Framing the entrepreneurial university: the case of the National University of Singapore

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore issues and situations affecting the entrepreneurial university via frame analysis to determine how institutional members frame the National University of Singapore (NUS) as an entrepreneurial university and provide key insights on how it has been manifested in reality. Design/methodology/approach Interviews of 18 institutional members from the NUS will be the focus of this paper. Categories of frames were adopted from environmental conflict research. Official documents were also analysed to support the frames found in this study. Findings Based on the NUS case, the entrepreneurial university was perceived in an apparently ambiguous setup. Interviewees’ framing features the reality affecting the entrepreneurial university in relation to disciplinary identities, institutional configuration, power of important actors and risk perceptions attached to entrepreneurial activities. Issues presented by the case are considered intractable because institutional members have interpretative differences in motivations and interests in pursuing entrepreneurial activities. Research limitations/implications Future research can draw upon the factors that contribute to the institutionalisation of the entrepreneurial university model. Practical Implications The results may assist universities in refining certain approaches in carrying out entrepreneurial activities. Using methods such as frame analysis can enable identification of problems and ways to resolve the issues concerning reforms or policy frameworks introduced to universities. Originality/value At the time of this writing, analysing the entrepreneurial university model through the application of frame analysis is novel and yet to be explored in the field of higher education.

Doctoral education in the entrepreneurial university : enhanced employability?

“…Barriers exist to the development of entrepreneurship that have to be overcome (Kirby, 2006), for instance academic tensions (Ahmad, Abdul Halim, & Ramayah, 2016), in order to institutionalise support to entrepreneurship (Reyes, 2016). Thus, leadership is key to efficiently manage the time, trust and engagement of varied stakeholders (Klofsten et al, 2019), and to spread a "broader thinking" about entrepreneurship and a revised paradigm of the entrepreneurial university (Meissner et al, 2018, p. 53).…”

Girişimci Üniversite’nin Kavramsal Çerçevesi

“…Girişimci üniversitelere yönelik kavramsal tanımlamalarda söz konusu evrimsel sürecin etkisinin olduğu anlaşılmaktadır. Bu kapsamda, girişimci üniversitelerden farklı zaman dilimlerinde sosyo-girişimci ve yenilikçi; eğitim-öğretim, araştırma ve sosyal kalkınma faaliyetlerini bir arada yürütebilen; misyon bildirgesinde ekonomik, sosyal kalkınma, yenilik, bilgi üretimi, topluma yenilikçi faydalar sağlama ve teknoloji transferine yönelik hedeflere bir arada veren; kaliteli araştırma geliştirme faaliyetleri ile yeni ürün ve hizmet sağlayacak bir ekosisteme sahip olma gibi özellikleri bünyelerinde barındıran kurumlar olmaları beklenmiştir (Etzkowitz, 2003;Etzkowitz vd., 2000;Mets, 2010;Montesinos vd., 2008;Walker, 2012 (Amaral & Filho, 2008;Dinya, 2014;Huang-Saad, Fay, & Sheridan, 2017;O'Shea vd., 2007;Postigo & Tamburini, 2003;Reyes, 2016;Roberts, 1991;Sidhu & Yeoh, 2011;Yao vd., 2015 (Jencks & Riesman, 1968;Rothblatt & Wittrock., 1993). Günümüzde, bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerinin hızlı gelişimi ve bilgi aktarım süreçlerinin kolaylaşmasıyla birlikte yeni bilginin saklanıp uluslararası düzeyde korunması, finansal desteklerle fikirlerin büyütülmesi ve uluslararası pazarlara ürün olarak sunulması önemli bir olgu haline gelmiştir.…”

Urban innovation policy in the postdevelopmental era: Lessons from Singapore and Seoul

“…Nylund and Cohen () argue that the research on EEs has focused on particular geographic contexts such as suburban tech parks and regional economies. Indeed, Asian governments have embraced the originally American idea of tech parks, which have emerged in cities and near universities in the past two decades (Krishna & Sha, ; O'Shea, Fitzgerald, Chugh, & Allen, ; Reyes, ). However, Isenberg () argues that Asian governments should not simply attempt to replicate the model or characteristics of Silicon Valley or “over‐engineer” clusters.…”