Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.762053
Title: An investigation into the determinants and characteristics of the entrepreneurial university : evidence from entrepreneurial universities in the UK
Author: Lamidi, Kafayat K.
ISNI:       0000 0004 7654 9323
Awarding Body: University of Huddersfield
Current Institution: University of Huddersfield
Date of Award: 2018
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Full text unavailable from EThOS. Thesis embargoed until 03 Aug 2020
Access from Institution:
Abstract:
My first major contribution to knowledge is that practically, I modified the European (EU) framework (2012) by introducing a 3x3 best practice model to advance policy and strategy of entrepreneurship in the higher education sectors. My second major contribution is that theoretically, I used evolutionary resource-based view (RBV) theory to analyse all-encompassing factors influencing how universities co-evolve with their external environment to become more entrepreneurial which has been predominantly utilised as an internal analysis only. An evolutionary view of resource-based theory argues that variation in universities' approaches towards entrepreneurialism is underpinned by their resources and capabilities. Therefore, this research draws on the evolutionary perspective of RBV to explore both internal and external factors. Thereby extending RBV with a taxonomy of factors. My third major contribution is that conceptually, I utilised the strategic corporate entrepreneurship (CE) as a complementary concept to explore how entrepreneurial practices are configured in university settings. This is essential because CE has widely been used to advance the understanding of entrepreneurial activities within established and large private firms only. The strategic view of CE argues that an organisation might not have developed a new business but understand how to explore opportunities in a highly turbulent environment involving multiple actors. In doing so, it provides a comprehensive analysis into the classification of and strategy types behind why some universities are high in entrepreneurial activities than others and how coordination of such activities results in heightening entrepreneurial edge. While branding the activities into classifications, I extend CE with local, national, EU, and international levels of impacts of the entrepreneurial engagement and strategy types. Therefore, the integration of RBV with CE is important to advance our understanding of why and how some pre-1992 (established/old) and post-1992 (new) of the 'self-defined' universities are considered 'entrepreneurial'. Thus, have implications for strategy and management practices. The study develops a 3x3 practical model that can shape strategy, practice, and policy of entrepreneurship in university settings. This is essential because there is a lack of clarity in terms of how the seven components of the entrepreneurial university identified in the EU framework applies to the UK context. Therefore, this qualitative case study research is underpinned by an integrated lens of both RBV theory and CE concept to explore how fifteen (15) UK self-defined entrepreneurial universities are responding to the policy impreative 'becoming more entrepreneurial'. Through the combination of qualitative methods, thirty-two (32) key informant interviews were complemented with document analysis and participant-led visual methods. In contrast to the findings of the EU framework, my analysis generated three taxonomies of factors, three classifications of characteristics, and three typologies of the entrepreneurial university. In doing so, it highlights some policy and practice implications including having a cohesive and coherent strategy and how well-coordinated entrepreneurial activities enhance competitive position in today's higher education marketplace. Consequently, it offers valuable experience for university leaders and managers to deliberate on their strategies and management practices for entrepreneurialism. As such, the primary beneficiaries of the research contributions are universities and the secondary include funding councils, higher education policy planners, small and medium enterprises (SMEs), practitioners, and researchers.
Supervisor: Mswaka, Walter ; Davies, Julie Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.762053  DOI: Not available
Keywords: LB2300 Higher Education
Share: