5.3. Formal Answers to the Research Questions
The three level of the Platonic research ontology (see chapter 1 section 1.2.2. for explanation) are used to illustrate how the results of the research relate to each other. On level 3, which represents Plato’s realm of ideas and values, the research develops a position regarding the idea of the university in the knowledge society (see chapter 1 section 1.3.4. (2) and below). On the second level (Plato’s realm of forms or rational theoretic conceptualisations of the world) the research puts forward a systematic conceptualisation of knowledge entrepreneurship in universities (see research question 1. below). Finally on the third, level we witness the instrumentalist level and the question of how the current practice and strategy in universities is with regards to internet based opportunity exploitation. See below for how the focus example of knowledge entrepreneurship is dealt with through the research question 2.

level_gross.jpg

Figure 5.1 – Platonic Research Ontology

Furthermore, it seems important to point out that, while a clear position regarding the idea and mandate of the university is taken (Chapter 1 section 1.3.4.2.), the researcher is aware of the fact that the debate about the entrepreneurial university “is strongly polarized” (Vestergaard, 2007) and one of the original contributions of this research is that it develops a novel – potentially consensual – normative position (level 3 of figure 5.1): Traditional (economic) entrepreneurship (technology transfer, spin-off and company creation, etc.) is not criticized, but rather set in perspective against the core mandate of the university, which is to deliver knowledge products and services. Hence, it is argued that knowledge entrepreneurship allows universities to reap the positive effects of the vitalizing qualities of the entrepreneurial spirit, while not falling into the neo-liberal ‘education as business’ trap. As such, it is a constructive contribution because rather than arguing against, or for ‘entrepreneurial universities,’ it is attempting to reframe ‘entrepreneurial’ to become more adequate in the academic context. Furthermore, it is important to point out that according to the complexity science paradigm, the controversies and disequilibrium of positions inherent therein are good because they stimulate and energize all sides.

Given the dominance of the knowledge telos for entrepreneurial researchers, they are pursuing innovative knowledge products and are thereby opportunity providers for other types of entrepreneurs (e.g. economic or social). This is an important division of labour, because the ‘great leader’ entrepreneur, who controls and manages everything is a normative illusion. Snowdon makes this point when arguing: “convert all [academics] to spin-off company technical directors and watch UK academic research output falter as they concentrate their efforts on bringing just one idea to the market” (Snowdon, 2003in Vestergaard, 2007), rather than continuously researching and providing opportunities.

In the following paragraphs the two research questions are answered referencing the relevant sections of the thesis.

1. What enables strategic and practical knowledge entrepreneurship in universities?

According to the findings, two interdependent conditions are needed for knowledge entrepreneurship to happen. First the university needs to develop a knowledge entrepreneurial mindset (see Chapter 4 section 4.2.4). A philosophical model of a knowledge entrepreneurial mindset has been developed and illustrated using the cases investigated (see figure 5.2). It contains the following four attractors: (1) an internal locus of control, (2) a set of values that construct the entity’s teleology, (3) pragmatism ensuring a focus on realization and learning by doing (cybernetic) optimisation, and (4) ethics and sustainability have to make up a central attractor to ensure long-term feasibility, (this fosters social acceptance as well as triggers self-reflection and subsequent differentiation).

MindsetGestell.jpg

Figure 5.2 - Philosophical Model of an Entrepreneurial Mindset

The second aspect that needs to be present is a supporting infrastructure (gestell – see Chapter 4 section 4.2.5) embodying and therefore enabling the implementation of the mindset (figure 5.3 visualizes the two aspects)[i] . The key elements of the gestell for knowledge entrepreneurship are: (a) a governance structure that allows for distributed leadership and spielraum (leverage) for actors to be opportunistic; (b) also a wide variety of space for knowledge activities and informal spaces are also singled out as providing fertile ground for opportunities to emerge; (c) the definition and institutionalisation of entrepreneurship support functions as observed at the UPCnet innovation team; and finally, the traditionally prioritized subjects of investigation (d) resources in the form of human-, political- and financial-capital. Naming them last does not neglect their importance, but acknowledges that entrepreneurial thinking is not primarily bounded by resources, but rather by challenges.


MindsetGestell.jpg
Figure 5.3 - Organisational Mindset & Gestell


2. How do universities integrate internet based innovations in their practices?

No single model has been found to describe the strategy and practices of universities in this regard. Three approaches have been described (see chapter 4 section 4.1.4.) none of which seemed naturally superior. Rather, each approach was a historic result embedded in the organisational context. It is assessed that the lack of an established theoretic paradigm and the heterogeneity of approaches resulted in findings suggestive of the conclusion that optimal practice depends, above all, upon the specific internal and external context of the specific organisation.

The following phenomena have been found across the cases and are hence suitable for generalization:

i) Strategy: While two universities did have IT strategies and two did not, in none of the cases was innovation a defined activity . What was treated was always the instance and not the constant phenomenon.

ii) Practice: While there is an extensive heterogeneity amongst user propensity and freedom to engage in knowledge entrepreneurship, nowhere is internet based innovation appropriation supported for individuals. All universities have created a specialized institution with the exclusive mandate to promote e-learning.

iii) The benefits of e-learning are used complementarily to traditional educational practices, and even in the case of the UOC no fundamentally new pedagogy was used, rather processes were simply restructured – as in translated - in order to exploit the conditional benefits of the medium. Instead, a complete re-engineering (as in new construction) of the practices has been argued to lead to revolutionary results (Privateer, 1999).

iv) The potential for e-research is not yet adequately identified. Some cases of knowledge entrepreneurship are really pioneering new modes of science, as reported in this chapters best practice section (5.1.1.), but generally the activities of the universities investigated are all at basic levels of development.

Also multiple and interesting cases of such knowledge entrepreneurship have been found mostly on an individual basis, but also in the very intriguing cases of the I2CAT research initiative (UPC case study section 3.3.12.1) and the UPCnet innovation team (UPC case study section 3.3.11.2.). These have further contributed to the findings herein reported (Chapter 4).


Herewith I come to the end of this work, hopefully having convinced you of two things:
(1) That knowledge entrepreneurship is a cogent and apt argument to frame the idea of the university in the 21st century. This is true because it combines the positive creative destruction of entrepreneurship but also acknowledges the socio-transformational mandate of universities (and education as a whole).
(2) An entrepreneurial mindset coupled with gestell are the necessary components to develop the capacity to constantly exploit the strategic opportunities for innovation (as has been described in the case of internet based innovation appropriation).

In conclusion, the assessment made in 2004 by the chairman of the Spanish Rectors’ Information Technology Working Group seems still to be true for Europe in 2007 “less than 15 per cent of universities had a long-term strategy on how to integrate new technology” (Warden, 2004). He suggested: "Universities should allocate at least 5 per cent of their resources to this, with the lion's share going to staffing levels and training lecturers" (ibid)

 

--------------------------------

 

[i] One theme for further research would be the investigation of how to codify and spread the mindset. Some indications have been developed in the paper: “A code of conduct for internet use” (Duart & Senges, 2006)




[ Back ]