Entrepreneurial universities in less innovative regions: problems and solutions
Innovative and research activities within universities are increasingly linked with regional socio-economic conditions and innovative capacities of local business. In less innovative Russian regions, though, prospects for mid-range universities might be limited due to poor research quality and the lack of mutual trust between Academia and industry. In this paper university-level data are analysed in relation to regional innovative development. Despite gross heterogeneity within the sample, the findings suggest that research and commercialization propensities are likely to be shaped by the type of university, its proactive approach and internal structure rather than regional settings. Mid-range universities might consider less formal ways to contribute to regional innovation systems, which is more in line with ‘engaged’ rather than ‘entrepreneurial’ university approach.
The role of universities has undergone dramatic changes. Universities no longer only host knowledge, but are now required to develop it further and to contribute to economic growth and support for e.g. companies to strengthen their competitiveness. This is of particular importance for the Russian Federation, where the last 20 years saw the dismantlement of the innovation system of the Soviet Union and ever since has been struggling to close the gap to the innovation-driven economies of Western Europe. When the Russian Federation shifted towards a market economy in the 1990s, economists, sociologists, political scientists and/or management staff educated in modern principles of management were in short supply. To alleviate the situation, the State University - the Higher School of Economics - was founded November 27, 1992 by the Russian Federation Government Decree No 736 to educate future leading professionals in the field of economics and social sciences. Currently HSE is the largest research-led institutions in the field of social and economic sciences in Eastern Europe. Spread over Four Russian cities - Moscow, St. Petersburg, Nizhny Novgorod and Perm. Of particular interest is the Innovation Infrastructure Development Program which puts great emphasize on commercialization of research results and entrepreneurial thinking.
The concept of entrepreneurial university and role of culture in its formation is analyzed. The understanding of academic entrepreneurial culture, as culture integrating the academic and entrepreneurial values is offered. The article reveals that methods for diagnosis organizational culture in enterprises are not suitable for an assessment of university culture. The suggestions are made for development an adequate technique for the diagnosis organizational culture of entrepreneurial university.
This article analyses the concept of entrepreneurial university and the role of culture in its formation. Theproblem of appropriate diagnostic method is being risen. The article discusses the findings of organizational culture assessmentby means ofdiagnostic methodof R.Goffee and G. Jones in the two universitiesof Nizhny Novgorod. The way ofdevelopment of congruent method of the university organizational culture diagnosis is being offered.
The modern university, and with it the academic profession itself, are facing new challenges: first, the increasing complexity of labor markets and globalization are undermining the structure of the academic profession, and secondly, the rise in cost of university research calls into question the autonomy of the university. The internationalization of the academic labor market encourages rethinking the structure of academic professions that have historically been focused on national (regional) contexts. The university is too expensive for the state and/or for students. One way to keep the autonomy of the university is to offer society, the state and businesses a wide range of services. Demin seeks to answer the following questions: can bureaucratic (self-)management effectively regulate the growing body of the university? Is it necessary to relinquish part of the university’s autonomy to a hired manager? Can “soft managerialism,” using economic instruments to reveal the possibilities of the university to society, become a new defense of university autonomy?