Search results

The institution of the university has played a significant role in the economic, social, political, and cultural developments of society throughout history, which has resulted in presenting different but also contradictory views on university missions. After the middle of the twentieth century, some economic developments, especially technological ones, have led to the maximum domination of economic discourse over university missions and, consequently, the marginalization of other aspects of university missions, which constitute a significant part of the contribution of universities in society. In this regard, this study aimed to identify the missions of universities based on a comprehensive understanding of the contribution of universities in society. This study uses a systematic qualitative review strategy for collecting and investigating the data and a metasynthesis method to analyze and synthesize the findings. The data included 130 valid studies related to university missions. The research findings indicated 18 important university missions, 11 of which are considered transeconomic missions, including social, political, and cultural ones. Among the implications of this research are: the necessity of redefining higher education policy frameworks based on a more comprehensive understanding of the missions of universities and a warning about policy frameworks based on the exclusive authorization for their role in the knowledge-based economy.

The so-called ‘Third Mission’ of the university is under debate for the last 20–30 years (Laredo, 2007) and this mission has received a wide variety of interpretations. In this chapter we adhere to execution of activities that contribute to the economic and social development of its territory. This new idea of the university as an entrepreneurial one requires a reorientation of its strategy to cope with the challenges imposed by its new task towards society. In this sense, the Entrepreneurship Support Programmes (ESPs), as university services, are a central element in the fulfilment of the aims and objectives of any entrepreneurial university, as those that combine and integrate the traditional activities of education and research with the contribution to the economic and social development (Etzkowitz, 1998; Goddard, 1998). The ESP services consist, for example, of programmes that promote entrepreneurship in all the fields; they support the creation of new innovative companies with a scientific or technologic base; they support the development of university spin-off and training related to the creation and management of companies; and they promote university–company relationship and interaction between other factors (Arroyo-Vázquez & van der Sijde, 2008). The reorientation of the strategy of the university into an entrepreneurial one involves also a strategy with regard to the university's ‘entrepreneurial’ services, which have to adapt to the new demands and needs of the university's ‘new’ users, entrepreneurs and companies as well as university staff members.

A service learning (SL) course is carried out at higher education institutions in cooperation with community partners to facilitate the development of students’ civic engagement. It consists of several phases, including the identification of a social need; the development and implementation of a concept to meet that need; and, above all, the reflection of this experience. In practice, however, the concept takes different forms with diverging goals. In this chapter, we map out the framework conditions and institutional contexts in which SL courses are based at the University for Continuing Education Krems (Austria) and the Babes-Bolyai University (Romania). We focus on the extent to which SL has become integrated within the policy and practice of every university and illustrate how corresponding circumstances, such as specific characteristics of the faculty and the student population, lead to different variations. In some cases, that context does not support the articulation of a shared understanding around the purpose and practice of SL. We therefore draw on critical reflections collected through interviews with module leaders to describe courses with SL components from both institutions. Ultimately, more needs to be done within each institution to put in place the necessary resources and support systems for the articulation of shared understandings. Some of these challenges must be understood in a broader institutional context in which the courses are located, which is why we include general and specific recommendations to create favorable conditions for the institutionalization of SL in the last part of the paper.

Universities are expected to operate with high efficiency, with ever-growing expectations from a rising number of stakeholders in society. From a theoretical perspective economic science does provide frameworks and methods in order to tackle this, with the cornerstone of defining efficiency as a simple relation of a quantity of inputs toward a quantity of outputs. For the practice of university management and policy this does not answer the crucial questions of which inputs and which outputs to measure, and how to ensure the quality aspect of such management approaches. Higher education research can contribute to answering these questions. This chapter outlines a sector-specific framework for efficiency analysis and management, including suggestions regarding how to implement efficiency-improving measures in university settings.

The university is changing. Its social role is growing in diversity and complexity. In a knowledge-based society, there is a huge public expectation in the results and impacts of the university’s activities. Its traditional roles – training and qualification of individuals and production of new knowledge – are no longer valid. As a result of university–industry interactions, policy-making began to give additional significance to the role of the university in regional development, mainly motivated by shining examples of success in transferring scientific knowledge to valuable innovation, many through academic entrepreneurship. This change in the role of the university is reflected not only in the mode of knowledge production, which became more transdisciplinary and applied, but also in the active engagement of different institutional spheres, the university, the firm, the government, and end-users, creating new hybrid and overlapping areas for the governance of innovative dynamics. This chapter defines and analyses the position of the university in contemporary society as a socially legitimised institution for the production of knowledge and innovation. Three different theoretical traditions – Actor–Network Theory, Stakeholder Theory and territorial innovation models – inspire the analysis of 15 in-depth interviews with key actors in their local innovation system and knowledge networks around the University of Huelva (Andalusia, Spain). The main conclusions suggest that the university today faces a huge challenge in responding to the expectations that society places on it.

This chapter explores the impact of postgraduate entrepreneurship and enterprise (E&E) education in UK Universities on the entrepreneurial actions of foreign students by reference to students from the second largest transition economy, Russia. The research identifies the most popular courses selected by foreign students for UK study and to identify and qualify the related student experience in order to identify correlations with how graduates exploit entrepreneurial opportunities upon return to home country. British universities have placed increasing dependency on foreign students which has increased pressure to enhance curricula to ‘embrace a wider global context’. Universities have been pressured also to play a new role in society by pursuing a ‘third mission’ of economic development to support the traditional roles of research and teaching. The increase in supply of HE providers has increased competition for students so curricula have to be innovative in order to attract them. An interpretivist philosophy and qualitative methods was employed across three phases, to study university managers, selected according to university and contact with foreign students; Russian non-government officials, selected to comment on the nexus of issues around Russian business and college education; and graduates (‘past’ and ‘recent’), selected according to country of origin, focus of studies and choice of university. This study confirmed that ‘the UK has a long tradition of the university third mission role’ where ‘HEIs are independent, self-governing bodies’, ‘most or part-funded by government’ and since 1992, seen an increase in the overall number; universities have been especially aggressive in pursuing foreign students so have led in designing attractive programmes and curricula. Findings show that modern UK University E&E teaching is effective in changing foreign students’ entrepreneurship perception and behaviour. The university/course selection and teaching/learning experience combine to produce measurable post-study entrepreneurial actions, whether in starting new or joining existing businesses with new found knowledge, social capital and ways of viewing the world.

Malaysian public and private universities have faced unprecedented challenges due to multiple government policies in the short and medium term – coupled with economic uncertainty, budget cuts, and the entrepreneurial university (EU) agenda. This pressure is aimed to both public and private universities in accordance with the third mission of the Malaysian Education Development Plan 2015–2025 and ranking agencies by effectively engaging with the community and business, generating income in the process of tackling fundraising. The purpose of this study is to fill that gap by exploring the perspectives of those who are part of the Entrepreneurship Architecture implementation, as intermediaries of knowledge exchange and the impact of interaction by embedding Artificial Intelligence (AI) in achieving the mission of Entrepreneurship University by the government. Therefore, the main objective of this study is to develop a new model for internal parties in public universities as a guide for policy development and strategies to achieve the EU agenda. The Entrepreneurship Architecture Model will be used to identify the existing determinants, the AI infrastructure, and how the demographic factors, e.g., staff and related universities, support the model.

In this chapter we discuss how, as a tool for organizational change, action research can affect the development of cooperation between a traditional university and the external environment. The case analyzed was a two-year action research project carried out in cooperation with over 20 employers. This project was carried out at multiple levels and had several essential goals. Apart from its emancipatory role in the shift in the way students carry out their master's theses (toward application, implementation, where organizations become the research subject instead of the research object), the project's aim was to open up the university to cooperation with its environment and conduct useful research. The results indicate that action research through the democratization of the process of introducing changes and its bottom-up nature influences the development of real cooperation between the university and external organizations. Additionally, they contribute to the emancipation of university knowledge, its democratization, dehierarchization, as well as cocreation and sharing with cooperating organizations.

A decade after the 2008 global financial crisis, economic growth is returning to many OECD countries and EU states. However, a “rising tide does not lift all boats” and there are currently 96.6 million people at risk of poverty and social exclusion in the EU (OECD, 2017). Addressing this concerning social situation, requires innovative approaches and it has been suggested that inclusive entrepreneurship may be part of the solution. Yet, many under-represented groups (in terms of entrepreneurial activity) face significant barriers to entrepreneurship. This research study identifies how Higher Education Institutions can utilise their multidisciplinary knowledge and expertise in partnership with government, industry and civil society to address the economic and social challenges within under-represented communities by engendering higher levels of enterprising behaviour. Emerging studies in the literature have demonstrated how some Higher Education Institutions are providing tailored and holistic enterprise support to under-represented groups in their communities. However, such initiatives are not common and there is little research on how other HEIs might replicate inclusive entrepreneurship initiatives. Through the presentation of a conceptual model, this chapter identifies how HEIs can move outside of their formal education setting and dynamically support the development of enterprising competencies and behaviours amongst people within their local communities. The findings highlight six key areas for consideration in such developments including: 1. Teaching and Learning; 2. Resources; 3. Infrastructure; 4. Multidisciplinary Approaches; 5. Stakeholders and 6. Culture. These findings highlight the requirements for impactful HEI-community engagement and suggest that HEI community engagement through entrepreneurial education is a novel way of adding value for both under-represented communities and HEIs.

The purpose of this chapter is to contribute to the theory building of transformative university by delivering two conceptual models for legitimizing entrepreneurial university with a transformative role in quadruple helix for sustainability governance structures as being nominated as “responsible facilitator.” This chapter draws many theoretical insights sourced from Entrepreneurial University (Etzkowitz, 1988), Institutional Theory (Scott, 1987), quadruple/quintuple helix (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009a, b) and Responsible Innovation (Owen, Macnaghten, & Stilgoe, 2012) in order to frame the resulting conceptual models of transformative university for sustainability and quadruple helix for sustainability governance. The conceptual models offer a new paradigm discussion for the changing role of universities in knowledge economy and opens up for further investigation of quadruple helix actors namely as transformative university, society, industry and government for strategic capital, social capital, economic capital and culture–human capital interventions in sustainability governance. The second model illustrates the key interventions of quadruple helix actors in four pillars of capital delivering concrete examples of activities. The originality of this chapter lies in its discourse articulating a multilayered approach for the institutionalization of entrepreneurial university embedded in a responsible innovation ecosystem based on individual, organizational and macro-level perspectives. Quadruple helix actors are nominated as “responsible facilitator,” “hybrid hub,” “agile regulator” and “pressure beneficiary” roles for their relevant place in sustainability governance structure.