Introduction

Typically, the main roles of universities revolve around education and research.  However, in recent decades, and especially in recent years, commentators have recognized that universities, in addition to education and research, also engage in entrepreneurial activity—primarily to improve the economic performance of their region and nation.  This conceptualization of universities is sometimes called the entrepreneurial university

 

Taxonomy of entrepreneurial activities

Many scholars have proposed various taxonomies or catalogues to delineate the range of entrepreneurial activities that universities undertake (e.g., Philpott et al., 2011).  To illustrate, universities may implement one or more of the following activities

 

• Technology parks or sites at a university campus in which technology and other businesses can interact with the university.  These parks facilitate clusters of collaborations, attract skilled individuals, and increase the likelihood of research collaborations and other arrangements

• Spin-off firms or joint ventures that commercialise the research of this university and thus generate a potential revenue stream (for evidence of their importance to a region, see Fuster et al., 2019)

• Patents, licences, and other avenues to secure property rights from the discoveries in the university—ultimately to enable other firms to apply this knowledge as well as to attract income, such as royalties

 

Many other entrepreneurial activities at universities overlap more closely with their traditional roles and include

 

• contract research in which industry fund academics to complete specific research projects, many of which may generate commercial benefits

• industry training courses in which universities impart knowledge to industry employees about relevant advances in their fields, funded by industry partners, government agencies, or both

• consulting in which academics are engaged by industries to solve challenging problems.

 

Finally, many of the core activities that universities undertake are relevant to the economic performance of their region and nation, such as research grants, research publications, conferences, informal exchanges, and the teaching of relevant skills. Some researchers even contend that such core activities transfer knowledge to industry more effectively than alternative entrepreneurial practices (Cohen et al. 2002). 

 

Caveats about entrepreneurial activities

Some commentators raise concerns about entrepreneurial activities that deviate from the traditional role of universities around education and research.  First, scholars have suggested that universities are not positioned or configured appropriately to thrive in these activities, such as technology parks, spin-off firms, joint ventures, patents, and licences.  Even universities that are renowned to be leaders in entrepreneurial activity do not always succeed.  To illustrate

 

• as Agrawal and Henderson (2002) underscored, patents explain only 10% of instances in which knowledge was transferred from MIT labs to industry

• patenting and licencing is primarily confined to software and biosciences—and therefore is not relevant to many academic disciplines (Mowery et al., 2004). 

• even at some of the most entrepreneurial universities, patents and licences are only marginally profitable (Mowery et al., 2004)

• some research even indicates that national governments may be funding entrepreneurial activities such as technology parks, spin-off firms, and joint ventures to the detriment of education and research—ultimately compromising the benefits of universities to the economy (Bubela & Caulfield, 2010)

 

Similarly, researchers have proposed that universities can benefit the economy more if they develop entrepreneurial graduates rather than venture into entrepreneurial activities themselves.  According to one estimate, even in the last century, MIT graduates had founded over 4000 companies, generating $232 billion in annual revenues across the globe (BankBoston, 1997)

 

Academics also express concerns about the entrepreneurial university.  To illustrate, Philpott et al. (2011) conducted interviews with 12 academics at a European university on this topic.  Academics indicated that

 

• entrepreneurial activities often stifle progression and promotion, because of the time that must be dedicated to this entrepreneurial pursuit

• the entrepreneurial activities of individual staff should be facilitated and embraced—but university management should not impose these activities onto staff

• entrepreneurial activities are challenging, partly because academics perceive a dearth of suitable role models to emulate in their field

• entrepreneurial activities may not be as relevant to the humanities or social sciences

 

Measures of entrepreneurial practices at universities

Scholars have developed several indices to gauge the degree to which a university engages in entrepreneurial activity.  For example, the Spanish Entrepreneurial University Scoreboard measure, as utilised by Guerrero and Urbano (2012), considers

 

• the degree to which universities have introduced entrepreneurial initiatives such as science parks, incubators, courses in entrepreneurial activity, or interdisciplinary centers

• the extent to which universities generate outcomes that demonstrate entrepreneurial activity, including patents, licences, and spin-offs

• the degree to which the universities have fostered a culture of entrepreneurial activity and have developed or employed entrepreneurial staff

• the level of entrepreneurship in the local region, as gauged by the number of new enterprises

• the ranking of a university

 

Determinants of entrepreneurial activity at universities: University characteristics and practices

Research has explored the characteristics of universities that promote entrepreneurial activity or foster an entrepreneurial culture.  To illustrate, according to Clark (1998, 2001), universities can more readily develop an entrepreneurial culture if

 

• the university is small and thus can change more efficiently

• the university specialized in particular academic disciplines, such as technology

• the administration is primarily centralized rather than devolved to faculties, colleges, or schools.

 

Guerrero and Urbano (2012) conducted a study to ascertain the features and practices of universities that coincide with the degree to which universities engage in entrepreneurial activity.  These researchers explored courses about entrepreneurial activity, reward schemes, entrepreneurial teaching methods, attitudes towards entrepreneurial activity, governance, and many other practices that could foster entrepreneurial behavior. 

 

The degree to which universities were entrepreneurial, as measured by the Spanish Entrepreneurial University Scoreboard, was largely dependent on the degree to which academics and students express favorable attitudes towards entrepreneurial activity.  If these individuals tended to regard entrepreneurial activity as beneficial and valuable, the universities were more likely to be entrepreneurial.  Many features of universities can foster these attitudes, such as the degree to which the university offers courses in entrepreneurial activity, rewards entrepreneurial activity, and employs some role models in entrepreneurial activity

 

Determinants of entrepreneurial activity at universities: University support

Other studies have explored how universities and other bodies can help graduates translate entrepreneurial intentions to entrepreneurial behavior.  For instance, in one study, conducted by Yi (2021), administered a survey to graduates of Yancheng Teachers University and Xiangtan University.  The survey measured intentions to pursue green entrepreneurial enterprises, such as “I wished to start a green enterprise that assists in alleviating environmental issues during my study in university” as well as behaviors that are designed to pursue these intentions, such as written a business plan, sought funding, or purchased materials. The survey also gauged support from the university, such as “My university offers courses on green entrepreneurship”, and support from other bodies, such as “(A body) played a significant role in providing financial support for your start-up activities”

 

As hypothesized, both university support and other support increased the likelihood that entrepreneurial intentions translated to entrepreneurial behavior.  More importantly, the survey uncovered four practices universities could apply to support entrepreneurial activity: courses of entrepreneurial behavior, entrepreneurial projects to which students could perhaps contribute, advice on finances as well as policies, and campaigns to motivate entrepreneurial behavior. 

 

University support of entrepreneurial activity, however, does not always inspire students to engage in this activity.  To illustrate, Wegner et al. (2020) compared two universities—only one of which has invested in courses that help students develop entrepreneurial skills, entrepreneurial competitions, and incubation opportunities.  Interestingly, the intention of students to pursue entrepreneurial ventures did not significantly differ between the two universities.

 

Determinants of entrepreneurial activity at universities: Motivations

Some research has explored the motivations that inspire academics to pursue entrepreneurial activities as well as the antecedents to these motivations.  As D’este and Perkmann (2011) reveal, many academics in the physical and engineering sciences pursue entrepreneurial activities primarily to accelerate their research and not specifically to commercialize their insights.  Specifically, academics tend to engage in consulting, contract research, or industry research to enhance their research careers.  In contrast, academics tend to engage in spin-off companies or seek patents mainly to commercialize their work. 

 

Determinants depend on which entrepreneurial activities are prioritized

Arguably, the determinants of entrepreneurial behavior might vary across the various entrepreneurial activities.  To illustrate, in an intriguing but exploratory study, Sánchez-Barrioluengo and Benneworth, (2019) developed three indices to measure the degree to which universities are entrepreneurial.  Specifically

 

• the first index gauges the degree to which the university is commercially entrepreneurial—as measured by number of patents, number of spinoffs, and IP revenue each year

• the second index gauges the degree to which the university is regionally engaged—as measured by consultancy income, contract research income, and facilities income each year

• the third index blends these measures and also includes income from collaborative research that is publicly funded to measure the degree to which the university is engaged.

 

Arguably, which characteristics of universities promote entrepreneurial behavior might depend on which of these indices researchers utilize.  To test this possibility, Sánchez-Barrioluengo and Benneworth, (2019) measured a range of configurations that might shape entrepreneurial activity including

 

• whether the university reports or discloses IP revenue—that is, revenue from inventions, software, copyright, design, trademark, and other IP

• staff receive rewards if they generate revenue from intellectual property

• whether the university has established a central body to receive enquiries from enterprises, to coordinate interactions with business or the community, and to pursue licencing opportunities

• the percentage of academics who provide services to business or community partners.

 

Interestingly, few of these configurations were associated with level of entrepreneurial activity.  One exception was that a central body to support entrepreneurial activity was inversely associated with the degree to which the universities are commercially entrepreneurial or engaged in general.  In contrast, disclosure and rewards were positively associated with the degree to which the university was regionally engaged. 

 

Overall, these results imply that structural configurations do not greatly affect entrepreneurial success—and centralized bodies might even impede this activity.  More importantly, as these findings indicate, a particular configuration might not suit all universities.  Which configuration to pursue might depend on which entrepreneurial activities the university wants to prioritize.

 

Practices that foster entrepreneurial activity at universities

According to Gianiodis and Meek (2019), many of the attempts of universities to promote entrepreneurial activity have been relatively unsuccessful.  That is, universities that have established innovation hubs, units, or institutes, embedded entrepreneurial activity into their strategic plans, and rewarded academics who engaged in entrepreneurial activity have attracted only modest benefits.

 

Instead, Gianiodis and Meek (2019) proposes that universities should instead prioritize entrepreneurial capital and education. That is, universities should teach students, alumni, and staff how to think critically, how to evaluate ideas, and how to solve problems creatively—all of which have been shown to foster entrepreneurial solutions and innovations.   Specifically, according to Gianiodis and Meek (2019), universities could

 

• propose a strategy to increase the percentage of enrolled and past students who are founders, employees, or interns of new ventures

• propose a plan to increase the percentage of students who participate in technology parks, incubators, and collaborative workspaces—such as makerspaces or hackerspaces

• introduce a chair or director of entrepreneurship at the university

• increase the number of informal workshops and bootcamps that facilitate entrepreneurial activity in students, alumni, and staff

• develop a strategy on how to encourage mentorship and internship experiences to students or staff interested in new ventures

• construct a strategy on how             to attract and to recruit surrogate entrepreneurs to consider and to evaluate the innovations in this university.

 

Other studies have also explored which practices influence the benefits of entrepreneurial education.  Hahn et al. (2019), for example, investigated whether elective courses or mandatory courses on entrepreneurial education are more effective.  In this study, Swiss university students had either never completed a course on entrepreneurial activity, completed an elective course on entrepreneurial activity, or completed a mandatory course on entrepreneurial activity.  After the course, the students evaluated the degree to which they felt they developed entrepreneurial skills, such as the capacity to

 

• identify business opportunities

• create and commercialize new products or services

• manage innovation within a firm and a business more broadly

• act as a leader and communicator

• establish a professional network

 

As hypothesized, elective courses on entrepreneurial activity did indeed improve entrepreneurial skills.  Interestingly, mandatory courses on entrepreneurial activity improved entrepreneurial skills, but only in students whose parents were self-employed.  As this finding indicates, entrepreneurial courses do not improve entrepreneurial skills in all students.  These courses are effective only if the courses are optional or if students are familiar with entrepreneurial activity, because of their family environment. 

 

Overview of the literature

Because the literature on entrepreneurial universities has soared in recent years, Cerver Romero et al. (2021) conducted a bibliometric analysis to explore this literature more systematically.  The authors uncovered several distinct perspectives on entrepreneurial universities.  For example

 

• one perspective considers the different skills and motivations in academics that are necessary if they want to pursue entrepreneurial activity rather than only teaching and research

• another perspective revolves around the tensions and synergies between traditional objectives—teaching as well as research—and entrepreneurial objectives.   For example, some research underscores tensions, such as the notion that university rankings do not greatly depend on spinoffs or patents.  Hence, entrepreneurial activity might be deterred.  Other research underscores how amendments to teaching and research could enhance entrepreneurial pursuits.

• another perspective revolves around the notion that attempts to uncover a unified theory are futile, because of the inherent and profound variations across the academic disciplines

• other perspectives consider the role of globalization and other matters

 

 References

• Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management science, 48(1), 44-60.

• Audretsch, D. B. (2014). From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 313-321.

• Audretsch, D. B., & Belitski, M. (2021). Three-ring entrepreneurial university: in search of a new business model. Studies in Higher Education, 46(5), 977-987.

• BankBoston (1997). MIT: The impact of innovation. Bank Boston Economics Department Special Report, Boston MA, USA.

• Bubela, T. M., & Caulfield, T. (2010). Role and reality: technology transfer at Canadian universities. Trends in biotechnology, 28(9), 447-451.

• Bukhari, E., Dabic, M., Shifrer, D., Daim, T., & Meissner, D. (2021). Entrepreneurial university: The relationship between smart specialization innovation strategies and university-region collaboration. Technology in Society, 65.

• Cai, Y., & Ahmad, I. (2021). From an entrepreneurial university to a sustainable entrepreneurial university: Conceptualization and evidence in the contexts of European University Reforms. Higher Education Policy, 1-33.

• Cerver Romero, E., Ferreira, J. J., & Fernandes, C. I. (2021). The multiple faces of the entrepreneurial university: a review of the prevailing theoretical approaches. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 46(4), 1173-1195.

• Clark, B. (2001). The entrepreneurial university: New foundations for collegiality, autonomy, and achievement. Higher education management, 13(2).

• Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: organizational pathways of transformation. Issues in Higher Education. Elsevier Science Regional Sales, 665 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY.

• Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management science, 48(1), 1-23

• Cunningham, J. A., & Miller, K. (2021). Entrepreneurial university business models: core drivers, challenges and consequences. In A Research Agenda for the Entrepreneurial University (pp. 103-128). Edward Elgar Publishing.

• D’este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 316-339.

• Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: the invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research policy, 32(1), 109-121.

• Etzkowitz, H. (2013). Anatomy of the entrepreneurial university. Social Science Information, 52(3), 486-511.

• Etzkowitz, H., Dzisah, J., & Clouser, M. (2022). Shaping the entrepreneurial university: Two experiments and a proposal for innovation in higher education. Industry and Higher Education, 36(1), 3-12.

• Feola, R., Parente, R., & Cucino, V. (2021). The entrepreneurial university: How to develop the entrepreneurial orientation of academia. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 12(4), 1787-1808.

• Fuster, E., Padilla-Meléndez, A., Lockett, N., & del-Águila-Obra, A. R. (2019). The emerging role of university spin-off companies in developing regional entrepreneurial university ecosystems: The case of Andalusia. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 141, 219–231.

• Gianiodis, P. T., & Meek, W. R. (2019). Entrepreneurial education for the entrepreneurial university: a stakeholder perspective. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 45(4), 1167–1195

• Gibb, A., & Hannon, P. (2006). Towards the entrepreneurial university. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 4(1), 73-110.

• Gibb, A., Haskins, G., & Robertson, I. (2013). Leading the entrepreneurial university: Meeting the entrepreneurial development needs of higher education institutions. In Universities in change (pp. 9-45). Springer, New York, NY.

• Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2012). The development of an entrepreneurial university. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1), 43-74.

• Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2021). The entrepreneurial university in the digital era: Looking into teaching challenges and new higher education trends. In A research agenda for the entrepreneurial university. Edward Elgar Publishing.

• Hahn, D., Minola, T., Bosio, G., & Cassia, L. (2019). The impact of entrepreneurship education on university students’ entrepreneurial skills: a family embeddedness perspective. Small Business Economics, 55(1), 257–282.

• Hannon, P. D. (2013). Why is the entrepreneurial university important? Journal of Innovation Management, 1(2), 10-17.

• Heydarian, N. et al., (2021). Explaining the challenges facing the development of Entrepreneurial University: The Application of Grounded Theory. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business & Government, 27(3).

• Karim, M. S., Sena, V., & Hart, M. (2022). Developing entrepreneurial career intention in entrepreneurial university: the role of counterfactual thinking. Studies in Higher Education, 47(5), 1023-1035.

• Liu, S., & van der Sijde, P. C. (2021). Towards the entrepreneurial University 2.0: Reaffirming the responsibility of universities in the era of accountability. Sustainability, 13(6).

• Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2015). Ivory tower and industrial innovation: University-industry technology transfer before and after the Bayh-Dole Act. Stanford University Press.

• Padilla-Meléndez, A., Fuster, E., Lockett, N., & del-Aguila-Obra, A. R. (2021). Knowledge spillovers, knowledge filters and entrepreneurial university ecosystems. Emerging role of University-focused venture capital firms. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 19(1), 94-105.

• Philpott, K., Dooley, L., O'Reilly, C., & Lupton, G. (2011). The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation, 31(4), 161-170.

• Pinheiro, R., & Stensaker, B. (2014). Designing the entrepreneurial university: The interpretation of a global idea. Public Organization Review, 14(4), 497-516.

• Sam, C., & Van Der Sijde, P. (2014). Understanding the concept of the entrepreneurial university from the perspective of higher education models. Higher Education, 68(6), 891-908.

• Sánchez-Barrioluengo, M., & Benneworth, P. (2019). Is the entrepreneurial university also regionally engaged? Analysing the influence of university’s structural configuration on third mission performance. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 141, 206–21

• Thorp, H. H., & Goldstein, B. (2013). Engines of innovation: The entrepreneurial university in the twenty-first century (Second edition.). Baltimore, Maryland: Project Muse.

• Valera-Loza, D. H., JUNCO, J. G. D., & Palacios-Florencio, B. (2021). Conceptual model about the entrepreneurial university: design and validation with the PLS methodology. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 93.

• Wegner, D., Thomas, E., Teixeira, E. K., & Maehler, A. E. (2020). University entrepreneurial push strategy and students’ entrepreneurial intention. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 26(2), 307–325.

• Yi, G. (2020). From green entrepreneurial intentions to green entrepreneurial behaviors: the role of university entrepreneurial support and external institutional support. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 17(2), 963–979.