An international foresight reflection on entrepreneurial pathways for higher education institutions

Abstract

Recent decades have seen many countries reforming their higher education systems, affecting the mission and governance of higher education institutions (HEIs). HEIs are now expected to produce entrepreneurial capital and to be catalysts for regional economic and societal development, taking on significant roles in entrepreneurial ecosystems. Hence, this article addresses entrepreneurial ecosystem stakeholders’ preoccupation with and interest in the role of HEIs in the future and assesses the opportunities and risks associated with HEIs pursuing entrepreneurial pathways. The authors propose five future scenarios, which they term ‘worldwide’, ‘transdisciplinary’, ‘adaptive learning’, ‘blended’ and ‘ecosystem’. These scenarios demonstrate that internationalization, digital transformation, collaborative networks and co-creation processes are key drivers of the advancement of higher education and provide guidance for HEIs and policymakers on the framing of decision-making agendas related to possible entrepreneurial pathways. Based on experts’ assessments, the authors consider the transdisciplinary and blended scenarios to be the most auspicious.

Keywords

Entrepreneurial ecosystems entrepreneurial pathways entrepreneurial university foresight scenario planning

Recent decades have seen many countries reforming their higher education systems, making significant changes to the autonomy, public financing, mission and accountability of their higher education institutions (HEIs) (Clark, 1998; Jacob et al., 2003; Salmi, 2001). Today’s HEIs must produce entrepreneurial capital and be catalysts in regional economic and societal development (Audretsch, 2014; Guerrero et al., 2015). In Europe, European Union directives and national governments’ initiatives to promote a societal development agenda affect HEIs concomitantly. Examples are the directives from the European Commission (2006a, 2006b, 2013) at the European level, and, at the national level, the EXIST programme in Germany, A+B in Austria, VINNOVA in Sweden and the Science Enterprise Challenge in the UK (Elia et al., 2017; Etzkowitz, 2014; Shattock, 2010). Beyond Europe and the USA, researchers have reported on HEIs moving towards entrepreneurialism in Brazil (Almeida, 2008; Amaral et al., 2011), Chile (Bernasconi, 2005), Canada (Bramwell and Wolfe, 2008), China (Zhou and Peng, 2008), Iran (Salamzadeh et al., 2015), Japan (Yokoyama, 2006), Malaysia (Ahmad et al., 2018), Turkey (Beyhan and Findik, 2018), Singapore (Wong et al., 2007), South Africa (De Jager et al., 2017) and the United Arab Emirates (Bhayani, 2015), among others.

The entrepreneurial university model responds to the needs of a knowledge society (Etzkowitz, 2013a). Nevertheless, the model has been criticized for embodying legitimacy issues, a perceived distortion of the research university model, as well as for the presence of conflicts – both conceptual and operational – among HEIs’ three missions: teaching, research, and economic and societal development (the ‘third mission’) (Goldstein, 2010; Philpott et al., 2011; Powell et al., 2007; Slaughter and Leslie, 1997; Stensaker and Benner, 2013; Tuunainen, 2005). In the absence of a consensus that HEIs must become more entrepreneurial, many institutions have embarked on a journey featuring challenging organizational changes; yet, how the entrepreneurial ideal might be effectively achieved remains an open question (Clark, 2004; Gibb and Hannon, 2006; Guerrero et al., 2006; Kirby, 2006; McGowan et al., 2008). Consequently, understanding the entrepreneurial pathways for HEIs is a key topic for the prospective research agenda, because there is a need to understand the strategic choices made by HEIs during this journey of transformation and its consequences (Klofsten et al., 2019).

At the same time, there is increased scholarly debate on the transformation of HEIs into organizational actors. In this sense, an understanding of the strategic positioning of HEIs within their meso-environment is key (Fumasoli et al., 2019). Furthermore, participative methods with an open strategy enable the ‘buy-in into change’ of stakeholders, facilitating the development and implementation of the strategic choices taken (Schwarz, 2020).

Accordingly, our research was conceptualized as a reflection exercise with the purpose of challenging conventional thinking (Wright et al., 2013) to encourage entrepreneurial ecosystem stakeholders to foresee desirable futures (Martin, 1995) for HEIs systematically, in the long-term, and from their perspectives. In stimulating a wider debate through stakeholder engagement, we clarify the importance of the topic and support the development of education policy and the strategic advancement of HEIs by offering insights that ‘frame decision-making agendas’ (Volkery and Ribeiro, 2009). Specifically, the objective of this study is to generate long-term scenarios (van Notten et al., 2003), in which the ‘preoccupations and interests’ of entrepreneurial ecosystem stakeholders are considered (Ducot and Lubben, 1980) and resulting propositions are assessed by experts in higher education entrepreneurialism to inform the utilization of such scenarios.

The primary research questions addressed are:

How should HEIs, regardless of their current level of entrepreneurialism, evolve in the long term to address the preoccupations and interests of entrepreneurial ecosystem stakeholders?

What are the opportunities and risks for HEIs in pursuing entrepreneurial pathways?

Our results demonstrate that internationalization, digital transformation, collaborative networks and co-creation processes are key drivers for higher education in the future, and the preoccupation and interest of international ecosystem stakeholders in HEIs encompass all three missions. We propose five scenarios in this study: worldwide, transdisciplinary, adaptive learning, blended, and ecosystem. These scenarios provide insights for HEIs and policymakers into the framing of decision-making agendas related to possible entrepreneurial pathways. We suggest that, of these, the transdisciplinary and blended scenarios are the most auspicious.

Our article is structured as follows. We begin with a prologue offering an empirical contextualization of entrepreneurial ecosystems and entrepreneurialism in higher education. Next, we outline our research design, detailing the informants’ profiles, the data collection and the analytical procedures. We then present and assess the resulting scenario propositions, providing a discussion on their policy and institutional implications. We conclude with suggestions for further research by addressing the study’s contributions and limitations.

Entrepreneurial ecosystems and higher education entrepreneurialism

An entrepreneurial ecosystem (EE) can be defined as ‘a regional, complex agglomeration of entrepreneurial activity providing two classes of relevant services, namely: a) enhanced entrepreneurial activity benefiting its larger economic and societal environment; and b) various forms of formal and informal support that generally enhance the probability of success of entrepreneurial activity’ (Kuckertz, 2019: 3). An EE is seen as a key driver in the development of innovation-based resilient economies (Spigel, 2017), encompassing three institutional spheres: industry, academia and government (Oh et al., 2016). This complex Triple Helix interaction has been proposed to explain the emergence of the Silicon Valley and Boston EEs (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000; Etzkowitz and Ranga, 2010), providing policymakers and practitioners around the world with a possible framework for emulation (Andersson et al., 2004; Etzkowitz, 2019). Even though the Silicon Valley case is a contextual singularity (Audretsch, 2019), it provides important insights into the importance of the interaction among the three helices through a culture of permeability promoted by HEIs (Guzman and Stern, 2015). In this context, American higher education has evolved ‘to take several roles within society and EEs’ (Sam and van der Sijde, 2014).

As key actors in the development of EEs, HEIs became regional ecosystem organizers (Etzkowitz, 2004), proactively promoting knowledge transfer within the ecosystem (Fuster et al., 2019), as collaboration between internal and external stakeholders is required to establish a successful entrepreneurial university ecosystem (Lahikainen et al., 2019). The importing of such concepts to other countries has propelled a global convergence in higher education. However, there are dramatic limitations to replication strategies due to differences in HEIs’ external environments and their internal resources and capabilities (Etzkowitz, 2004; Jacob et al., 2003; Lazzeretti and Tavoletti, 2005; Philpott et al., 2011; Stensaker and Benner, 2013). Furthermore, the entrepreneurialism of HEIs can also be seen as ‘an organizational response to external challenges and pressures’ (Hannon, 2013) in which environmental and internal factors are integrated to form the conceptual model of an entrepreneurial university (Guerrero and Urbano, 2012). Accordingly, HEIs now face a multitude of challenges, and their survival and advancement depend on their ability to adapt and evolve (Klofsten et al., 2019).

Based on this challenge, researchers have attempted to make sense of HEIs’ strategic advances towards the so-called ‘third mission’ and its implied entrepreneurialism. Over the last two decades a growing literature has developed, accompanied by the publication of systematic reviews summarizing it (see, for instance, Bronstein and Reihlen, 2014; Centobelli et al., 2019; Clauss et al., 2018; Gibb, 2002; Laredo, 2007; Lopes et al., 2020; Perkmann et al., 2013; Rothaermel et al., 2007; Stolze, 2020).

Stolze (2020), based on her review of the transformation of HEIs into more entrepreneurial institutions, identified three central entrepreneurial paths for the HEI: governance measures; entrepreneurship education offers; and ecosystem measures. Most experiments developed by HEIs across the globe to become more entrepreneurial have been related to the ecosystem path, as the formation of alliances and Triple Helix networks is a cornerstone of the process.

Despite advancements, the entrepreneurial university remains a relatively new and evolving paradigm, even at epitomes like Stanford (Etzkowitz et al., 2019). The model is ‘an efflorescence of embryonic characteristics that exist “in potentio” in any academic enterprise […] with the ability to periodically reinvent itself and incorporate multiple missions’ (Etzkowitz, 2013a: 487). Hence, a proposed updated definition of the model proposes a systemic view:

An entrepreneurial university design integrates project-based learning in the curriculum with an outlook of seeking out the useful as well as the theoretical results of investigation. These results are moved into use through an innovation system that includes a penumbra of public and private actors posing problems, concomitantly with the provision of resources. (Etzkowitz et al., 2019: 169)

Burton Clark asserted, as early as 1998, that

new, institutionally defining ideas are typically tender and problematic at the outset of an important change. They must be tested, worked out and reformulated. If they turn out to be Utopian, they are soon seen as counter-productive wishful thinking. If found to be excessively opportunistic, they provide no guidance: any adjustment will do. Ideas become realistic and capable of some steering as they reflect organizational capability and tested environmental possibilities. New organizational ideas are but symbolic experiments in the art of the possible. (Clark, 1998: 12)

This view remains valid today, as transformational changes occurring in HEIs can be described as an ‘endless transition’ based on ‘nonlinear innovation models’ of HEI transformation processes (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000). To manage these changes, HEIs need to develop a form of organizational ambidexterity that enables them to explore and exploit (Centobelli et al., 2019) new paths to deliver their three missions. Hence, dynamic capabilities to sense, seize and transform have become key to the management of HEIs (Teece, 2018) in addition to the ability of HEI decision-makers to actively manage their institutions with an ecosystem stakeholder perspective and thus incorporate meaningful metrics into their entrepreneurial activities (Balven et al., 2018; Etzkowitz, 2016; Gianiodis and Meek, 2019; Roundy et al., 2018).

Research design

Foresight and scenario planning

Foresight methods can support actors’ efforts to foresee and create desirable futures systematically and in the long term (Martin, 1995). Accordingly, foresight should be seen as a learning process, moving beyond visioning to seeding change through action (Masini, 2006) by including the creation of alternatives for transformation (Inayatullah, 2008) through bridging foresight, knowledge management and strategy (Bootz et al., 2019). Moreover, foresight studies support the creation of networks, engaging actors by providing a common language in ‘learning spaces where participants are able to explore possible alternatives for their actions, acquire new ideas and knowledge’ (Djuricic and Bootz, 2019: 126).

One of the foresight methods most often applied by practitioners is scenario planning (Amer et al., 2013). Scenario planning is seen as a starting point from which to address the need to supplement empirical evidence with a future perspective built on strategic stakeholder under ‘post-normal’ conditions (Ramírez et al., 2015). This method enables the employment of systematic insight and exploration of the impact of uncertainties (van der Heijden, 2005) to foresee multiple novel yet plausible futures (Bradfield et al., 2005).

Having emerged from practice, this approach is still under development (O’Brien and Meadows, 2013), typologies are often reviewed (Crawford, 2019; Ducot and Lubben, 1980; van Notten et al., 2003), and application guidance and enhanced strategies are emerging, such as those offered by O’Brien (2004); Amer et al. (2013); Ramírez and Selin (2014); and Hussain et al. (2017). Among practitioners, variations in scenario planning application have led to the emergence of three schools (Intuitive-Logics Model, La Prospective Models and Probabilisctic Modified Trend Models), with the intuitive logic school being the most adopted. The intuitive logic approach enables the development of plausible storytelling narratives about the future, challenging assumptions and promoting mindset change, and so improving strategic decision-making processes (Bradfield et al., 2005; Hussain et al., 2017; Lang and Ramírez, 2017; Mackay and Stoyanova, 2017; van der Heijden, 2005; Varum and Melo, 2010; Wright et al., 2013).

Data collection

The study design (Figure 1), based on the above goals and empirical context, sets the scene for implementation (O’Brien, 2004). As suggested by Cairns et al. (2016), our process was not based on a single, extant structured scenario method but rather was structured in four macro-phases: preparation, scenario exploration, scenario development and scenario utilization (Frith and Tapinos, 2020). The timeframe for execution was 6 months, spanning August 2019 to January 2020, and the data collection employed participatory methods (Crawford, 2019) facilitated by the authors and was divided into three phases: a workshop (Steps 2–3), an individual visioning exercise (Step 4), and an expert assessment (Step 7).

Figure 1.

Study design.

We recorded the expectations of entrepreneurial ecosystem stakeholders in a workshop format (Steps 2–3) that built on strategic stakeholder dialogues (Ramírez et al., 2015) followed by an individual free-writing visioning exercise (Step 4). The stakeholder-informants were 35 individuals from 16 countries on four continents who were working on entrepreneurship-related issues across all the institutional spheres associated with entrepreneurial ecosystems: HEIs, research institutes, government agencies, industry, non-governmental organizations and entrepreneurs. Many of these informants held several roles and operated in more than one sphere.

The first data collection was done through a 90-minute workshop held during the Triple Helix XVII Conference in Cape Town, South Africa, in September 2019. The workshop was facilitated by the first author and included the second author as a participant. In total, eight participants (four females and four males, from Germany, Switzerland, Russia, South Africa and Kenya) discussed trends, forces and uncertainties supported by a Wilson matrix illustrating high, medium and low probability/uncertainty and potential impact levels (Amer et al., 2013) to aid in deductively rating items. The participants had senior hierarchical profiles and were decision-makers in their organizations. Most were between 40 and 54 years old; six had an average of 13 years’ experience in issues related to HEI entrepreneurialism (two participants did not respond to this question).

The second data collection method used creative visualization (Inayatullah, 2008) in an individual free-writing visioning exercise (Step 4). Participants wrote out their visions based on their expectations in relation to HEIs on the last day of two separate international (non-academic) conferences in the Munich entrepreneurial ecosystem in September and October 2019. In both cases, the participants had been immersed in two full-day discussions on entrepreneurship-related issues and international networking before completing the exercise. In total, 27 informants from 13 countries on two continents completed the exercise, with 30% of the respondents being female. Thirteen informants reported an average of 7 years of involvement in HEI entrepreneurialism-related activities (14 did not respond to this question).

The third data collection point presented and assessed the scenarios developed (O’Brien, 2004). For the development of the scenarios, the data collected in the first phase were transcribed and, using the software ATLAS.ti, coded for thematic analysis. Later, in November 2019, the authors conducted two separate brainstorming sessions, aiming to synthetize the qualitative data collected to conceptualize the scenarios through bricolage (Klag and Langley, 2013). Finally, they agreed on five scenario propositions on the basis that ‘as few as four scenarios, even expressed as snapshots, may be useful’ (Ram, 2020: 15). For the assessment, we selected 10 experts on issues related to HEI entrepreneurialism. The criteria for the selection of these experts included experience in academia; experience in practice; experience as a policy adviser; and publication impact (i.e., citations). Moreover, we attempted to provide an international perspective and gender balance by selecting five male and five female experts from eight different countries on four continents. Due to limited population and availability issues, we received a response from four highly qualified and internationally recognized expert informants, who assessed the scenario propositions to (1) validate them and (2) derive possible implications. The experts conducted their assessment – individually and independently – between November and early December 2019 through a structured online questionnaire. First, we presented them with the five scenario propositions. In due course, we asked them to assess each scenario individually and to challenge the propositions. Subsequently, the same experts derived implications for HEIs pursuing entrepreneurial pathways. The implication question borrowed concepts from scenario backcasting and roadmapping propositions (Hussain et al., 2017), while the assessment criteria used to validate the scenarios were also based on prior research (Amer et al., 2013) and used a five-point Likert-scale. Nevertheless, we did not employ the assessment scale as a quantitative measurement, but rather as a guiding reference (Figure 2) to assist in analysing the experts’ answers.

Figure 2.

Experts’ assessments of scenarios.

Results

Scenario propositions

The resulting scenario propositions are exploratory normative scenarios grounded in present trends, in which the preoccupations and interests of stakeholders are taken into consideration (Ducot and Lubben, 1980). The propositions thus reflect the expectations of entrepreneurial ecosystem stakeholders related to HEIs and encompass an HEI’s three missions: teaching, research, and the third mission, which is related to economic and societal impact. Furthermore, three factors driving the scenarios were the current and potential impact of (a) internationalization, (b) digital transformation, and (c) collaborative networks and co-creation processes.

The five scenario propositions (Table 1) that emerged from the data collected during the workshop and visioning exercises were:

Worldwide scenario: Collaboration among international entrepreneurial universities leads them to form worldwide institutions.

Transdisciplinary scenario: Entrepreneurship evolves to become the enabler of transdisciplinary formats, integrating all disciplines.

Adaptive learning scenario: Adaptive education evolves to become a central aspect in entrepreneurial universities, with the personalization of curricula and learning experiences supported by artificial intelligence tools.

Blended scenario: The flipped classroom pedagogical method (i.e., syllabus delivered online; professor assumes a coaching role) evolves to take a central role in entrepreneurial universities. Most content is available online, and international classrooms and international teamwork work in virtual reality environments.

Ecosystem scenario. Co-creation evolves to become the central process in entrepreneurial universities, enabling the agile co-development and co-financing of research, teaching and service formats.

Table 1.

Scenario propositions.

Scenario description (story/rationale)	Quotations from the workshop and visioning exercises (transcriptions)
Scenario 1: Worldwide
• Collaboration among international entrepreneurial universities evolves to form a worldwide organization. • This organization’s values, vision and mission are aligned with global sustainable development goals (SDGs). • Co-creation evolves to become the norm when (further) developing (new) concepts for HEI teaching, researching and transferring activities. • Students’ mobility is enabled in flexible ways. • International classrooms and international teamwork are common formats. • Empathy, collaboration, critical thinking, and intercultural communication are central aspects of the learning process.	‘How we can create a big worldwide university or different ones that allow more exchange of student experts?’ ‘[…] we have these global challenges, and why do we need all these single universities there? We find this or that university better because they give better grades, but this is the discussion […] But isn’t it more important that we co-create? So, I would be interested in how I send my students to your university and they come back and have new ideas and challenge our professors. So, I have more an idea of how we can create a big worldwide university or different ones that allow more exchange of student experts, etc.’ ‘Co-creation of international universities’ ‘Other countries will have to come closer to the current state of Western HEIs. Their role will be more one of guidance in this process […] possible enablers of new forms of entrepreneurial acting and thinking, particularly in the process of co-creation’.
Scenario 2: Transdisciplinary
• Entrepreneurship evolves to become the enabler of transdisciplinary teaching and research formats, integrating different academic disciplines.• Faculty and academic discipline silos are merged, and the entrepreneurial university functions as an (eco)system with systems and structures in collaborative transdisciplinary ‘beehives’.• Plurality becomes the norm, not the exception, with all fields contributing value to the whole.• Entrepreneurial universities have a multitude of disciplines, ranging across and encompassing the arts, humanities, STEM, applied sciences and vocations.	‘Different subjects open for each other; greater interaction and interchange of knowledge between STEM subjects, economics, but also arts, design, psychology, social aspects; understanding the consequences and impact in other dimensions; getting inspired by other subjects and topics’.‘[…] two years at university and then for one to two years at a vocational college, and the vocational modules were about meeting industry needs and jobs, and the university type modules were about societal integration and critical thinking and being able to take those into your vocational segment. So, not divorced from your vocation but related to it. So, you have this clear idea that the role of a university is not simply training you to do your job, because that is dangerous!’‘One thing I’ve noticed here is that we have been talking about universities, but here in the global South we talk more and more about pluriversities…and the strength of pluralism and the pluriversal perspective rather than a universal perspective. So, you might be a collective, but you don’t have to be the same to be equal, and you don’t have to be the same to contribute value’.‘We need to have these beehives. We need to have an easy atmosphere to meet and to discuss your ideas, and the university can be that place’.
Scenario 3: Adaptive learning
• Adaptive education evolves to become a central aspect of entrepreneurial universities.• Artificial intelligence tools support this process.• Personalization of curricula and learning experiences in teaching, research and transfer activities have the individual learning path of each student in focus.• Students are the central element and starting point of their higher education learning experience.	‘We are taught to be a good employee, follow the line, and don’t think too much out of the box, especially within applied sciences. I imagine a world in which universities give their students all the instruments to make wise choices about their future. This means completely changing the actual structure of learning programs’.‘Switch from one to many education paths. To one to one, defining goals, and objectives based on personal behaviours and the aspirations of each student’.‘The next step is adaptive education, where teachers can see the progress of students and follow [it]’.
Scenario 4: Blended
• The flipped classroom evolves to take a central role in entrepreneurial universities.• Entrepreneurial universities provide a combination of online and offline teaching formats that can be combined.• Most content is delivered online.• Coaching/mentoring and action/experiential learning are central to the teaching process.• International classrooms and international teamwork are enabled by virtual reality.	‘The traditional form of teaching will be more and more replaced by online and practical experience through cooperation with industry partners’.‘The challenge is […] to recognize how we can hybridize […] there are some things that only a human can teach you and can respond to. But there is this amazing technology that can help in other ways. If we can find ways to do both, with the MOOCS [Massive Open Online Courses], some of the work we have done, it is looking into the MOOCS and LOOCS [Local Open Online Courses]. So, the MOOCs and at the same time you have local open courses, so you have someone doing and facilitating at the local level, and you have the benefit of this massive international community’.
Scenario 5: Ecosystem
• Co-creation evolves to become the central process in entrepreneurial universities, enabling the agile co-development and co-financing of research, teaching and transfer formats.• Entrepreneurial universities are key actors in innovation ecosystems together with government, industry, non-governmental, and civil society organizations.• The entrepreneurial university resources are open to actors from the innovation ecosystem.• Actors from the innovation ecosystem actively contribute to all activities taking place in the entrepreneurial university in an atmosphere of open collaboration.	‘Theory enriched learning in, about, and for the real world’.‘HEIs have to think of themselves as bridges of innovation and entrepreneurship allowing the connections between different fields of action and actors’.‘The funding of HEIs is very likely to be a major impact factor for the vision they are working on. Fundamental research, applied knowledge, and corporate training are three pillars to take into account and fund. Preferably, HEIs need to have partner links outside of their competences and regions’.‘Particularly in Western societies, the role and objectives of education will have to be negotiated and developed through quadruple helix discussions to support the “birth” of new talents, which can answer the global challenge needs’.

Scenario assessments

The proposed scenarios are not mutually exclusive. This fact is a key consideration when assessing their utilization potential. One expert informant (Expert_4) pointed out that ‘the most likely scenario is a combination of the previous five […] None will happen independently’, while Expert_2 believed that ‘a combination of all the above scenarios is plausible in the short to medium term’ rather than the long-term perspective initially set for the study. These views add a sense of urgency to the matter, as explained by Expert_2:

The higher education sector is poised for a highly disruptive period as has been witnessed across many other professional service areas globally […] It’s unlikely the number of HEIs as currently configured will/can survive, and we will see significantly different landscapes for post-compulsory education, requiring different leaders, mindsets, values, services, outcomes, relationships.

The scenarios most positively assessed by the experts were Scenarios 4 (blended) and 2 (transdisciplinary), based on the experts’ assessments using a five-point Likert scale (Figure 2). The experts agreed that Scenario 4 (blended) was not only possible but was already a reality – at least in some contexts. For instance, in 2019 in Brazil a greater number of higher education students were enrolled in ‘hybrid’ distance learning degrees than in regular ones, a trend driven by private HEIs offering 2-year technical higher education degrees, which are not equivalent to Bachelor’s degrees (Branco, 2020). This scenario is a likely pathway for HEIs in the short term, a fact aligned with a sense of ‘urgency’ influenced by exogenous forces: ‘increases in global populations and rising demands for learning opportunities will need a resource-efficient solution’ (Expert_2). Nevertheless, there are many challenges in pursuing the blended scenario, as ‘new standards must be established for educational requirements’ (Expert_4). Furthermore, there is a need for policymakers and HEIs to reflect on ‘whether a preponderance of online [courses] creates a better educational environment if done on a mass scale rather than through international seminars […] [It] depends upon implementation, whether to simply deliver content to larger numbers or facilitate genuine cross-cultural interaction’ (Expert_3). After all, as pointed out by Expert_1, ‘several rules need to be changed in HEIs, governments, and professional regulations to enable this scenario’ to make it feasible. In this sense,

This needs to be managed such that the emotive/conative and not only the cognitive aspects of learning are engaged in a holistic approach to human development. [This includes] continual breakthroughs and understandings in the scope of AI to develop humans at an intellectual level; more engagement in alternative methods of teaching/learning embedded in early teacher training opportunities; closer linkages/sponsorships between industry and education; success stories and role models. (Expert_2)

Scenario 2 (transdisciplinary) is a plausible possibility, and indeed may be said to be already happening in some contexts as it is similar to the reality at some applied sciences universities in Europe or in innovative and forward-thinking transdisciplinary centres at top-tier HEIs around the world. It seems to be part of a trend ‘to encourage an entrepreneurial mindset through teaching programs’ (Expert_3). However, whether HEIs could deliver the proposed scenario remains moot because it is still ‘unclear if there is sufficient support to become the norm’ (Expert_3). Furthermore, the scenario’s feasibility might be ‘low due to the traditional structures of knowledge areas’ (Expert_1). Hence, the change required is not only institutional; the first step is to align policies and public funding schemes. An expert summarized the influencing forces of the transdisciplinary scenario:

There are challenges in normalizing these behaviours across the sector, particularly in removing silo mentalities and the dominance of professional bodies and gatekeepers […] government and industry pressures in seeking effective and timely solutions to global and national wicked problems; the voices of the youth seeking greater focus on making an impact in the world; a shift in political emphasis and hence funding; new institutions forming that have an alternate mindset and approach to the purpose and value of education; new leaders driving new and existing institutions; changes to the methods for determining the rankings of universities; potential students voting with their feet and selecting places of study from a different perspective and set of values; increasing pressures from climate change, security, and other SDGs [Sustainable Development Goals]. (Expert_2)

Scenario 5 (ecosystem) was neutrally assessed. It reflects a welcome trend, as ‘the innovation ecosystem requires a close collaboration between research centres, start-ups, and industry […] [and] the realization that the above relationships are desperately needed’ (Expert_4). Moreover, ‘many institutions are already engaged with their ecosystems and realize the value to their future. Clearly, some do this more effectively than others’ (Expert_2). The key aspect is how to implement this scenario, as there are many possible formats. Expert_1 suggested that ‘the creation of new, small and more flexible organizations or units can enable this scenario’ – that is, independently-run entrepreneurship centres. Expert_2 pointed to ‘co-ventures in campus developments; the sharing of industry/employer assets as places for learning; genuine joint degrees; and the shared risks and rewards across a diversity of projects’. Nonetheless, Expert_1 stated that ‘it is difficult to think about how this scenario will work on a massive scale. The management in the HEIs will be more complex, and the results/impacts of this change are not clear’.

Based on the assessment criteria applied, the experts did not perceive the remaining scenarios to be as promising as the previous ones. They considered Scenario 3 (adaptive learning) to be inconsistent, though possibly as relevant to HEIs’ entrepreneurial pathways as Scenario 5 (ecosystem), because ‘this type of educational reform must happen, but it has been fought by the establishment for centuries and it will occur very slowly’ (Expert_4). One expert summarized the needs, challenges, and opportunities associated with this scenario:

Learning opportunities will need to become more highly adaptive, with the focus shifting more toward the individual’s learning journey in the context of their emerging life and not considering education as a life phase between childhood and work. It’s already happening in places. Also, learning is not solely the domain of education institutions. Changes to modes of learning, modes of assessment; further development of “bundles” of learning which accumulate into a broad view of an individual’s capacities and capabilities; increasing use of AI to deliver and assess; broader recognition and acceptance by employers/society of a wider range of awards/outcomes; increasing emphasis on the know-how/know-who than the know-what. (Expert_2)

The scenario assessed as the least complete was the worldwide scenario. Comments from the experts included ‘vague’ (Expert_3) and ‘the idea of an international organization seems strange’ (Expert_1) with a multitude of pathways; i.e. ‘collaboration among equal partners, [a] formal merger, or takeover’ (Expert_3). In this sense, ‘a more likely scenario is that such schools will be merged with universities to form larger entities locally. This is the current trend and it would take a large unknown force to move in another direction’ (Expert_3). An example is Aarhus University in Denmark, which was formed out of a merger of two HEIs and two research centres, a process that enabled it to become an entrepreneurial university (Pinheiro and Stensaker, 2014). Furthermore, the implementation of a worldwide HEI could lead to an elitist institution, as it is ‘not clear how international mobility will be subsidized if it is to reach-down to lower economic levels’ (Expert_3), although the experts recognized that digitization could enable this scenario. Nevertheless, Expert_2 could ‘foresee an increase in existing global alliances with ever stronger relationships’, since ‘there is a clear and growing interest in universities to connect and collaborate’. In some contexts, this scenario could be more feasible, as it ‘could make sense in Europe’ (Expert_1), where ‘existing EU programs for student mobility could be moved in the desired direction’ (Expert_3).

Overall, experts agreed that there were few potential losses in HEIs pursing entrepreneurial pathways to address stakeholders’ expectations, as ‘the greatest risk is in not developing a more entrepreneurial and value-creation mindset’ (Expert_2), since not to do so might reduce ‘the actual viability of institutions. Those that are slow to adapt will be at best marginalized or at worst eliminated’ (Expert_4) if they allow the ‘traditional, comfortable culture that has existed for a very long time’ to prevail (Expert_4). However, when exploring and exploiting opportunities, HEIs must be mindful not to let ‘energy dissipate in inconsequential projects’ (Expert_3). Hence, an effective implementation strategy is crucial. Independently of the pathway(s) chosen, HEIs have the opportunity to ‘increase centrality as [an] engine of post-industrial knowledge-based society’ (Expert_3). Furthermore, ‘the idea of continuous learning and the increase of access in developing countries creates a big market. Working as an entrepreneurial university, the HEI will gain more proximity to the real problems and deliver better results to society’ (Expert_1).

Discussion

According to Audretsch (2014: 320), ‘perhaps it is the ability of the university to both adhere to its traditional strengths as well as adapt to the needs and concerns of society that has made it one of the most resilient institutions in society’. Nevertheless, in this study we seek to reflect on how HEIs, regardless of their current level of entrepreneurialism, should evolve in the long term to address the preoccupations and interests of entrepreneurial ecosystem stakeholders. The results demonstrate that, to live up to future expectations, HEI management needs to find innovative ways to produce human, knowledge and entrepreneurial capital concomitantly and efficiently. In this sense, HEIs need to develop new approaches to knowledge generation through decentralized, inter-, and transdisciplinary formats that include external EE stakeholders. This shift in purpose could be essential to the resolution of urgent problems and challenges (societal, economic and technological). Teaching formats and research results should be integrated through real-time innovation processes (Weber et al., 2015) in the real world, making sure that stakeholders’ perspectives remain in focus to produce value and advance knowledge societies. If such an approach is to succeed, HEIs must re-structure, starting with a mindset change that moves away from an administrative way of thinking towards an entrepreneurial mindset, sensing and seizing opportunities effectively while demonstrating an ability to act quickly and precisely to develop novel concepts agilely in teaching and research activities as well as those addressing the third mission. In this process, they should take into account the potential impact of internationalization, digital transformation and EE collaboration strategies.

In this sense, transdisciplinary learning and blended environments in HEIs should not depend on faculties; instead, stakeholders in EEs should be involved in co-creation to tackle challenges that arise in particular fields of society and/or have an impact on specific regional areas. Permeable boundaries between HEIs and their stakeholders (Etzkowitz et al., 2019; Spigel, 2017) benefit from fluid (infra)structures which ease their implementation (Teece, 2018). For instance, rethinking the HEI as a multiple hybrid organization (Kleimann, 2019) provides flexible architecture and open access points for all stakeholders to connect and communicate more effectively within HEIs or at science and technology parks (e.g., living labs and creative spaces).

So, what are the opportunities and risks for HEIs in pursuing entrepreneurial pathways? Scholars have already raised concerns about the ability of HEIs to follow those pathways. Stensaker and Benner (2013) pointed out that HEIs could be ‘doomed to be entrepreneurial’, meaning that to pursue an entrepreneurial pathway may be to embark on a road of no return. Ylinenpää (2013) indicated that some HEIs could ‘get stuck in the middle’, marginalized by HEIs epitomizing the entrepreneurial university model. If an HEI does succeed in becoming entrepreneurial, it may face a ‘paradox of success’, as exemplified by Stanford University, which underexplored the potential of academic entrepreneurship emerging from its student body by initially focusing only on research output and patenting (Etzkowitz, 2013b; Etzkowitz et al., 2019). Such risks, however, should not justify the inertia of not making strategic choices.

Our findings demonstrate that EE stakeholders’ expectations of HEIs offer opportunities for HEIs to explore, as the normative explorative scenarios are grounded in present trends (Ducot and Lubben, 1980). Hence, our findings confirm and exemplify the critical role of history in scenario thinking development (Bradfield et al., 2016). The five proposed scenarios are not mutually exclusive and do not represent the broad spectrum of possible scenarios that HEIs might face in the future. Instead, they provide valuable and novel insights and foresights to inform strategic decision-making. Our expert informants believed that a combination of these scenarios was plausible and that it might even come to pass in the short to medium term, rather than in the long-term. This adds a sense of urgency for HEIs to proactively manage the endless transition towards entrepreneurialism (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000), acknowledging the influence of exogenous and endogenous forces to ‘ignite, sensitize, consolidate and institutionalize’ an entrepreneurial culture following a nonlinear iterative process to transform themselves (Stolze, 2020). This process is assumed to ‘fully mediate the transformation capability–organizational change relationship’ inside HEIs (Zhang et al., 2019: 13).

Moreover, is it important to point out that our data collection occurred before the emergence of the Covid-19 pandemic, an unexpected exogenous force that affected HEIs’ ability to deliver teaching, research and transfer activities. The push towards digital formats during the pandemic certainly anticipates the consolidation of the blended scenario forecasted in this study. Nevertheless, the long-lasting effects of the pandemic on HEIs’ entrepreneurial pathways is a new research agenda priority. Other limitations of this study open up avenues for future research, as our findings remain contextual since entrepreneurial ecosystem stakeholders and expert informants are partisan with regard to higher education entrepreneurialism. Future research would benefit from the inclusion of different sets of stakeholders. Furthermore, subsequent studies might analyse HEIs’ change management processes, testing the desirability, feasibility, viability and sustainability of different advancement implementation strategies through quantitative and longitudinal approaches.

Conclusion

This research addressed entrepreneurial ecosystem stakeholders’ preoccupations and interests regarding the future roles of HEIs and assessed the opportunities and risks associated with HEIs pursuing these entrepreneurial pathways. The five scenarios proposed in the study provide valuable insights and foresights for HEIs to prepare for a number of plausible futures (Varum and Melo, 2010). The study supports framing decision-making agendas (Volkery and Ribeiro, 2009), enabling the generation of strategies to mitigate risks and seize opportunities (Varum and Melo, 2010) by identifying key international trends and their drivers. In practice, our study findings are ready for utilization; i.e. to support the analysis of opportunities and threats during strategic planning activities. However, independently of the strategic choices made, the adopted implementation strategies will be key to success, as each institution must develop its own entrepreneurial pathway based on its individual context.

In conclusion, our study contributes to theory on foresight studies by exemplifying the application of scenario planning in an international context while also promoting ‘social capital’ among the study’s participants (Lang and Ramírez, 2017). At the same time, it makes a contribution to scholars’ understanding of entrepreneurial pathways for HEIs by offering a systematically developed – and much needed – foresight perspective.

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

The authors are grateful for the significant addition Andreas Kuckertz (University of Hohenheim) made to this study’s conceptualization and the suggestions received from two anonymous reviewers and this journal’s editor. Moreover, we would like to thank the Triple Helix Association for endorsing this study and acknowledge the contribution of our expert informants Henry Etzkowitz (Triple Helix Institute, USA), Marcelo Amaral (Fluminense Federal University, Brazil), Paul D. Hannon (Swansea University, UK), and Val Livada (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA).

Author contributions

Audrey Stolze: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft, Project Administration; Klaus Sailer: Conceptualization, Resources, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing, Supervision.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Audrey Stolze

References

Ahmad

Halim

Ramayah

, et al. (2018) The ecosystem of entrepreneurial university: the case of higher education in a developing country. International Journal of Technology Management 78(1–2): 52–69.

Almeida

(2008) Innovation and entrepreneurship in Brazilian universities. International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development 7(1): 39–58.

Amaral

Ferreira

Teodoro

(2011) Building an entrepreneurial university in Brazil: the role and potential of university–industry linkages in promoting regional economic development. Industry and Higher Education 25(5): 383–395.

Amer

Daim

Jetter

(2013) A review of scenario planning. Futures 46: 23–40.

Andersson

Serger

Sörvik

, et al. (2004) Cluster Policies Whitebook. Malmo: International Organisation for Knowledge Economy and Enterprise Development. Available at: https://lucris.lub.lu.se/ws/files/5954460/1304064.pdf (accessed 20 January 2020).

Audretsch

(2014) From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society. Journal of Technology Transfer 39(3): 313–321.

Audretsch

(2019) Have we oversold the Silicon Valley model of entrepreneurship? Small Business Economics: 1–8. DOI: 10.1007/s11187-019-00272-4.

Balven

Fenters

Siegel

, et al. (2018) Academic entrepreneurship: the roles of organizational justice, championing, education, work-life balance, identity, and motivation. Academy of management Perspectives 32(1).

Bernasconi

(2005) University entrepreneurship in a developing country: the case of the P. Universidad Católica de Chile, 1985–2000. Higher Education 50(2): 247–274.

10.

Beyhan

Findik

(2018) Student and graduate entrepreneurship: ambidextrous universities create more nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Technology Transfer 43(5): 1346–1374.

11.

Bhayani

(2015) Building entrepreneurial universities in a specific culture – barriers and opportunities. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 330: 312–330.

12.

Bootz

Durance

Monti

(2019) Foresight and knowledge management. New developments in theory and practice. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 140: 80–83.

13.

Bradfield

Derbyshire

Wright

(2016) The critical role of history in scenario thinking: augmenting causal analysis within the intuitive logics scenario development methodology. Futures 77: 56–66.

14.

Bradfield

Wright

Burt

, et al. (2005) The origins and evolution of scenario techniques in long range business planning. Futures 37(8): 795–812.

15.

Bramwell

Wolfe

(2008) Universities and regional economic development: the entrepreneurial University of Waterloo. Research Policy 37(8): 1175–1187.

16.

Branco

(2020) A Expansao da Educacao On-line. O Globo. Available at: https://infoglobo.pressreader.com/o-globo/20200101 (accessed 1 January 2020).

17.

Bronstein

Reihlen

(2014) Entrepreneurial university archetypes: a meta-synthesis of case study literature. Industry and Higher Education 28(4): 245–262.

18.

Cairns

Wright

Fairbrother

(2016) Promoting articulated action from diverse stakeholders in response to public policy scenarios: a case analysis of the use of “scenario improvisation” method. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 103: 97–108.

19.

Centobelli

Cerchione

Esposito

(2019) Exploration and exploitation in the development of more entrepreneurial universities: a twisting learning path model of ambidexterity. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 141: 172–194.

20.

Clark

(1998) The entrepreneurial university: demand and response. Tertiary Education and Management 4(1): 5–16.

21.

Clark

(2004) Delineating the character of the entrepreneurial university. Higher Education Policy 17(4): 355–370.

22.

Clauss

Moussa

Kesting

(2018) Entrepreneurial university: a stakeholder-based conceptualisation of the current state and an agenda for future research. International Journal of Technology Management 77(1–3): 109–144.

23.

Crawford

(2019) A comprehensive scenario intervention typology. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 149: 119748.

24.

De Jager

Mthembu

Ngowi

, et al. (2017) Towards an innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystem: a case study of the Central University of Technology, Free State. Science, Technology and Society 22(2): 310–331.

25.

Djuricic

Bootz

(2019) Effectuation and foresight – an exploratory study of the implicit links between the two concepts. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 140: 115–128.

26.

Ducot

Lubben

(1980) A typology for scenarios. Futures 12(1): 51–57.

27.

Elia

Secundo

Passiante

(2017) Pathways towards the entrepreneurial university for creating entrepreneurial engineers: an Italian case. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management 21(1–2): 27–48.

28.

Etzkowitz

(2004) The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation 1(1): 64–77.

29.

Etzkowitz

(2013a) Anatomy of the entrepreneurial university. Social Science Information 52(3): 486–511.

30.

Etzkowitz

(2013b) StartX and the “Paradox of Success”: filling the gap in Stanford’s entrepreneurial culture. Social Science Information 52(4): 605–627.

31.

Etzkowitz

(2014) The entrepreneurial university wave: from ivory tower to global economic engine. Industry and Higher Education 28(4): 223–232.

32.

Etzkowitz

(2016) The entrepreneurial university: vision and metrics. Industry and Higher Education 30(2): 83–97.

33.

Etzkowitz

(2019) Is Silicon Valley a global model or unique anomaly? Industry and Higher Education 33(2): 83–95.

34.

Etzkowitz

Germain-Alamartine

Keel

, et al. (2019) Entrepreneurial university dynamics: structured ambivalence, relative deprivation and institution-formation in the Stanford innovation system. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 141: 159–171.

35.

Etzkowitz

Leydesdorff

(2000) The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy 29: 109–123.

36.

Etzkowitz

Ranga

(2010) A Triple Helix system for knowledge-based regional development: from “spheres” to “spaces.” In: VIII Triple Helix International Conference, Madrid, 20–22 October 2010, pp. 1–29.

37.

European Commission (2006a) Delivering on the Modernisation Agenda for Universities: Education, Research And Innovation, COM(2006) 208 final. Brussels. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0208:FIN:EN:PDF (accessed 28 January 2020).

38.

European Commission (2006b) The Oslo Agenda for Entrepreneurship Education in Europe. Oslo. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/entrepreneurship/support_measures/training_education/oslo.htm (accessed 28 January 2020).

39.

European Commission (2013) ENTREPRENEURSHIP 2020 ACTION PLAN: Reigniting the Entrepreneurial Spirit in Europe, COM (2012) 795 final. Brussels. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0795&from=EN (accessed 28 January 2020).

40.

Frith

Tapinos

(2020) Opening the “black box” of scenario planning through realist synthesis. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 151: 119801.

41.

Fumasoli

Barbato

Turri

(2019) The determinants of university strategic positioning: a reappraisal of the organisation. Higher Education 80: 305–334. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-019-00481-6.

42.

Fuster

Padilla-Meléndez

Lockett

, et al. (2019) The emerging role of university spin-off companies in developing regional entrepreneurial university ecosystems: the case of Andalusia. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 141: 219–231.

43.

Gianiodis

Meek

(2019) Entrepreneurial education for the entrepreneurial university: a stakeholder perspective. The Journal of Technology Transfer 45: 1167–1195.

44.

Gibb

(2002) In pursuit of a new “enterprise” and paradigm for learning: creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combinations of knowledge. International Journal of Management Reviews 4(3): 233–269.

45.

Gibb

Hannon

(2006) Towards the entrepreneurial university? International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education 4(1): 73–110.

46.

Goldstein

(2010) The “entrepreneurial turn” and regional economic development mission of universities. The Annals of Regional Science 44: 83–109.

47.

Guerrero

Cunningham

Urbano

(2015) Economic impact of entrepreneurial universities’ activities: an exploratory study of the United Kingdom. Research Policy 44(3): 748–764.

48.

Guerrero

Kirby

Urbano

(2006) A literature review on entrepreneurial universities: an institutional approach. In: 3rd conference of pre-communications to congresses, Barcelona, 2006, pp. 1–28.

49.

Guerrero

Urbano

(2012) The development of an entrepreneurial university. Journal of Technology Transfer 37(1): 43–74.

50.

Guzman

Stern

(2015) Where is Silicon Valley? Science 347(6222): 606–609.

51.

Hannon

(2013) Letter from academia: why is the entrepreneurial university important? Journal of Innovation Management 1(2): 10–17.

52.

Hussain

Tapinos

Knight

(2017) Scenario-driven roadmapping for technology foresight. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 124: 160–177.

53.

Inayatullah

(2008) Six pillars: futures thinking for transforming. Foresight 10(1): 4–21.

54.

Jacob

Lundqvist

Hellsmark

(2003) Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish university system: the case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research Policy 32(9): 1555–1568.

55.

Kirby

(2006) Creating entrepreneurial universities in the UK: applying entrepreneurship theory to practice. Journal of Technology Transfer 31(5): 599–603.

56.

Klag

Langley

(2013) Approaching the conceptual leap in qualitative research. International Journal of Management Reviews 15(2): 149–166.

57.

Kleimann

(2019) (German) universities as multiple hybrid organizations. Higher Education 77(6): 1085–1102.

58.

Klofsten

Fayolle

Guerrero

, et al. (2019) The entrepreneurial university as driver for economic growth and social change – key strategic challenges. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 141: 149–158.

59.

Kuckertz

(2019) Let’s take the entrepreneurial ecosystem metaphor seriously! Journal of Business Venturing Insights 11: e00124.

60.

Lahikainen

Kolhinen

Ruskovaara

, et al. (2019) Challenges to the development of an entrepreneurial university ecosystem: the case of a Finnish university campus. Industry and Higher Education 33(2): 96–107.

61.

Lang

Ramírez

(2017) Building new social capital with scenario planning. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 124: 51–65.

62.

Laredo

(2007) Revisiting the third mission of universities: toward a renewed categorization of university activities? Higher Education Policy 20(4): 441–456.

63.

Lazzeretti

Tavoletti

(2005) Higher education excellence and local economic development: the case of the entrepreneurial University of Twente. European Planning Studies 13(3): 475–493.

64.

Lopes

Ferreira

Farinha

, et al. (2020) Emerging perspectives on regional academic entrepreneurship. Higher Education Policy 33(2): 367–395.

65.

McGowan

van der

Sijde P

Kirby

(2008) The role of universities in the entrepreneurship industry. Industry and Higher Education 22(1): 49–59.

66.

Mackay

Stoyanova

(2017) Scenario planning with a sociological eye: augmenting the intuitive logics approach to understanding the future of Scotland and the UK. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 124: 88–100.

67.

Martin

(1995) Foresight in science and technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 7(2): 139–168.

68.

Masini

(2006) Rethinking futures studies. Futures 38(10): 1158–1168.

69.

O’Brien

(2004) Scenario planning – lessons for practice from teaching and learning. European Journal of Operational Research 152(3): 709–722.

70.

O’Brien

Meadows

(2013) Scenario orientation and use to support strategy development. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 80(4): 643–656.

71.

Phillips

Park

, et al. (2016) Innovation ecosystems: a critical examination. Technovation 54: 1–6.

72.

Perkmann

Tartari

McKelvey

, et al. (2013) Academic engagement and commercialisation: a review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy 42(2): 423–442.

73.

Philpott

Dooley

O’Reilly

, et al. (2011) The entrepreneurial university: examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation 31(4): 161–170.

74.

Pinheiro

Stensaker

(2014) Designing the entrepreneurial university: the interpretation of a global idea. Public Organization Review 14(4): 497–516.

75.

Powell

Owen-Smith

Colyvas

(2007) Innovation and emulation: lessons from American universities in selling private rights to public knowledge. Minerva 45(2): 121–142.

76.

Ram

(2020) Scenario presentation and scenario generation in multi-criteria assessments: an exploratory study. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 151: 119850.

77.

Ramírez

Mukherjee

Vezzoli

, et al. (2015) Scenarios as a scholarly methodology to produce “interesting research.” Futures 71: 70–87.

78.

Ramírez

Selin

(2014) Plausibility and probability in scenario planning. Foresight 16(1): 54–74.

79.

Rothaermel

Agung

Jiang

(2007) University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change 16(4): 691–791.

80.

Roundy

Bradshaw

Brockman

(2018) The emergence of entrepreneurial ecosystems: a complex adaptive systems approach. Journal of Business Research 86: 1–10.

81.

Salamzadeh

Farsi

Motavaseli

, et al. (2015) Institutional factors affecting the transformation of entrepreneurial universities. International Journal of Business and Globalisation 14(3): 271–291.

82.

Salmi

(2001) Tertiary education in the 21st century: challenges and opportunities. Higher Education Management 13(2): 105–128.

83.

Sam

van der

Sijde P

(2014) Understanding the concept of entrepreneurial university from the perspective of higher education model. Higher Education 68(6): 891–908.

84.

Schwarz

(2020) Revisiting scenario planning and business wargaming from an open strategy perspective. World Futures Review 12(3): 291–303. DOI: 10.1177/1946756720953182.

85.

Shattock

(2010) The entrepreneurial university: an idea for its time. London Review of Education 8(3): 863–871.

86.

Slaughter

Leslie

(1997) Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

87.

Spigel

(2017) The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 41(1): 49–72.

88.

Stensaker

Benner

(2013) Doomed to be entrepreneurial: institutional transformation or institutional lock-ins of “new” universities? Minerva 51(4): 399–416.

89.

Stolze

(2020) A meta-ethnography on higher education institutions’ transformation into more entrepreneurial institutions: towards an action-framework proposition. Industry and Higher Education. Epub ahead of print 6 May 2020. DOI: 10.1177/0950422220922677.

90.

Teece

(2018) Managing the university: why “organized anarchy” is unacceptable in the age of massive open online courses. Strategic Organization 16(1): 92–102.

91.

Tuunainen

(2005) Contesting a hybrid firm at a traditional university. Social Studies of Science 35(2): 173–210.

92.

van der Heijden

(2005) Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation, 2nd edn. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

93.

van Notten

PWF

Rotmans

Van Asselt

, et al. (2003) An updated scenario typology. Futures 35(5): 423–443.

94.

Varum

Melo

(2010) Directions in scenario planning literature – a review of the past decades. Futures 42(4): 355–369.

95.

Volkery

Ribeiro

(2009) Scenario planning in public policy: understanding use, impacts and the role of institutional context factors. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 76(9): 1198–1207.

96.

Weber

Sailer

Katzy

(2015) Real-time foresight – preparedness for dynamic networks. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 101: 299–313.

97.

Wong

Singh

(2007) Towards an “entrepreneurial university” model to support knowledge-based economic development: the case of the National University of Singapore. World Development 35(6): 941–958.

98.

Wright

Bradfield

Cairns

(2013) Does the intuitive logics method – and its recent enhancements – produce “effective” scenarios? Technological Forecasting & Social Change 80(4): 631–642.

99.

Ylinenpää

(2013) “In search of excellence” or “stuck in the middle”? The quest to build a (more) entrepreneurial third-generation university. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing 5(2): 153–167.

100.

Yokoyama

(2006) Entrepreneurialism in Japanese and UK universities: governance, management, leadership and funding. Higher Education 52(3): 523–555.

101.

Zhang

Wang

O’Kane

(2019) Realized absorptive capacity and entrepreneurial universities’ organizational change: the role of process innovation practices. R&D Management 49(5): 716–733.

102.

Zhou

Peng

(2008) The entrepreneurial university in China: nonlinear paths. Science and Public Policy 35(9): 637–646.