Using Entrepreneurial Activities as a Means of Survival: Investigating the Processes used by Australian Universities to Diversify their Revenue Streams

Abstract

This study provides a profile of the actions taken by Australian universities to diversify their revenue streams in order to generate more independent (non-government) income. Marginson's taxonomy of Australian universities is used to catergorise universities and contrast levels of independent income (Marginson and Considine 2000). This study finds that some Australian universities have used isomorphic tactics in their attempts to diversify their revenue streams. Unitechs (Universities of Technology) and New Universities are over-reliant upon income earned from overseas student fees, whilst earning comparatively small amounts of revenue from Royalties, Trademarks and Licences, Consultancy, Contract Research and Investments. This work discusses the dangers inherent in over-reliance on a single type of independent income. It argues that if Australian universities seek to enhance their success competing in global research, staff and student markets then they need to augment efforts to diversify revenue streams with structural and cultural changes, transforming themselves from being rigid hierarchical public bureaucracies to become more flexible network enterprises (Castells 2000).

Making Universities More Entrepreneurial: Development of a Model

“…To date, the research literature on entrepreneurial universities has consisted basically of case studies (Bernasconi, ; De Zilwa, ; Jacob, Lundqvist, & Hellsmark, ; Klofsten & Jones‐Evans, ; Lazzeretti & Tavoletti, ; O'Shea et al, ; Ranga, Debackere, & Von‐Tunzelmann, ; Tijssen, ; Yokoyama, ; Zhao, ). The theoretical framing of the defining characteristics of an entrepreneurial university is lacking as is any systematic examination of the facilitators and barriers to universities becoming more entrepreneurial (Guerrero et al, ; Rothaermel et al, ).…”

The entrepreneurial university and academic discourses: The meta‐synthesis of Higher Education articles

“…The research focuses on the analysis of 25 articles related to academic entrepreneurship as a combination of the discourses on entrepreneurial universities and entrepreneurial academics. These articles include different university examples from various countries (e.g., Australia (De Zilwa, ; Sharma, ), Canada (Rherrad, ), Chile (Bernasconi, ), Japan (Yokoyama, ), Iran (Mazdeh et al, ), Korea (Ryu, ), Taiwan (Mok et al, ), the United Kingdom (Yokoyama, ), the United States (Dill, ; Sharma, )) and the comparison of European cases (Provasi et al, ) related to academic entrepreneurs. Thereby, this meta‐synthesis provides a good basis for a holistic evaluation on the common operational areas and academic activities in these examples of entrepreneurial universities and their organisational transformation.…”

“…In the selected articles, scholars largely agreed that the ‘entrepreneurial university’ discourse emerged as the outcome of universities’ income generation effort to avoid the negative effects of public budget cuts (De Zilwa, ; Dill, ; Mars & Rios‐Aguilar, ; Sam & van der Sijde, ; Sharma, ; Yokoyama, ). Researchers in the field of Higher Education then asserted that the understanding of the ‘entrepreneurial university’ evolved to serve the community via economic and/or social value creation (Bernasconi, ; Hakala, ; Mars & Rios‐Aguilar, ; Mok et al, ; Sam & van der Sijde, ; Sharma, ; Subotzky, ; Yokoyama, ).…”

“…Mars and Rios‐Aguilar () combined the broad‐range principles and concepts of entrepreneurship—‘economic (dis)equilibrium, creativity, innovation, economic and/or social value creation, risk‐taking and mitigation and opportunity identification and utilisation’ (p. 449)—and, based on the studies in Higher Education journals, defined academic entrepreneurship as ‘creating economic and/or social transformation beyond the boundaries of the academy’ (p. 455). Several studies published in Higher Education journals also provided different examples related to major entrepreneurial activities in universities from various countries (Bernasconi, ; De Zilwa, ; Mazdeh, Razavi, Hesamamiri, Zahedi, & Elahi, ; Mok, Yu, & Ku, ; Sam & van der Sijde, ; Sharma, ; Yokoyama, ). In addition, academics’ activities and behaviours were examined within the entrepreneurship perspective in various studies from Higher Education journals (Bienkowska & Klofsten, ; De Silva, ; Ditton, ; Duberley, Cohen, & Leeson, ; Hansson & Mønsted, ; Lee & Rhoads, ; Rherrad, ; Ryu, ; Sinclair, Cuthbert, & Barnacle, ; Wardale & Lord, ; Ylijoki & Henriksson, ).…”

The legislative requirements for measuring quality in transnational education: Understanding divergence while maintaining standards

“…This resulted in a drive for revenue to help fund the development of Australian universities, such that by 2014, approximately 25 percent of students were from overseas (Australian Government, ). The drive for international fees was exacerbated by the continued cuts to the government funding received per domestic student (de Zilwa, ; Marginson, ).…”