Explore the vast range of titles available.

Although entrepreneurship can be taught in different ways, entrepreneurship education impact studies generally fall short with regard to acknowledging the teaching models of the programs they assess. This severely limits our understanding of how entrepreneurship education actually works. To address this gap, this study describes and implements a procedure to identify the teaching models of entrepreneurship education courses and shows how different teaching models are associated with entrepreneurial learning outcomes. Our analysis is based on a sample of 376 Italian university students who responded to the Global University Entrepreneurial Spirit Students' Survey (GUESSS) and attended entrepreneurship education courses. We describe and implement a coding procedure that allows us to classify the entrepreneurship courses attended by the respondents into five different teaching models (Supply, Supply-Demand, Demand, Demand-Competence and Competence). We find that courses based on the Supply-Demand, Demand and Demand-Competence Models are associated with better entrepreneurial learning outcomes than those based on the Supply Model. Our findings contribute to the theory and practice of entrepreneurship education program evaluation and design.

Student start-ups are a significant part of overall university entrepreneurship. Yet, we know little about the determinants of this type of start-ups and, specifically, the relevance of context effects. Drawing on organizational and regional context literature, we develop and test a model that aims to explain student entrepreneurship in a contextual perspective. Based on unique micro-data and using multi-level techniques, we analyse nascent and new entrepreneurial activities of business and economics students at 41 European universities. Our analysis reveals that individual and contextual determinants influence students' propensity to start a business. While peoples' individual characteristics are most important, the organizational and regional contexts also play a role and have a differentiated effect, depending on the source of the venture idea and the stage of its development. Organizational characteristics, like the prevalence of fellow students who have attended entrepreneurship education, influence whether students take action to start a new firm (nascent entrepreneurship) but do not seem to support the actual establishment of a new firm. In contrast, the latter is less dependent on the university context but more strongly influenced by regional characteristics. Overall, our study contributes to our understanding of the emergence of start-ups in the organizational context of universities and has implications for initiatives and programs that aim at encouraging students to become entrepreneurs.

Purpose This paper aims to investigate how global university rankings interact with quality and quality assurance in higher education along the two lines of investigation, that is, from the perspective of their relationship with the concept of quality (assurance) and the development of quality assurance policies in higher education, with particular emphasis on accreditation as the prevalent quality assurance approach. Design/methodology/approach The paper firstly conceptualises quality and quality assurance in higher education and critically examines the methodological construction of the four selected world university rankings and their references to “quality”. On this basis, it answers the two “how” questions: How is the concept of quality (assurance) in higher education perceived by world university rankings and how do they interact with quality assurance and accreditation policies in higher education? Answers are provided through the analysis of different documentary sources, such as academic literature, glossaries, international studies, institutional strategies and other documents, with particular focus on official websites of international ranking systems and individual higher education institutions, media announcements, and so on. Findings The paper argues that given their quantitative orientation, it is quite problematic to perceive world university rankings as a means of assessing or assuring the institutional quality. Like (international) accreditations, they may foster vertical differentiation of higher education systems and institutions. Because of their predominant accountability purpose, they cannot encourage improvements in the quality of higher education institutions. Practical implications Research results are beneficial to different higher education stakeholders (e.g. policymakers, institutional leadership, academics and students), as they offer them a comprehensive view on rankings’ ability to assess, assure or improve the quality in higher education. Originality/value The existing research focuses principally either on interactions of global university rankings with the concept of quality or with processes of quality assurance in higher education. The comprehensive and detailed analysis of their relationship with both concepts thus adds value to the prevailing scholarly debates.

To provide individuals with entrepreneurial skills and prepare them to engage in entrepreneurial activities, universities offer entrepreneurship education (EE) courses. However, the growing number of studies on EE impact offers mixed and apparently contradictory results. The present study contributes to this literature by indicating the type of EE (elective vs. compulsory) and the characteristics of students’ exposure to an enterprising family as two complementary boundary conditions that contribute to explain the outcomes of EE. To do so, the paper takes advantage of quasi-experimental research on a sample of 427 university students who participated to two consecutive waves of the Global University Entrepreneurial Spirit Students’ Survey (GUESSS). The study finds that both types of EE contribute to students’ entrepreneurial skills; however, the impact of EE in compulsory courses is contingent on students’ perceptions of parents’ performance as entrepreneurs.

Initially created as a marketing and benchmarking tool, global university rankings have evolved into a part of research evaluation and policy initiatives. Governments around the world, concerned about the low rankings of national universities, have launched numerous excellence initiatives in higher education. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of the literature on the use of university rankings in research evaluation and excellence initiatives. A systematic review of the literature on rankings in the context of research evaluation and excellence initiatives was performed. The majority of the review is based on English-language sources, but the review also covers literature from Russia, where the role of rankings is emphasized by their mention in the title and goal of the policy project 5top100. In addition, the review also includes gray literature. The general academic consensus is that rankings cannot be used in research assessment, though a few authors have a positive or neutral attitude. The literature reveals a lot of issues, such as technical and methodological flaws; biases of different nature, including bias towards research in evaluation of both universities and individual researchers; conflicts of interest; and risks to national identity. However, we must acknowledge the complexity of rejecting rankings.

Global University Rankings (GURs) intend to measure the performance of universities worldwide. Other rankings have recently appeared that evaluate the creation of environmental policies in universities, e.g., the Universitas Indonesia (UI) GreenMetric. This work aims to analyze the interaction between the Top 500 of such rankings by considering the geographical location of universities and their typologies. A descriptive analysis and a statistical logistical regression analysis were carried out. The former demonstrated that European and North American universities predominated the Top 500 of GURs, while Asian universities did so in the Top 500 of the UI GreenMetric ranking, followed by European universities. Older universities predominated the Top 500 of GURs, while younger ones did so in the Top 500 of the UI GreenMetric ranking. The second analysis demonstrated that although Latin American universities were barely present in the Top 500 of GURs, the probability of them appearing in the Top 500 of the UI GreenMetric ranking was 5-fold. We conclude that a low association exists between universities’ academic performance and their commitment to the natural environment in the heart of their institutions. It would be advisable for GURs to include environmental indicators to promote sustainability at universities and to contribute to climate change.

This study investigated the publication patterns of 46 Korean universities across various academic fields, publication databases, and faculty size. In addition, this study further examined how these factors are associated with university rankings. The study analyzed a total of 84,568 Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus-indexed journals, 61,883 Korean Citation Index (KCI)-listed journals, and 7186 books published by 36,478 full-time faculty members in 4980 departments across 46 universities in South Korea from 2017 to 2020. Two strategies were applied to incorporate field normalization into the publication analysis: fractional counting and weighting. By examining per-faculty productivity across fields, this study highlights a pronounced disparity in the representation of research productivity within global rankings. Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) fields, notably Bio & Health sciences and Physics & Engineering tend to be favored over Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH). The study identifies significant variations in research output based on institutional characteristics. Bio & Health sciences, especially at universities with medical schools, show the highest publication counts in WoS and Scopus. This highlights the role of specific disciplines and institutional structures in shaping university rankings. These findings emphasize inherent biases in current global ranking frameworks, which heavily prioritize publications in international journals, and advocate for a more nuanced approach that captures the diversity of research outputs across disciplines.

With the rise in importance of global university rankings, countries and universities are vying to improve their rankings and compete to be in the top 200. In this article, we look at the age, size, and funding of the top universities globally, and do a similar analysis for the top higher education institutions (HEIs) in India. The analysis shows that in the world top 200 universities, over 65% were founded before 1900 and only 7% after 1975, while in India about 60% HEIs were founded after 1975, and only 3% before 1900. In size, over 90% of the world’s top 200 universities have a student strength of more than 10,000 and less than 3% have less than 5000. In terms of faculty, about 70% have more than 1000 faculty members and only 6% have less than 500. In India, on the other hand, only about 15% of the top HEIs have more than 10,000 students while more than half have student strength of less than 5000; and only 2% have more than 1000 faculty and over 80% have faculty size less than 500. Finally, R&D spending of the top global research universities can be as much as ten times that of other research universities, while in India the resources are more evenly distributed with top universities having about 50% higher support. While nothing can be done about age, size and funding levels are within the realm of planning and policy making. The analysis suggests that to be in the global top 200 universities, some of the top HEI in India should be expanded to become globally comparable in size, and support for them should be substantially increased.

The article presents an extension of the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) to identify, in a Latin American university, the students who are children of entrepreneurial parents and the determinants of their willingness to succeed them. The TPB is used as a basis to analyse the intention to be a successor, and three constructs are added: affective commitment, normative commitment and parental role model. The analysis is carried out using structural equations via the partial least squares (PLS) method, which allows for the study of multiple relationships between construct-type variables. The sample includes 16,185 Latin American university students from the Global University Entrepreneurial Spirit Students’ Survey 2018 database. The results show that, in Latin American students, the determining factors in the intention to be a successor are attitude, the affective and normative commitment and the parental role model. The latter has a negative and significant effect on the intention to be a successor in the family business. One of the practical implications of this study has to do with the development of an affective feeling of the offspring towards the family business. Generating this kind of attachment since childhood could lead to achieving a greater relevance of the parental role model and a stronger interest in the succession of the business.

The reinvigoration of popular nationalism in the USA and UK has largely been framed as counter to the cosmopolitan globalization associated with their elite universities over the past decade. Opposing these two sets of values may be too simplistic, however, given the cultural and political ties long institutionalized between elite universities and the nation. This article endeavors to highlight these entanglements-which were present before the election of Donald Trump or the fateful vote for Brexit-by drawing on interviews conducted with personnel at four elite research universities in these two countries from 2013 to 2014. In particular, this article focuses on the way these individuals invoked symbolic boundaries drawn along national lines as common sense, natural, and enduring, seeing their universities as embodying national characteristics, and as obliged to serve national interests. In providing ontological order to the world, the presence of this \"banal\" or \"everyday\" nationalism has arguably been central to the conceptualization and enactment of internationalization in these and other universities. These findings complicate discussions of elite universities as globalizing and unmooring from the nation-state framework, or otherwise working against the forces of nationalism. The article also raises new questions about divisions between different constituents of today's globalizing academy. (HRK / Abstract übernommen).