What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields (Chinese Translation)

Competition and strategy in higher education: Managing complexity and uncertainty

The Third Mission of the university: A systematic literature review on potentials and constraints

In the knowledge society, universities have assumed new missions and relations in order to contribute to economic and social development, while preserving their own sustainability. This article aims to explore scientific literature on innovation and entrepreneurship in the academic setting, describing how the field is organized, main terms and definitions, theoretical frameworks, and empirical models, in order to direct future research. A systematic literature review was conducted, in which articles indexed at Web of Science were initially submitted to a bibliometric analysis. Then, the content of a set of articles best fitting the objectives of the study was analyzed. Bibliometric analysis shows an increasing literature, with publications over more than 40 years. There are studies from many disciplines, with those in business and economics prevailing, mainly related to management and originating from the USA and Europe. Content analysis shows a fragmented literature, with definitions not showing a clear relationship between innovation and entrepreneurship, or their use within universities in coherence with their traditional definitions. Both theoretical frameworks and empirical models are very heterogeneous, but four groups of studies were identified based on their theoretical frameworks, and also based on their empirical models. With only a few exceptions, empirical models do not share many components and variables, and there are no clear boundaries between the different models. Despite the increasing literature, it is still fragmented and undertheorized, requiring more systematic and holistic studies, considering both the economic and the social aspects of innovation and entrepreneurship within universities.

Innovation and entrepreneurship in the academic setting: a systematic literature review

University–industry cooperation: A systematic literature review and research agenda

Over the last few decades, globalization and ever-increasing demands of the knowledge-based economy have caused higher education in most countries around the world to undergo significant transformation. Notwithstanding the dramatic changes in higher education, it is clearly noticed that the influence of the European higher education models is still present despite the fact that the American model has then become dominant on higher education in Europe or even worldwide. The changes have been seen in the evolutionary roles of universities, which share the common trend from traditional missions of teaching and research to the third mission for economic development. Despite various viewpoints about the third mission, the common one concerns the entrepreneurial role of university for socio-economic development, underlying the concept of entrepreneurial university in which the collaboration between university and external stakeholders is emphasized. This paper is aimed to present a review of the taxonomy of the three European higher education models, namely the Humboldtian, Napoleonic, and Anglo-Saxon model, which is followed by a discussion on the emergence of the Anglo-American model of higher education. The paper then presents the third mission in relation to the roles of a university in developed countries, which is followed by the elaboration on the transformation from mode 1 to mode 2 in knowledge production, and a pathway toward entrepreneurial universities.

Understanding the concept of the entrepreneurial university from the perspective of higher education models

Previous studies on school dropout in Cambodia often used data from subjects after they already dropped out or statistics from education-related institutions. Using data from children in two rural provinces before they dropped out, this study examines four main factors in order to identify their influence on primary school dropout in Cambodia. Results from logistic regression analysis revealed that some predictors on individual, family, and school factors were found to be statistically significant to predict the odds of dropout in both grades 1 and 5, whereas poverty and child labor could not be detected, though they have been frequently cited as major predictors in the literature of school dropout in Cambodia as well as developing countries.

Revisiting primary school dropout in rural Cambodia

This article examines how stakeholders involve themselves in the higher education (HE) sector in donor-dependent Cambodia and to what extent and with what result these stakeholders succeed to collaborate, or fail to do so. This study is based on qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with 46 key research participants from relevant institutions representing the major stakeholders in the sector. The triple helix model, advocating a close government-university-industry collaboration, is employed as a guiding tool for data analysis. The study identifies four categories of stakeholders in the sector, namely government, development partners, HE institutions, and the industries. The stakeholders contribute to the sector in diverging ways and at different levels. Despite their involvement, collaboration among stakeholders has remained very limited, impeding the advancement of the sector. Thus, stakeholder collaboration, as postulated in the triple helix model, has yet to emerge in the Cambodian context.

Stakeholder involvement in the higher education sector in Cambodia

This paper develops insight into the way in which twenty-first century universities worldwide have performed in the changing world and challenges that they have undergone, in order to address the ever-changing demands of the global knowledge-based economy within the innovative ecosystem. It firstly reviews current theory and practice on entrepreneurial universities. It also analyses the current dispersion of science outside academia, via laws, policies and processes of marketization more broadly. It addresses governance issues which are relevant for both researchers and policy makers, and lastly, sketches the contours of a new research and policy agenda for entrepreneurial universities via reformulating their “third task”. The issues and questions on this agenda provide focal points in discussions and policy debates on the current state and governance of the ‘entrepreneurial’ university. They reflect the importance of (1) rethinking the relation between publicly funded universities cooperating with private parties, (2) the kind of professionals delivered to society by universities, (3) the role of universities as entrepreneurs in innovation ecosystems, (4) the relation between societal relevance and commercial relevance of research, (5) implications of increased dispersion of research activities outside academia, and (6) the independence of academics cooperating with private partners in research projects.

Understanding the governance of the engaged and entrepreneurial university in the twenty-first century : Towards a new research and policy agenda

Knowledge circulation and the entrepreneurial university have become essential to the functioning of regional innovation systems. What does this mean for the three core tasks of universities – teaching, doing scientific research, and making a societal contribution? How can the changing of these tasks be analyzed in the context of the role of the entrepreneurial university in knowledge circulation? Which challenges does a sharpened focus on knowledge circulation entail for the entrepreneurial university and which issues should be on the top of the agenda of the boards of universities and policy makers to stimulate knowledge circulation? This chapter discusses the role of entrepreneurial universities in processes of knowledge circulation and sketches the contours of an agenda to actively stimulate processes of knowledge circulation at entrepreneurial universities.

/pdf/entrepreneurial-universities-and-knowledge-circulation-2dwttcmlt0.pdf

Chanphirun Sam

Papers

Understanding the concept of the entrepreneurial university from the perspective of higher education models

Revisiting primary school dropout in rural Cambodia

Stakeholder involvement in the higher education sector in Cambodia

Understanding the governance of the engaged and entrepreneurial university in the twenty-first century : Towards a new research and policy agenda

Entrepreneurial Universities and Knowledge Circulation: Challenges to University-Industry Interaction