In this PhD research I will attempt to (1) convince you of the usefulness and functionality of the
knowledge entrepreneurship concept by (2) explaining how the concept and its phenomena
have been identified (a) in the strategy and practice of universities and (b) in the reflective
knowledge venture of realizing this thesis as a knowledge product. At present, there is no
philosophical conceptualization of entrepreneurship, but rather lived practice and instrumental
(applied) best practice collections. So far the concept of entrepreneurship is strongly connected
to business, but lately political and especially social entrepreneurship have been conceptualized
successfully. This research proposes an integrated meta-theory of entrepreneurship1 and
develops the notion of knowledge entrepreneurship – which is assessed to be a beneficial
contribution especially to the discourse about the entrepreneurial university2. I hope the position
developed helps to bridge the divide between pro and contra entrepreneurship in university by
articulating and advocating for a position that focuses on entrepreneurship which isn’t
exclusively shackled to economic benefits, but instead allows for entrepreneurship aimed at
knowledge benefits.

The strategy and practices of how internet based innovations – as entrepreneurial opportunities
- are appropriated has proven to be a fruitful example. Specifically, as a source to research
knowledge entrepreneurship in the form of e-learning and e-research practices; because it is in
these fields wherein opportunities for creative destruction constantly arise.

As described in Methodology Chapter 2.1.1. the choice of following a grounded theory research
based approach allowed for a natural development and amendment of the research question:
components: knowledge entrepreneurship, higher education studies, and internet based innovation appropriation.

It begins with knowledge entrepreneurship and the historic and theoretic trajectory of the
developments that lead to the necessity of the concept of knowledge entrepreneurship as a
paradigm in the knowledge society. Next, the concrete understanding and definitions of the term
as well as an originating theory are put forward. Thereby, the components ‘entrepreneurship’
and ‘knowledge’ are formally defined, after which the working definition is put forward:
Knowledge entrepreneurship describes the ability to recognize or create an opportunity
and take action aimed at realizing the innovative knowledge practice or product. Second,
the publications that use the knowledge entrepreneurship term are reviewed, and finally, I will
present the originating model of knowledge entrepreneurship, which is an amended version of
the findings of McDonald’s (2002) PhD research on knowledge entrepreneurship in hospitals.

Once the core theme of the research has been defined, the context of the discourse of the
university in the network society is addressed. After introducing the sociological frame of the
network society developed by Castells (1996; , 2000) and reviewing the discourse on the
entrepreneurial university, the position of the researcher is presented as an argument for the
university as a public institution. Once the normative position has been made explicit, the theme
of knowledge entrepreneurship in the university will first be developed by reviewing the literature
about knowledge management in universities, and then by elaborating on the university as a
knowledge entrepreneur as proposed by Fuller (2006). Finally, the stage for dealing with the
practice and strategy of internet based innovation appropriation will be set by elaborating on the
organisational aspects of the university as a vessel of knowledge transmission.

The theoretic background of the last thematic aspect of the research - innovation appropriation,
which is used as an example of a field of practice for knowledge entrepreneurship, is presented
in the last section of this chapter. General insights about innovation and innovation in
universities are complemented with elaborations regarding the conditions and particularities of
innovation in cyberspace and the internet.

Chapter 2 presents the research design and its methodology. At first, the overall approach and
the development of the research questions are recounted. Then, the two research methods
applied (case study and phenomenological action research) are depicted in theory as well as in
concrete application. The chapter closes with the description of how the findings were
abstracted and developed into theoretic propositions.

Chapter 3 contains the four case studies that make up the heart of the empirical field work. The
case studies are meant to illustrate the setting, the conditions regarding practices and strategy,
as well as the position regarding academic results produced by the institution.
It is important to point out that it is not the objective at this stage to work out each institution’s knowledge
entrepreneurship, but rather to produce an actor validated description and analysis of the
current situation in general. The cases are then subsequently used in chapter 4 to theorise and
empirically ground the concept of knowledge entrepreneurship in universities.

Chapter 4 has two parts. First, the case studies are formally contrasted, especially with regards
to their strategy and practice in internet based innovation appropriation. Second, the concept of
knowledge entrepreneurship is developed theoretically.

In the first part, an illustrated objective is contrasting the highly diverse sample in order to
explore the whole spectrum of university institutions. This general contrasting is then
complemented by an analysis and classification/typologization of how the different institutions
deal with the challenges of exploiting internet based innovations for their educational and
research needs.

In the second part, the original theoretic contribution of the research is developed. Based on the
understanding of the essential conditions at universities (gained through the case studies), as
well as on the phenomenological action research conducted by the researcher as knowledge
entrepreneur, an innovative conceptualisation of knowledge entrepreneurship is presented and
applied to the case studies. According to the proposition, the concept is divided into an inner
and an outer environment. Following Simon the research is “drawing the line between outer and
inner environment, not as the firm’s boundary, but at the skin of the entrepreneur, so that the
factory is part of the external technology; the brain, perhaps assisted by computers, is the
internal” (Simon, 1996, p. 25). In this research the terminology of an internal mindset and an
external gestell (infrastructure) has been chosen.

The entrepreneurial mindset (Faltin, 2007) as constitutive for identity and persona (Erikson,
1974) is developed beginning with existentialist illumination (Aufklaerung); resulting in an actor
that takes decisions based on his free will (or internal locus of control). The paper
subsequently develops three more strange attractors around philosophical programs –
axiology/teleology, pragmatism, and ethics/sustainability - deemed essential for
entrepreneurship. The presentation first follows the format of elaborating on the nature of the
mindset components and then applying it to the universities investigated in the case studies.

The external component of the knowledge entrepreneurship concept exists out of the following
components: the entity’s governance structure, the spatial arrangement, the availability of
informality and transparency, and lastly, the availability of resources.

The last part of the chapter reviews the congruence of the findings with the originating theory
which was an amended version of the theory developed by McDonald (2002). It is found that the

components represent important aspects of knowledge entrepreneurship, and that the theory is
correct, but that it is suggested to be amplified by an organisational context and through efforts
to create an entrepreneurial mindset and gestell. In fact, the components of the originating
theory are only one aspect of practices that need to be institutionalized in order to provide for an
efficient gestell.

The last chapter, chapter 5, is divided into four parts. The first presents a set of cases of “best of
breed” knowledge entrepreneurship, allowing for a better understanding of what the target
practices can look like. The second deals with conclusions regarding the practical implications
of the paradigm shift from Clark’s suggestion of applying (essentially economic)
entrepreneurship to universities-- transitioning into a knowledge entrepreneurship paradigm for
universities. Next, (3) an assessment of the state of digitization in universities is compared to
civil society organisations and financial markets. The chapter closes with (4) the formal
answering of the research questions by summarizing and referencing the findings presented in
chapter 3.