial orientation,technologytransferandspinoffperformanceofUSuniversities.’ResearchPolicy,34(7):994‐1009.

Ministryof Education (2009)Guidelines for entrepreneurship education.Helsinki:Ministry ofEducation.

Mora, J.‐G., Detmer, A. & Vieira, M.‐J. (eds) (2010) Good practice in university‐enterprisepartnerships, Brussels: DG Education, http://gooduep.eu/documents/GOODUEP‐Final%20Report%20UEPS.pdf(Accessed1stDecember2014).

Pittaway,L., et al. (2011) ‘The role ofentrepreneurshipclubsandsocieties in entrepreneuriallearning.’InternationalSmallBusinessJournal29(1):37‐57.

Polanyi,M.(1966)TheTacitDimension.London:Doubleday&CoRae,D.,S.Gee,andR.Moon.(2010)‘Theroleofanentrepreneuriallearningteamincreatingan

enterprisecultureinauniversity.’HandbookofResearchinEntrepreneurshipEducation:Internationalperspectives3:274.

Rae,D.(2011)‘Actionlearninginnewcreativeventures:thecaseofSPEED.InC.Henry&A.deBruin(eds)EntrepreneurshipandtheCreativeEconomy:Process,PracticeandPolicypp.97‐120,Cheltenham:EdwardElgar.

Rasmussen,E.(2008).‘Governmentinstrumentstosupportthecommercializationofuniversityresearch:LessonsfromCanada.’Technovation,28(August),506‐517.

Sarasvathy, S. D. (2009) Effectuation: Elements of Entrepreneurial Expertise. Cheltenham:EdwardElgar.

Schuetze,H.andInman,P.(Eds.)(2010)CommunityEngagementandService–APrimaryMissionofUniversities.Leicester:NIACE.


25

Shattock,M.(1999).Governanceandmanagementinuniversities:Thewaywelivenow.JournalofEducationPolicy,14(3):271‐‐282.

Schrooten, G. (2009), ‘Learning in networks: Community of Practice: a new approach toentrepreneurial learning.’ Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, Enschede: University of Twente.http://essay.utwente.nl/60000/1/MSc_Gerrit_Schrooten.pdf (Accessed 12th December2014).

Schutte,F.(2000)“Theuniversity‐industryrelationsofanentrepreneurialuniversity–thecaseoftheuniversityofTwente”inF.SchutteandP.C.vanderSijde(eds.)Theuniversityandits regions: examples of regional development from the European Consortium ofInnovativeUniversities,Enschede,UniversityofTwentePress.

Shapero, A. (1982). Social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C. A. Kent et al. (Eds.), Theencyclopaediaofentrepreneurship(pp.72–89).EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice‐Hall

Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., & Al‐Laham, A. (2007). Do entrepreneurship programmes raiseentrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning,inspirationandresources.JournalofBusinessVenturing,22(4),566‐591.

UNESCO/OECD/Eurostat, 2010.UOEdata collection on education systems.Manual. Volume 1.Montreal,Paris,Luxembourg:UNESCO/OECD/Eurostat

VanBurg,E.,Romme,A.G.L.,Gilsing,V.A.,&Reymen,I.M.(2008).CreatingUniversitySpin‐Offs:AScience‐BasedDesignPerspective.JournalofProductInnovationManagement,25(2):114‐128

Vorley,T.andNelles,J.(2008)“(Re)ConceptualisingtheAcademy:InstitutionalDevelopmentofandbeyond theThirdMission”,HigherEducationManagementandPolicy,20(3):119‐135.

TheCenterforHigherEducationPolicyStudies(CHEPS)isaresearchinstitute(WHW,Article9.20)locatedintheFacultyofBehaviouralandManagementScieneswithintheUniversityofTwente,apublicuniversityestablishedbythe

Dutchgovernmentin1961.CHEPSisaspecializedhighereducationpolicycentrethatcombinesbasicandappliedresearchwitheducation,trainingandconsultancy

activities.

http://www.utwente.nl/bms/cheps/

TheCentreforResearchandDevelopmentinAdultandlifelonglearning(CR&DALL)atGlasgowUniversitypursuesarangeofresearchactivitieswhichhaverelevancetothethemeoflifelonglearning.CR&DALL'saimistoconductinter‐disciplinaryandmulti‐disciplinaryresearchanddevelopmentactivitiesinadulteducationandlifelonglearninginordertoachieveobservableimpactswith

respecttosocialjustice,socialinclusionandpovertyreduction.

Understanding universities and entrepreneurship educationeprints.gla.ac.uk/117835/1/117835.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of Understanding universities and entrepreneurship educationeprints.gla.ac.uk/117835/1/117835.pdf ·...