Conceptualising the entrepreneurial university: the stakeholder approach

Radko, Natalya; Belitski, Maksim; Kalyuzhnova, Yelena

doi:10.1007/s10961-022-09926-0

Cited by 33 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 115 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some studies provide counterintuitive findings, such as negative relationships between prior industry experience and USO survival (Criaco et al, 2014) and third‐party funding and USO formation (Ramaciotti and Rizzo, 2015). Also, the characteristics of the early technologies these scientists produce while still in their academic labs are important factors in determining the outcomes of innovation through USOs, including their market‐readiness (Battaglia et al, 2021) and the number and quality of patents related to those technologies (Lindelof and Lofsten, 2005; Prodan and Drnovsek, 2010; Ramaciotti and Rizzo, 2015; Radko et al, 2023).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, one paper by Bathelt et al (2010) found that in the University of Waterloo ecosystem in Canada, start‐ups reported that the influence of the university on firm success was marginal. The effectiveness of university technology‐transfer offices (TTOs) has also been investigated, with Caldera and Debande (2010) finding that in Spain, TTOs have little influence on the creation of USOs, while others (Rasmussen et al, 2014; Radko et al, 2023) suggesting that TTOs can be helpful by providing tailored support for the firm.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The outputs encompass scientific advancements, economic performance, and knowledge translation. While benefits across these three outcomes are not mutually exclusive, as evidenced by several papers analyzing multiple variables and levels as outputs (e.g., Díez‐Vial and Montoro‐Sánchez, 2016; Radko et al, 2023), there appears to be an established practice of using simple metrics related to USO survival and the number of USOs formed as a measure of innovation success.…”

Section: Concluding Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Science‐based innovation via university spin‐offs: the influence of intangible assets

Park,

Maine,

Fini

et al. 2023

R & D Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

University spin‐offs (USOs) have attracted significant attention from scholars and policymakers as an important mechanism for science‐based innovation. The debate on how USOs generate innovation outcomes has often focused on tangible assets, while the role of intangible assets has been less explored and remains loosely defined. Yet emerging research suggests that intangible assets, especially in the early stages of a USO's lifecycle, have a critical influence on its survival and future success, highlighting a need for a better understanding of how intangible assets enable science‐based innovation through USOs. Drawing from several streams of literature, we define intangible assets in the context of science‐based innovation through USOs: an intangible asset is a resource that is non‐physical, non‐financial, has long life, and has potential to provide future benefits to the owner. Based on this working definition, we conduct a systematic literature review of the leading innovation management journals and inductively derive a framework outlining the antecedents, processes, and outcomes of science‐based innovation through USOs, focusing on the influence of intangible assets. The framework identifies the categories of resources which can enhance or hinder science‐based innovation through USOs. Such categorization reveals fruitful directions for future research such as a deeper examination of societal outcomes. We conclude by offering recommendations for scholars, practitioners, and policymakers to better leverage intangible assets to enhance science‐based innovation.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Concluding Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Science‐based innovation via university spin‐offs: the influence of intangible assets

Park,

Maine,

Fini

et al. 2023

R & D Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, publicly financed university-external intermediaries focus on the support of regional firms, especially SMEs, by trying to establish institutional settings that foster the articulation of firm demands for innovation and match them with appropriate knowledge from academia (Bramwell et al, 2019; Fiore et al, 2011; Kodama, 2008; Kolodny et al, 2001; Nauwelaers, 2011). In this sense, university-internal intermediaries can be perceived as “knowledge codifiers” focusing on newly created knowledge stocks and their transfer, whereas university-external intermediaries can be grouped as “knowledge enablers” or “knowledge facilitators” that steer knowledge production towards a required direction (Radko, 2022: 95–101). Privately funded knowledge intermediaries usually are much more limited in their focus and purposefully search for ideas and teams that work in their own field of specialization and yield a financial return (Abbate et al, 2013; Kodama, 2008).…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

A resource-based analysis of strategic alliances between knowledge intermediaries in regional innovation support systems

Bäumle

Bizer

2023

Industry and Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Notwithstanding a recent upsurge in interest in knowledge intermediaries and their roles in innovation support systems, we know little about the interplay between the activities of academia-driven intermediaries and their publicly financed counterparts. Building on a combination of principles derived from the resource-based theory and entrepreneurial ecosystems literature, this paper investigates the potentials of cooperation between different knowledge intermediaries. Therefore, the authors analyze the alignment of financial, knowledge, market and network resources in politically funded regional alliances between university-internal and university-external intermediaries by means of a qualitative approach. They find that, while knowledge intermediaries can benefit from access to additional ecosystem-specific resources, the urge to improve their own position within the ecosystem hampers the will to cooperate and can lead to non-performing resource alignments. The paper contributes to current scholarly discussions by suggesting and testing a theoretical foundation for analyzing the cooperative behavior of knowledge intermediaries in innovation support systems.

show abstract

“…Creating an entrepreneurial culture is a difficult task that requires the efforts of many dedicated people. Universities as centres of knowledge creation and dissemination can and must be used to ensure future economic growth (Bukhari et al, 2021;Radko et al, 2022). For small countries in transition, it is important that universities act in accordance with policies that encourage entrepreneurship and innovation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Entrepreneurial university: topicality of creation, international experience, situation in Latvia

Menshikov¹,

Ruza²,

Kokina³

et al. 2022

JESI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The university, understood in a simplified way as an institution representing the system of higher education, is distinguished by longevity. However, it also underwent evolution at the turn of the century under the influence of various conditions. As a result, various models of the university are emerging with the most promising one known now as the entrepreneurial university. This model implies greater openness of the university to the socio-economic environment, flexible adaptation to the needs of customers, stakeholders and the market, market competitiveness based on marketing and the ability to diversify sources of income. Particular attention is paid to creating and increasing the entrepreneurial potential of students. The aim of the article is to consider issues related to the prerequisites and ways of developing University 3.0 in Latvia. The objectives of the article are as follows: to find out the main external and inter-university prerequisites and barriers to creating entrepreneurial universities, to study international experience in the formation of prerequisites for the creation of entrepreneurial universities, to assess the major prerequisites for the establishment of entrepreneurial universities in Latvia. Causal analysis and comparative analysis were used as the major research method. An empirical assessment of the prerequisites for the development of University 3.0 in Latvia is given on the basis of our comparative analysis of the parameters of the Global Competitiveness Index. It is proposed to discuss the need for a state programme of at least a pilot project for the creation of two or three entrepreneurial universities so far, which will allow us to have our own experience in removing economic, social and cultural barriers to the modernisation of our higher education, the emergence of our own strong entrepreneurial leaders in higher education.

show abstract

Conceptualising the entrepreneurial university: the stakeholder approach

Cited by 33 publications

References 115 publications

Science‐based innovation via university spin‐offs: the influence of intangible assets

Science‐based innovation via university spin‐offs: the influence of intangible assets

A resource-based analysis of strategic alliances between knowledge intermediaries in regional innovation support systems

Entrepreneurial university: topicality of creation, international experience, situation in Latvia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About