No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Re-building University Capabilities: Public Policy Implications to Innovation and Technology
Abstract
Over the last decades, higher education systems have been exposed to multiple “public policy reforms” due to restrictions of public funds, stakeholder pressures, educational trends, and socioeconomic shakeouts. This chapter analyses how public policies have redirected the way universities develop core functions, access public resources, collaborate with local/international actors, and generate value for society. Directly or indirectly, this analysis provides interesting insights into the evolution of higher education public policy frameworks and the emergence of university capabilities.
This article describes the development of Europe-wide higher education and research. The European Higher Education Area (EHEA) is an educational initiative of the European Commission designed to increase staff and student mobility and improve the employability of graduates. In addition, the ERASMUS programme has enabled millions of students to study abroad. In the field of research, the European Union is pursuing the vision of a unified European Research Area (ERA), open to the whole world and allowing the free transfer of researchers, scientific knowledge, and technologies. To link ERA and EHEA, European University Networks have been established to develop “European Joint Degrees” to educate highly qualified future graduates with European values. The European University on REsponsible Consumption And PROduction (EURECA-PRO) has the ambitious goal of not only strengthening the EHEA and ERA but also of mapping the circularity of materials and material flows, including their environmental impacts, in teaching and research.
In this essay, I present my perspective on the Responsible Research in Business and Management (RRBM) movement, which is a timely and important initiative. I connect RRBM to previous debates about the nature and value of basic research and the role of key institutions, such as universities and federal/national labs, and show how RRBM is consistent with “Pasteur’s Quadrant” of “use‐inspired basic research.” Next, I demonstrate how RRBM principles can be applied to the study of the commercialization of science and technology transfer. My only reservations about RRBM are its overemphasis on social problems, the opportunity costs associated with deflecting attention away from more pressing managerial problems, and concern that we need to be mindful of work and expertise in other disciplines that more directly address public policy issues.
Responsibility is an important issue in organizations and society. Employees, managers, and owners can behave responsibly in the workplace and beyond. In addition, these individuals can be influenced by the propensity of the organization to behave responsibly. Organizations can pursue strategies that take into account responsibility at the product, firm, industry, and societal levels. This virtual special issue examines 19 articles published in Organization Science that consider responsibility at multiple levels of analysis. An important theme that emerges is that although some studies have crossed levels of analysis, future research would benefit from cross-level or more meso-based approaches.
We extend organizational justice theory by investigating the justice perceptions of academic entrepreneurs regarding interactions with their universities. We assess how these justice perceptions influence the propensity of academic entrepreneurs to engage in different forms of commercialization, as well as the moderating role of entrepreneurial identity and prosocial motivation. We test our predictions using data from 1,329 academic entrepreneurs at 25 major U.S. research universities. Our results indicate that organizational justice is positively associated with intentions to engage in formal (i.e., sanctioned) technology transfer, and negatively associated with intentions to engage in informal (unsanctioned and noncompliant) technology transfer, which we characterize as a form of organizational deviance. Our findings also show that entrepreneurial identity and prosocial motivation (i.e., a focus on oneself vs. others) amplify and attenuate, respectively, the relationship between justice perceptions and technology transfer intentions. Finally, although intentions to engage in formal technology transfer predict subsequent behavior, intentions to engage in informal technology transfer do not. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
Originated by an individual capacity, organizational ambidexterity represents how organizations do two different things equally well (i.e., efficiency and flexibility, adaptability and alignment, integration and responsiveness, or exploration and exploitation). The versatility of the ambidexterity concept allows using it to test multiple research questions from various perspectives. It explains that in the last decades, the research in organizational ambidexterity has been exponentially rising. The authors argued that the proliferation of papers represents a consolidation stage of any phenomenon. Therefore, in this development cycle, the two possibilities maybe its decline or re-focus along new lines. Although the publication pattern focused on strategic management journals, it does not mean that organizational ambidexterity is only observed in established and mature organizations' strategies. Several entrepreneurial organizations Originated by an individual capacity, organizational ambidexterity represents how organizations do two different things equally well (i.e., efficiency and flexibility, adaptability and alignment, integration and responsiveness, or exploration and exploitation). The versatility of the ambidexterity concept allows using it to test multiple research questions from various perspectives. It explains that in the last decades, the research in organizational ambidexterity has been exponentially rising. The authors argued that the proliferation of papers represents a consolidation stage of any phenomenon. Therefore, in this development cycle, the two possibilities maybe its decline or re-focus along new lines. Although the publication pattern focused on strategic management journals, it does not mean that organizational ambidexterity is only observed in established and mature organizations' strategies. Several entrepreneurial organizations.
This study explores the emergence of a new entrepreneurship phenomenon (digital social entrepreneurship) as a result of the collaboration among many agents (N-Helix), given the government's limited capacity to respond to the stakeholders' needs satisfaction related to an exogenous event (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic). Our theory development is based on three ongoing academic debates related to (a) the unrepresentativeness of the stakeholder theory in entrepreneurship research; (b) the emergence of digital social entrepreneurship (DSE) as a bridge between stakeholders' needs, socioeconomic actors, and digital-social initiatives; and (c) the role of N-Helix collaborations to facilitate the emergence of global knowledge-intensive initiatives and the rapid adoptions of open innovations. Our results support our assumptions about the positive mediation effect of DSE in the relationship between N-Helix collaborations and stakeholders' satisfaction. Notably, results show how pandemic has intensified these relationships and how DSE in N-Helix collaborations can generate social impacts globally. Some implications for policy-makers have emerged from our results that should be considered during/post-COVID-19 pandemic.
The purpose of this article and the special issue is to improve our understanding of the theoretical, managerial, and policy implications of the effectiveness of technology transfer policies on entrepreneurial innovation. We accomplish this objective by examining the relationship between entrepreneurship, innovation and public policies in the 186 papers published from 1970 to 2019. Our analysis begins by clarifying the definition of entrepreneurial innovations and outlining the published research per context. We then present the seven papers that contribute to this special issue. We conclude by outlining an agenda for additional research on this topic.
Inspired by The Metric Tide report (2015) on the role of metrics in research assessment and management, and Lord Nicholas Stern’s report Building on Success and Learning from Experience (2016), which deals with criticisms of REF2014 and gives advice for a redesign of REF2021, this article discusses the possible implications for other countries. It also contributes to the discussion of the future of the REF by taking an international perspective. The article offers a framework for understanding differences in the motivations and designs of performance-based research funding systems (PRFS) across countries. It also shows that a basis for mutual learning among countries is more needed than a formulation of best practice, thereby both contributing to and correcting the international outlook in The Metric Tide report and its supplementary Literature Review.
Since its foundation EU aims to increase the number of members, to make the collaboration among its members. EU having the economic characteristics at this point has focuses its politic in some areas such as agriculture, social politics and economics. In order to arrive to its economical targets the education has been considered as instrument.In the field of education EU education cooperation initiatives carried out in accordance with economic objectives of the community. After the Second War, the knowledge, the developments in the communication technologies and the globalisation fact have played great role in the education approach of EU. According to respond the growing expectation of indviduals, EU has been forced to develop education policy with quality and efficient.
In recent years, there have been numerous studies of the effectiveness of university technology transfer. Such technology transfer mechanisms include licensing agreements between the university and private firms, science parks, incubators, and university-based startups. We review and synthesize these papers and present some pointed recommendations on how to enhance effectiveness. Implementation of these recommendations will depend on the mechanisms that universities choose to stress, based on their technology transfer “strategy.” For example, institutions that emphasize the entrepreneurial dimension of technology transfer must address skill deficiencies in technology transfer offices, reward systems that are inconsistent with enhanced entrepreneurial activity and the lack of training for faculty members, post-docs, and graduate students in starting new ventures or interacting with entrepreneurs. Universities will also have to confront a set of issues related to ethics and social responsibility, as they more aggressively pursue technology commercialization. Finally, we suggest some possible theoretical frameworks for additional research. Contents: Introduction. 2) The Institutional Context of University Technology Transfer. 3) The Organizational Context of University Technology Transfer. 4) The Individual Context of University Technology Transfer. 5) Measuring the Effectiveness of University Technology Transfer (Licensing and the Creation of New Businesses). 6) Lessons Learned: Theoretical Implications. 7) Lessons Learned: Policy and Practitioner Implications. 8) Conclusions, Acknowledgments, References
While research on entrepreneurship and innovation ecosystems (EIEs) has emerged over the last decade, one question remains unanswered: are entrepreneurs able to efficiently adopt and manage a sustainable orientation to increase the quality and visibility of EIEs? This study argues that institutional quality and the sustainable orientation management of entrepreneurs both shape the productive and growth-oriented entrepreneurial activity necessary to reach the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Using a primary dataset on 1676 EIE actors from 16 cities in East and SouthEast Europe, we theoretically debate and empirically test i) the positive and diminishing marginal returns of sustainable orientation management for EIE quality and ii) the moderation effect of institutional quality in this relationship. Our results provide empirical evidence that the institutional quality and sustainable orientation management of entrepreneurs matter for the quality of EIEs, but not for their visibility. This extends prior research on the high-growth and productive orientation of entrepre-neurial ecosystems.
The institution that we know today as the university dates back to medieval times, and it is surprising that it has seen so few organizational and institutional changes. Institutions for education in the humanities, education divided into scientific fields, the authority of a professor, exams, graduation ceremonies, etc., were defined during medieval times and have maintained almost exactly the same institutional and organizational structure despite all the changes that have happened in society.
Purpose of this paper
This paper examines the past and present of the university spin-off (USO) phenomenon by identifying research findings and synthesizing different spin-off practices from around the globe. The evolution and future of this phenomenon are then discussed, alongside potential new lines of research.
Design/methodology/approach
This study adopts a systematic literature review approach, combined with a Multiple Correspondence Analysis. This approach allows for the creation of a robust and reliable synthesis of the research carried out over the past 35 years (1986–2020), offering a fine-grained depiction of the USOs’ underlying relationships through multiple correspondence analysis (MCA).
Findings
This paper contributes to scholarly literature on academic entrepreneurship by providing insights into the analytical trends of the past, current evidence on the configuration of USOs, and discussions of the future of USO research. Several implications for improving performance, productivity, and reinforcing capabilities emerge to assist spin-off CEOs, university managers, and policymakers.
Originality/Contribution
This paper fulfils an identified need by revealing the trajectory of the USO research field. Additionally, it presents an up-to-date reflection of USO antecedents, decisions, and outcomes, outlining an agenda for future research.
Research Summary
We postulate that resource allocation decisions consistent with dynamic capabilities can improve financial performance, but that governance moderates the relationship between resource allocation flexibility and financial performance. Using more than a decade of data on US public universities, we find that flexibility has much more impact when matched by lower levels of governance that allow greater expenditure autonomy for university executives and administrators.
Managerial Summary
Organizations are increasingly subject to conflicting demands imposed by their institutional environments. Given the importance of governance arrangements, we apply strategic management concepts to public universities and investigate the effect of external governance arrangements on university performance. We show that universities that reallocate resources more regularly are more likely to run larger budget surpluses. This is far more likely to be true at universities where external governance arrangements allow greater executive discretion.
This study theorises and offers new insights into how organizational capabilities and resources are used intertemporally by spin-offs to provide a resilient response in a forced-digital context. By using unique multi-level and longitudinal datasets in a forced-digital context period (May 2020, August 2020, November 2020, and February 2021) of 722 UK university spin-offs in emerging sectors where digitization is commonplace, our analysis reveals the seizing of parents’ resources (infrastructures and incomes) and spin-offs’ capabilities (fundraising, scaling-up, intellectual property) that explain the building of resilience in defining the strategies for undertaking forced-digital operations. Several implications about responding to external shocks and building an intertemporal strategy for spin-off will build on firm-specific and parent characteristics that emerge from this study.
This paper assesses the relationship between stakeholder influence, university scholarly and educational output, and regional economic growth. Specifically, we theorize that stakeholder intervention with respect to university teaching and learning, scholarly research, and entrepreneurship enhances the contribution of universities to regional economic growth. We test this theory using data from the UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF), an evaluation of the research impact of British higher education institutions. We find that business school graduates, as well as graduates in STEM and health fields, have a positive impact on regional human capital development. On the other hand, stakeholder influence, through the REF, appears to have a negative effect on the retention of human capital, but a positive effect on commercialization in the region. Our findings provide new evidence of positive economic spillovers arising from university research and education and the role of fields, such as business administration, in enhancing human capital development and economic growth. They also lend credence to the notion that graduates are an important channel of knowledge and technology transfer.
Evidence suggests that economies with technology transfer initiatives provide a better supply of high-quality jobs and tend to be characterized by entrepreneurs with higher innovation contributions. This book explores the effectiveness of technology transfer policies and legislation on entrepreneurial innovation across continents. It analyses the theoretical, empirical and managerial implications behind the success of technology transfer polices and legislations in stimulating entrepreneurial innovation; analyses which other contextual conditions (e.g., culture) are necessary for successful implementation; and explores the extent and level of replication of US policies (e.g., Bayh-Dole Act, Small Business Innovation Research [SBIR] program) in other national and regional systems. In addition, this book looks at the effect technology transfer policies have on the adoption of open innovation and open science.
The World Wide Web has transformed primary university IT functions, but the digital economy is redefining the rules of the game in higher education. The aging phenomenon claims long-life training for developing digital competencies required in current workplaces. Nowadays, COVID-19 pandemic also represented an unprecedented challenge for education that affects more than 1.5 billion students that are no longer able to go to school physically. Moreover, the new students’ generations have born in an on-line era and demand always-on digital access, more profound and more flexible learning experience. Inspired by these trends, we discuss how entrepreneurial universities (e.g., organizations with an entrepreneurial and innovative orientation) are managing new digital trends for being competitive in both traditional and digital higher education market. A provocative discussion about the internal and external challenges of entrepreneurial universities, an extended research agenda, and several implications for multiple stakeholders emerged from this chapter.
In 2020, almost all research labs in industry, academia, and the government were shut down for long periods of time by political leaders to control the spread of the coronavirus. We consider the “micro” and “macro” implications of ongoing coronavirus disruptions in scientific research and the dissemination and commercialization of that research. We have identified three key unanswered research questions regarding these unprecedented disruptions: (1) How is the pandemic affecting conventional measures of scientific output (the quantity and quality of basic research) and performance, social networks, and the strategic management of innovation? (2) How is the pandemic affecting technology transfer offices, incubators, accelerators, science and technology parks, and other aspects of the innovation ecosystem? (3) How do pandemic disruptions affect micro‐level factors, such as role conflict, identity, work‐life balance, equity, diversity, inclusion, “championing,” leadership, and organizational justice?
The theory and practice of academic entrepreneurship, like many domains of public management, requires active recognition that context affects individual behavior. In this Viewpoint essay, the authors contend that the operational logic of a university affects the values and activities of actors within that university in ways that shape the broader entrepreneurial activities of the university. The authors describe a new entrepreneurial organizational logic, termed the “academic enterprise,” and situate it in relation to the more established academy, bureaucratic, and market logics. The academic enterprise is inherently entrepreneurial in terms of the management of the university and its reliance on faculty and student entrepreneurship as a tool for broad‐scale social and economic transformation.
The growing complexity of the university and of its competitive, technological, and operating environment means that the status quo in management is no longer adequate. New mental models are required. An approach that has been developed through a lengthy study of strategic management in the private sector is the dynamic capabilities framework. This essay presents the dynamic capabilities framework with indications for how it applies in the university context. By thinking in terms of sensing shifts, seizing opportunities, and transforming the university, a university’s leaders can improve their own effectiveness and their school’s readiness to respond to challenges and achieve its goals.
We review and synthesize the burgeoning literature on institutions and agents engaged in the commercialization of university-based intellectual property. These studies indicate that institutional incentives and organizational practices both play an important role in enhancing the effectiveness of technology transfer. We conclude that university technology transfer should be considered from a strategic perspective. Institutions that choose to stress the entrepreneurial dimension of technology transfer need to address skill deficiencies in technology transfer offices (TTOs), reward systems that are inconsistent with enhanced entrepreneurial activity, and education/training for faculty members, post-docs, and graduate students relating to interactions with entrepreneurs. Business schools at these universities can play a major role in addressing these skill and educational deficiencies, through the delivery of targeted programs to technology licensing officers and members of the campus community wishing to launch startup firms.
Are universities back to doing more with less?
- L Bull
Higher education initiatives
- European Union
Deloitte Center for Higher Education Excellence and Georgia Tech’s Center for 21st Century Universities
- Deloitte
HEInnovate: Initiative of the European Commission’s DG Education and Culture in partnership with the OECD
- Heinnovate
2021-2024 public policy agenda. NASPA, Public Policy Division
- Naspa
Demand for higher education to 2035
- R Hewitt
QS World University Rankings methodology: Using rankings to start your university search
- Qs Quacquarelli Symonds
Most innovative school methodology
- U S News
How are higher education systems in OECD countries resourced
- G Golden
- L Troy
- T Weko
Higher education digital transformation in Latin America and the Caribbean
The state of innovation in higher education: A survey of academic administrators. The Learning House
- A J Magda
- J Buban
The innovative and entrepreneurial university: Higher education, innovation and entrepreneurship focus
- Nacie
Europe’s most innovative universities
- Reuters
World University Rankings
- The
The state of higher education: One year into the COVID-19 pandemic
- Oecd
Higher education as a central actor in self-reliant development: A program framework
- Usaid
Developing a high performance digital education ecosystem: Institutional self-assessment instruments
- A Volungeviciene
- M Brown
- R Greenspon
- M Gaebel
- A Morrisroe