Explore the vast range of titles available.

The configuration of the entrepreneurial university remains poorly understood given the complexity of the university as an organisation with multiple missions and multiple ‘products and services’, delivered by multiple and sometimes competing sub-organisations with different cultures and norms, in response to different outside pressures and demands. The outcomes of the entrepreneurial university reflect the plurality of goals, including research, teaching, knowledge commercialisation, and civic and community empowerment, but they are rarely considered within the same conceptual and empirical framework. Hence, the aim of this paper is to explore how multiple and sometimes competing strategies and associated arrangements, resources and capabilities within the entrepreneurial university affect the delivery of economic and social benefits to the external world across teaching, research, knowledge commercialisation, and civic and community empowerment missions. To achieve this aim, we elaborate the entrepreneurial university ecosystem concept so that we can systematically capture the cross-influences of the entrepreneurial university elements in their entirety rather than focussing on selected ecosystem elements and their effects in relation to one particular university mission. Our analysis is based on a novel institution-level database on university strategies, goals, policies, and support mechanisms, providing annual data for all higher education institutions in the UK over the period 2017–2020, complemented with annual administrative data on staff, finances, graduate outcomes, and infrastructure, as well as contextual data on the wider regional entrepreneurship ecosystem. Using a Seemingly Unrelated Estimation approach, we contribute with novel fundings explicitly identifying synergies and tensions between different elements of the entrepreneurial university ecosystem that affect the delivery of its outcomes.

Stakeholder theory has thus far received limited attention in the context of entrepreneurship education and university management. This paper addresses this research gap by examining the collaboration of stakeholders from the entrepreneurial ecosystem in entrepreneurship education at European higher educational institutions (HEIs). We contribute to existing research by combining literature streams from the fields of entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial ecosystems and stakeholder theory. Empirical research is based on a cross-case analysis of 20 HEIs from 19 different European countries. Data sources include next to secondary data and observation a total 216 interviews with entrepreneurship education stakeholders at these 20 HEIs. The results of the case studies are further validated through an independent peer group and through 14 interviews with international experts in entrepreneurship education. Based on this data, an overview of the key external stakeholder groups of the entrepreneurial ecosystem of HEIs and their forms of involvement in entrepreneurship education is provided. Furthermore, the strength and coordination of stakeholder collaboration and the overall approaches to stakeholder management are discussed. This analysis results in the development of a set of propositions on stakeholder involvement in the context of entrepreneurship education at HEIs. The findings of this paper highlight the importance of stakeholder collaboration from the entrepreneurial ecosystem at HEIs. Implications of the findings for entrepreneurship educators and university management are ultimately discussed along with suggestions for further research.

Higher education institutions (HEIs), once considered among society’s most resilient institutions, are facing challenges due to changes in governments’ and society’s expectations of them. Within the sector, there is a global call for new models and practices, requiring HEIs to develop the management capabilities once reserved for businesses. In this sense, they will pave entrepreneurial pathways and contribute to economic, technological and societal developments in their regions, thus adding a third mission (engaging socio-economic needs and market demands) to the traditional two (education and research) and transforming themselves into more entrepreneurial institutions. Dynamic capabilities enable transformation processes by allowing the dynamic sensing and seizing of opportunities and risks and the promotion of iterative change and reconfiguration. Scholars have called on HEIs to develop such dynamic capabilities in order to transform themselves and better respond to their sector’s challenges. Nevertheless, the understanding of how dynamic capabilities might advance HEIs’ third mission is still an underexplored concept, and in this paper, we propose mechanisms that promise to transform dynamic capabilities into third mission advancement. We have developed numerous theoretically grounded hypotheses and tested them with a partial least squares structural equation model into which we funnelled data collected from key decision-makers at German HEIs. The results suggest that dynamic capabilities do indeed influence third mission advancement; however, this relationship is mediated by the role of leadership and organisational agreement on vision and goals.

This paper identifies practices that can facilitate knowledge transfer in university–industry (U–I) research partnerships by systematically reviewing extant literature. We aim to contribute to the theoretical development in the field of academic engagement and propose that knowledge transfer provides a valuable perspective. We started our review with identifying barriers and facilitators of knowledge transfer. Extant literature identified knowledge differences and differences in goals resulting from different institutional cultures as important barriers to knowledge transfer. They result in ambiguity, problems with knowledge absorption and difficulties with the application of knowledge. Trust, communication, the use of intermediaries and experience are found as facilitators for knowledge transfer that help to resolve the identified barriers. Our analysis offers practical advice for the management of academic engagement. Finally, we identified questions for future research based on inconsistencies in extant research and open questions we encountered during our analysis.

The potential for a functional ‘triple helix’ to contribute to economic development is being increasingly accepted and embraced, particularly the bilateral relationship between higher education institutions (HEIs) and business. However, university-business cooperation (UBC) is still a fragmented and indistinct field of research, and the understanding of UBC remains inadequate since most research is undertaken around specific elements, rather than as an encompassing, overarching and interconnected system. This paper aims fills this gap in the literature by putting the pieces together to create an integrated and comprehensive conceptual UBC framework for HEIs, the UBC Ecosystem. The framework illustrates the components present in the UBC environment for HEIs, such as inputs, activities, outcomes, outputs, impacts, supporting mechanisms, circumstances and context, specifying a wide range of sub-elements for each of them. In doing so, this paper makes a strong theoretical contribution with the creation of a conceptual framework, highlighting the more important elements and their interrelations as well as suggesting future research. Additionally, the paper makes a practical contribution, establishing a common UBC schema for HEI managers and policymakers to make strategic and operative decisions, and used as a base for evidence-based management and policy.

Is management a profession? Should it be? Can it be? This major work of social and intellectual history reveals how such questions have driven business education and shaped American management and society for more than a century. The book is also a call for reform. Rakesh Khurana shows that university-based business schools were founded to train a professional class of managers in the mold of doctors and lawyers but have effectively retreated from that goal, leaving a gaping moral hole at the center of business education and perhaps in management itself. Khurana begins in the late nineteenth century, when members of an emerging managerial elite, seeking social status to match the wealth and power they had accrued, began working with major universities to establish graduate business education programs paralleling those for medicine and law. Constituting business as a profession, however, required codifying the knowledge relevant for practitioners and developing enforceable standards of conduct. Khurana, drawing on a rich set of archival material from business schools, foundations, and academic associations, traces how business educators confronted these challenges with varying strategies during the Progressive era and the Depression, the postwar boom years, and recent decades of freewheeling capitalism. Today, Khurana argues, business schools have largely capitulated in the battle for professionalism and have become merely purveyors of a product, the MBA, with students treated as consumers. Professional and moral ideals that once animated and inspired business schools have been conquered by a perspective that managers are merely agents of shareholders, beholden only to the cause of share profits. According to Khurana, we should not thus be surprised at the rise of corporate malfeasance. The time has come, he concludes, to rejuvenate intellectually and morally the training of our future business leaders.

This article presents a case study of the Cooperative University of Mondragon to explore the intricate processes through which higher education institutions (HEIs) adopt an entrepreneurial university (EU) framework across their three core missions: teaching, research, and community outreach. Using a qualitative research design, this study examines the organizational strategies that Mondragon University’s engineering faculty (MGEP) employs to embrace entrepreneurial behaviors (EBs), specifically by building on its peculiar cooperative governance model. The findings shed light on how MGEP, as a prominent example, leverages a long-term vision that centers its decision-making processes on entrepreneurship and the management tools and governance elements that favor collective participation and intrinsic motivation. This research advances our understanding of the evolving landscape of higher education and its entrepreneurial drift in the following ways: (1) by addressing the need for further exploration of governance in EUs; (2) by complementing existing studies on the role of university leadership in the adoption of EBs; and (3) by identifying strategies to overcome inherent barriers within large organizations that impede universities from being entrepreneurial. Overall, this study offers practical implications for the adoption of EBs in HEIs.

Considering the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and their potential implications for the higher education sector, this article seeks to critically evaluate the strategic adoption of AI in the framework of \"smart universities\". We envisage these innovative institutions as the imminent evolution in higher education, harnessing AI and quantum technologies to reshape academic and administrative processes. The core presumption is that through such integration, universities can achieve personalized learning trajectories, enhanced accessibility, economic efficiency, and a boost in overall operational performance. However, venturing into this new educational paradigm necessitates a thorough exploration of potential pitfalls, including questions surrounding educational quality, potential job losses, risks of bias, privacy breaches, and safety concerns. Our primary objective is to offer a balanced assessment to aid stakeholders in making informed strategic decisions about endorsing and advancing the smart university model. A pivotal factor in this discourse is the acceptance of qualifications from AI-enriched institutions by employers, a variable that may drastically redefine the education sector's trajectory. Within the context of a comprehensive analysis of its broader societal impact, this article also delves into the ramifications of AI-driven innovations for historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs).