View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Perceptions of Entrepreneurial Universities in China: A Triangulated Analysis

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Perceptions of Entrepreneurial Universities in China: A Triangulated Analysis
Language: English
Authors: Jun-hua Zhu (ORCID 0000-0003-0131-1807), Rui Yang
Source: Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research. 2024 87(4):819-838.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 20
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Entrepreneurship, Universities, Educational Policy, Institutional Characteristics, Attitudes, Barriers, Educational Practices, Sustainability
Geographic Terms: China
DOI: 10.1007/s10734-023-01038-4
ISSN: 0018-1560
1573-174X
Abstract: Following the West, China exhibits a proactive attitude and conservative actions to developing entrepreneurial universities. This article deconstructs such a paradoxical approach by analysing the scholarly literature, policy discourses, and empirical data and their various perceptions of entrepreneurial universities in the Greater Bay Area (GBA). We conducted 71 interviews in four case universities to obtain empirical data for triangulation with the literature and policies. Our main research findings include the following: (1) there is a desire to introduce the concept of entrepreneurial universities from the West, along with their characteristics and aims; (2) China's policy discourse of excellence and pragmatism affects entrepreneurship education and technology transfer; and (3) an emerging identity of entrepreneurial universities is constrained by attitudes and barriers at the institutional level. China's perceptions and practices reflect a lack of sustainability of and fragmented approach to developing entrepreneurial universities, with strong implications for establishing entrepreneurial universities elsewhere.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1420874
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFFU1EQwRlYVOFT_vb6f4IFAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDNrYSA61AQevtb13nwIBEICBm4eJCuOrv8ZP8WiitTyPqjOBJEW7nAC4XaEP0wk1xE3JLPFMbNAe5QgeBTIAKnkVcXDXGlnMikSFR-Gzf9hj-uGccnEQo3aywy1ur2TR6-ZJzXtSI1PH1J4wtb2Wliw6ijobghvOuc1cejfAEQM61AH5h30ayXfv6xLMi66iA8SB1etWYq45NImcU1US2rk6nIZRS7XAsP5Am99P
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0176609716;hie01apr.24;2024Apr17.05:38;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0176609716-1">Perceptions of entrepreneurial universities in China: a triangulated analysis </title> <p>Following the West, China exhibits a proactive attitude and conservative actions to developing entrepreneurial universities. This article deconstructs such a paradoxical approach by analysing the scholarly literature, policy discourses, and empirical data and their various perceptions of entrepreneurial universities in the Greater Bay Area (GBA). We conducted 71 interviews in four case universities to obtain empirical data for triangulation with the literature and policies. Our main research findings include the following: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) there is a desire to introduce the concept of entrepreneurial universities from the West, along with their characteristics and aims; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) China's policy discourse of excellence and pragmatism affects entrepreneurship education and technology transfer; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) an emerging identity of entrepreneurial universities is constrained by attitudes and barriers at the institutional level. China's perceptions and practices reflect a lack of sustainability of and fragmented approach to developing entrepreneurial universities, with strong implications for establishing entrepreneurial universities elsewhere.</p> <p>Keywords: Entrepreneurial universities,; Entrepreneurship education, Technology transfer,; Greater Bay Area; China</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0176609716-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Recent global reforms in higher education institutions (HEIs) have been affected by isomorphic pressures (Cai, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref4">8</reflink>]). The development of entrepreneurial universities is one such example, as part of the societal transformation towards a knowledge-based society (Etzkowitz & Zhou, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref5">26</reflink>]; Vorley & Nelles, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref6">70</reflink>]). The concept of entrepreneurial universities is generally regarded as originating from Burton Clark and Henty Etzkowitz in the 1990s. Clark ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref7">14</reflink>]) first proposed five common characteristics to define entrepreneurial universities. Etzkowitz ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref8">25</reflink>]) further developed another five. They established a general framework for identifying entrepreneurial universities: increasing social engagement, knowledge capitalization, more interaction and independence, multiple sources and dynamics for innovation, risks of heterogeneity and innovation, and entrepreneurial culture (Etzkowitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref9">28</reflink>], p. 4). The entrepreneurial university has since become a normative model to influence higher education reforms and practices worldwide (Pinheiro & Stensaker, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref10">58</reflink>]; Stensaker & Benner, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref11">67</reflink>]). However, the concept has been criticised for failing to capture emerging features and roles of universities in contemporary society and the increasing demands for social innovation and sustainable development (Cai & Ahmad, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref12">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>The isomorphic development paths of entrepreneurial universities have been widely acknowledged in the literature (Etzkowitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref13">27</reflink>]; Kitagawa et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref14">45</reflink>]; Salamzadeh et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref15">60</reflink>]). It is typically analysed through neo-institutional theory, particularly in terms of institutional isomorphism (Cai, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref16">8</reflink>]). With a globally shared norm generally assumed, research has focused on how this norm is adopted in different national and organisational contexts, as informed by the isomorphism mechanism. For example, Australian universities with different histories have applied the same entrepreneurial process of "isomorphic closure" due to their "imitating behaviours, convergence, and timid conformity" (Marginson & Considine, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref17">49</reflink>], p. 174).</p> <p>Few studies have challenged the assumption of a global approach to entrepreneurial universities, although policymakers and university leaders in non-Western contexts do not always interpret the concept in the same way as in the West (Dalmarco et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref18">20</reflink>]; Guerrero & Urbano, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref19">39</reflink>]). The differences are identified by applying the model, particularly the characteristics suggested by Etzkowitz ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref20">25</reflink>]) and Clark ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref21">14</reflink>]), as an analytical framework. Some HEIs in non-Western societies transit into entrepreneurial universities differently from those in the West. Although assessing the general concept helps illustrate the differences between Western and non-Western contexts, such an analytical approach cannot effectively establish how the concept and the social norms associated with it systematically play out in non-Western countries (Pineda & Celis, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref22">57</reflink>]).</p> <p>Policymakers and practitioners in specific national/regional contexts often risk lacking an understanding of the Western approach. They may believe that they are building an entrepreneurial university, while in practice they are transforming a university into a different model (and cannot clarify what it is). The entrepreneurial university concept could thus be illusionary. To avoid or mitigate this risk, understanding how entrepreneurial universities are perceived in their local norms is important. However, few such investigations have been conducted in the literature. Some studies have assessed entrepreneurial universities in developing countries (Bizri et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref23">5</reflink>]; Dalmarco et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref24">20</reflink>]; Zhou & Peng, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref25">81</reflink>]), and found that in emerging economies, they are a mixture (Dalmarco et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref26">20</reflink>]) or an adaption of the model (Zhou, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref27">80</reflink>]; Zhou & Peng, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref28">81</reflink>]). An alternative model for developing countries has been proposed (Bizri et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref29">5</reflink>]). Although differences in the experience of entrepreneurial universities in non-Western societies have been noted, explaining such differences in terms of the socio-cultural and economic contexts is necessary.</p> <p>China provides an interesting case for our empirical study. After enthusiastically introducing the Western notion of entrepreneurial universities, the concept has now been institutionalised through scholarly discourse. However, it is rarely mentioned in national policies and university strategies. The government has launched a set of policies for entrepreneurial reforms in universities as a tacit development strategy (Zhou & Peng, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref30">81</reflink>]), but in practice, no entrepreneurial universities that follow the Western model have been established, primarily because of differing perceptions about what the ideal entrepreneurial university should be (Fu, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref31">35</reflink>]). Introducing the concept has not led to establishing "true" entrepreneurial universities in the Chinese context. To bridge this gap between theory and practice, in this study, we explore how the concept of entrepreneurial universities has been perceived by academics, policymakers, and practitioners in China.</p> <hd id="AN0176609716-3">Methodology</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176609716-4">Research design</hd> <p>Based on social constructionism, discourse is connected to texts, ideas, and practices in our socially constructed reality (Grant et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref32">38</reflink>]). While acknowledging the literature, we aim to extend previous theorisations by applying the inductive logic of the grounded theory approach. The basic principles of this theory (Strauss & Corbin, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref33">68</reflink>]) involve explaining a phenomenon by generating (grounding) the key elements and then categorising them and their relationships within the context of the phenomenon. However, instead of strictly following the grounded theory approach, this study involves a data-driven process, through which the original perceptions of China's entrepreneurial universities are identified. By obtaining extensive information from the field, this research involves "doing analysis and denoting concepts to stand for data" (Corbin & Strauss, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref34">18</reflink>], p. 216).</p> <p>Any analysis of the textual representation of social actors is achieved through examining their dialogue within its context (Farrelly et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref35">30</reflink>]). This study draws on three-dimensional evidence, obtained by integrating the literature, policies, and empirical findings. This triangulation illustrates the rich and complex characteristics of human behaviour through data from different levels and perspectives (Cohen et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref36">16</reflink>]). The evidence from the three sources is both complementary and contrasting: the literature can reflect policies and contributes to policy implementation in the long term; practices decode and recode policies "in relation to specific contexts, recipients, and subject culture (Ball et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref37">2</reflink>], p. 45); and the literature and empirical data reveal the "theory" and "theorising", respectively (Kezar, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref38">44</reflink>], p. 289), of entrepreneurial universities in China. In line with this triangular structure, the methodological approaches of textual analysis, conceptual content analysis, and collective case study are applied to the literature, policies, and practices, respectively.</p> <hd id="AN0176609716-5">Data collection</hd> <p>The inductive method of reasoning in document research takes the literature and policies on the entrepreneurial university as both primary and secondary sources, interpreting them as raw materials and examining the interpretations of them (Cohen et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref39">16</reflink>]). The literature was retrieved from the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) of China's main Journals and Social Sciences Citation Index. The search string was "entrepreneurial university" (创业型大学) OR "innovative and entrepreneurial university" (创新创业型大学) OR "innovative university" (创新型大学). We retrieved 4757 articles published before 6 January 2021. After searching for policy documents through government websites (State Council, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Science and Technology, etc.), our analysis focused on the evolution of the concepts of entrepreneurship education and technology transfer over time.</p> <p>Based on the documents, a collective case study of multiple realities and different perspectives (Stake, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref40">66</reflink>]) was conducted for a deeper understanding of entrepreneurial universities. To avoid issues of a single case (Yin, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref41">78</reflink>]), the in-depth empirical explorations were conducted in four universities in the GBA through a collective case study. Institutions in the GBA benefit from preferential reform policies. A robust social demand provides an economic base for innovation with a thriving culture of entrepreneurship. Cross-referencing the selections of typical and important cases revealed very different values and paths of development of the universities (Cohen et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref42">16</reflink>]). The universities selected were Sun Yat-sen University (SYSU), South China University of Technology (SCUT), Shenzhen University (SZU), and Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech). They represent the two most common types of universities in contemporary China (Yang et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref43">77</reflink>]): SYSU and SCUT are old and comprehensive, under the jurisdiction of the central government, while SZU and SUSTech focus on science and technology, under the Guangdong provincial government with fast development in a relatively short period.</p> <p>Centred on the participants' understanding of entrepreneurial universities in their specific contexts, the interviews conducted in the case study investigated the framing of ideas and their connections to thoughts, values, events, opinions, and behaviours (Cohen et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref44">16</reflink>]). They aimed to identify the practices and thoughts of department/faculty administrators, academics practicing entrepreneurship, and potential student entrepreneurs (see Table 1). Purposive sampling and snowballing were applied to select interviewees among stakeholders. Following the principles of data saturation (Strauss & Corbin, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref45">68</reflink>]), the primary investigator conducted 71 interviews during April–December 2021 through repeated field visits.</p> <p>Table 1 Interviewee categories</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Dimension</p></th><th align="left"><p>Item</p></th><th align="left"><p>Number</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Universities</p></td><td align="left"><p>SYSU</p></td><td align="left"><p>13</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>SCUT</p></td><td align="left"><p>13</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>SZU</p></td><td align="left"><p>16</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>SUSTech</p></td><td align="left"><p>29</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Disciplines<sup>a</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>Engineering</p></td><td align="left"><p>41</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Natural Sciences</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Humanities and Social Sciences</p></td><td align="left"><p>18</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Unknown (administrative staff)</p></td><td align="left"><p>9</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Identities<sup>b</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>Administrators</p></td><td align="left"><p>32</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Academics</p></td><td align="left"><p>28</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Non-research teachers</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Students</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="7"><p>Entrepreneurial activities<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>Starting a business</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Contracts (from industry)</p></td><td align="left"><p>24</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Joint laboratory (with companies)</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>R&D project (with companies)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Patents sales and licensing</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Managing spin-offs</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Entrepreneurship education</p></td><td align="left"><p>17</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <sups>a</sups>Most of the interviewees had the dual identities of administrator and academic. We categorised them as administrators, as we considered entrepreneurial universities from the perspectives of policy interpretation and implementation <sups>b</sups>Some academics affiliated to the schools of natural sciences engaged in entrepreneurial activities related to engineering or at the intersection with engineering disciplines. They were added to the engineering rather than the natural sciences category <sups>c</sups>Several types of entrepreneurial activities are summarised here, based on the self-reporting of the interviewees. Some of the interviewees were involved in multiple entrepreneurial activities and were thus counted twice</p> <hd id="AN0176609716-6">Data analysis</hd> <p>Guided by the open coding principles of the grounded theory approach, our data analysis was a "data aggregating and meaning-making process" (Creswell & Poth, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref46">19</reflink>], p. 85). Textual analysis was used to extract insights from the unstructured text (Bressler, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref47">7</reflink>]) in the bibliometric data from the extensive body of literature to reveal the perceptions of entrepreneurial universities. We then conducted a content analysis of the policy documents related to entrepreneurial reforms to systematically and objectively derive the official stance in specific social contexts (Mulderrig et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref48">53</reflink>]). Open coding was applied to the themes, periods, and issuing authorities. A secondary analysis was conducted after initial interpretation of the raw materials to examine other viewpoints (Cohen et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref49">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>With its theoretical flexibility to offer a rich, detailed, and complex account of data (Clarke & Braun, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref50">15</reflink>]), a cross-case thematic "embedded analysis" of the perceptions of entrepreneurial universities was conducted (Creswell & Poth, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref51">19</reflink>], p. 100). Similar to the open coding in grounded theory (Creswell & Poth, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref52">19</reflink>], p. 207), "categorical aggregation" was applied in our study. We coded a total of 1,566,716 characters of transcribed text (in Mandarin) from the interviews categorised by university name and interview sequence (e.g. SYSU1). They were open-coded to identify patterns based on the frequency of code appearance (Cohen et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref53">16</reflink>]). The 18 most frequently used patterns were further combined to create six meaningful categories based on their relevance (see Table 2). The categories were grouped into four themes following the logical chain of evidence. We then identified the interviewees' perceptions of entrepreneurial universities, as illustrated through the selected interview excerpts in this article.</p> <p>Table 2 Most frequent themes in perceptions of entrepreneurial universities</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Theme</p></th><th align="left"><p>Category</p></th><th align="left"><p>Pattern</p></th><th align="left"><p>Frequency</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>1: Teaching</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Category 1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Industry-education integration</p></td><td align="left"><p>34</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Entrepreneurship education</p></td><td align="left"><p>23</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>2: Research</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Category 2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Applied research</p></td><td align="left"><p>36</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Knowledge production transformation</p></td><td align="left"><p>34</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>3: Social engagement</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Category 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Technology transfer</p></td><td align="left"><p>38</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Public service</p></td><td align="left"><p>35</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="12"><p>4: Constraints on achieving the missions</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Category 4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher education diversity</p></td><td align="left"><p>25</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Spontaneous entrepreneurial activities</p></td><td align="left"><p>16</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Non-novelty model</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Category 5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Academic promotion</p></td><td align="left"><p>32</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Marginalised reform</p></td><td align="left"><p>26</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>University evaluation</p></td><td align="left"><p>19</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Development alternative</p></td><td align="left"><p>15</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="5"><p>Category 6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Individual cognitive choice</p></td><td align="left"><p>30</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Personal competence</p></td><td align="left"><p>28</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Macro limiting factors</p></td><td align="left"><p>27</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Wishful university model</p></td><td align="left"><p>23</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Service capacity of TTOs</p></td><td align="left"><p>20</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0176609716-7">Academic discourses on entrepreneurial reforms in China</hd> <p>Since the concept of entrepreneurial universities was introduced, numerous studies have contributed to its definition, value, and orientation, and have highlighted the need for it to be implemented in China (Fu, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref54">34</reflink>]). However, the fragmented import of Western notions and the uneven appraisal of the concept have led to a high-profile reform mentality. The entrepreneurial university has been accepted as a pathway to provide significant opportunities for changes in and the development of HEIs (Wang, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref55">72</reflink>]). Latecomer universities regard entrepreneurial reforms as an approach to encourage modernisation (Zhang & Jiang, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref56">79</reflink>]) and excellence (Liu, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref57">47</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176609716-8">The rhetoric of reformist literature</hd> <p>To replicate the success in the West, entrepreneurial universities are widely conceived as relating to advanced management approaches, the mode of development, and a new conceptualisation of the university (Liu, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref58">47</reflink>]). The American entrepreneurial paradigm has been particularly influential (Sam & Van Der Sijde, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref59">61</reflink>]). Many Chinese researchers are committed to introducing such "cutting-edge" experiences offered by entrepreneurial universities. Ideal models for imitation include Stanford University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Hu, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref60">41</reflink>]), and the University of Warwick (which has been reinvented through entrepreneurial reforms) (Fan & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref61">29</reflink>]). "Accelerated universities" (Altbach et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref62">1</reflink>], p. ix) with entrepreneurial features have emerged, such as the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (Chen, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref63">12</reflink>]), Technische Universität München (Wu, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref64">74</reflink>]), and the National University of Singapore (Xue & Liu, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref65">75</reflink>]).</p> <p>China's academia has been dominant by "successful" stories, while the complex or even contradictory elements in the entrepreneurial approach have been glossed over. Few critiques of entrepreneurial universities have been published in China, and the literature cited is mainly by Clark and Etzkowitz, as illustrated by the 4757 CNKI articles, in which 3829 cited Clark and 3856 cited Etzkowitz. None of the studies based in China has analysed the failures and the limits of entrepreneurial efforts in HEIs worldwide (Stensaker & Benner, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref66">67</reflink>]). The academic discourse has focused on striving for excellence, treating entrepreneurial reform as an inevitable direction for domestic universities.</p> <hd id="AN0176609716-9">Two tasks of entrepreneurial reforms</hd> <p>When examining the rhetoric of entrepreneurial universities, an effective approach is to assess the findings of international scholars. While Clark mainly focused on teaching universities in Europe (Clark, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref67">14</reflink>]), Etzkowitz was primarily concerned with research universities in the USA (Etzkowitz, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref68">21</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref69">22</reflink>]). They illustrated different transformative characteristics in specific societal conditions. Whether a teaching university or a research-intensive one could be transformed into an entrepreneurial university is a subject of heated debates in China. While the former focuses on entrepreneurship education, the latter emphasises technology transfer. Although the two tasks should be combined in university development, their de facto development and progress remain separate.</p> <p>Entrepreneurship education is viewed as an effect of European universities to respond to entrepreneurial reforms (Etzkowitz, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref70">24</reflink>]). There has been no consensus on its definition (Neck & Greene, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref71">55</reflink>]). Some propose a broader concept that comprises the development of personal qualities, attitudes, and skills that are central to entrepreneurship (Fellnhofer, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref72">33</reflink>]). Others identify specific types of entrepreneurial training (Fayolle & Gailly, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref73">31</reflink>]). Researchers in China have discussed a "talent narrative" (<emph>rencai shuo</emph>, 人才说) and a "quality narrative" (<emph>suzhi shuo</emph>, 素质说) (Qian, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref74">59</reflink>]) to refer specifically to training entrepreneurs (Guo et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref75">40</reflink>]) and to more broadly ensuring quality through this training by developing driving ambition and an adventurous spirit (Li, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref76">46</reflink>]). The concept in China has a broader connotation. As noted in the international literature, "both innovation and entrepreneurship are present along the process" (Schmitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref77">62</reflink>], p. 371). Focus has been shifted from novelty-related innovation to value-related entrepreneurship (Brem, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref78">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>Entrepreneurship education in China has been legitimised as an integral part of professional courses and practices, from compulsory courses in business schools to general education courses in regular universities (Wang, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref79">71</reflink>]). Indeed, Chinese scholars have examined entrepreneurship education for over 20 years (Zhuo & Cao, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref80">82</reflink>]), focusing on the integration of internal and external resources in programmes and training for potential student entrepreneurs in newly established organisations (Mok & Yue, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref81">52</reflink>]). However, the extent to which the means, range, and forms of traditional teaching have been changed through entrepreneurship education remains unclear. This ambiguity hinders the development of solutions to the current dilemmas encountered in entrepreneurship education.</p> <p>Technology transfer is another factor in entrepreneurial reform. Connections among universities, industry, and the government reveal the issues of technology flow and knowledge management in China (Cheng et al., 2017). Though some call this as industry-university-research cooperation, the Chinese government is the "sponsor" or the "market manager" (Yang et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref82">77</reflink>], p. 581), resembling little of the <emph>triple helix</emph> model. As the government surpasses the industry and the university in knowledge production and technology exploitation, a lack of "autonomy and independence" (Etzkowitz, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref83">25</reflink>], p. 41) has made the <emph>triple helix</emph>-based technology transfer an empty talk.</p> <p>Meanwhile, technology transfer has triggered a significant transformation in Chinese universities (Chen, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref84">12</reflink>]). Researchers collaborate with industry through project contracts, consultation, R&D projects, and joint laboratories/research centres. Some studies have focused on how internal organisational innovation can monetise intellectual property or on hybrid organisational collaborations such as science parks, incubator facilities, and virtual strategic alliances with stakeholders. However, technology transfer is often an extended task superficially manifested in hybrid organisations of multi-functions. The expected "endless transition" that crosses the borders of university, government, and industry to catalyse creativity, trigger invention, and accelerate innovation (Etzkowitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref85">27</reflink>]) has rarely been examined in the literature.</p> <p>Generally, research into entrepreneurial universities in China is one-sided, fragmentary, and superficial, with rare comprehensive viewpoints. A deeper assessment of the historical, cultural, and social antecedents of entrepreneurial universities is much needed. This lack of research has impeded the development of entrepreneurial universities in China.</p> <hd id="AN0176609716-10">Tasks of entrepreneurial reforms as expressed in policies</hd> <p>The fervent desire to "catch up" with the West has dominated Chinese policy discourse since the nineteenth century (Yang & Welch, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref86">76</reflink>]). The quest for world-class status has recently been an integral part of China's entrepreneurial reform policy discourse. Yet, paradoxically, government intervention to encourage entrepreneurialism has not been supported by core policies. Although the reforms and related tasks are advocated in the literature, they are largely cosmetic in a form of accepted political rhetoric, and do not lead to actual higher education development. While encouraging entrepreneurship education and research output transfer, policies have narrowed the entrepreneurial mandates.</p> <hd id="AN0176609716-11">Entrepreneurship education policies for employment and innovation</hd> <p>Entrepreneurship education first attracted the attention of the Chinese government and universities in 1989 (see Table 3). After 1998, it became a political tool helping the fast-growing graduate population to take on self-employed or salaried jobs (Matlay & Westhead, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref87">50</reflink>]). Entrepreneurship education further developed during 2003–2007 when policies focused on training potential entrepreneurs on campus. Policymakers believed that entrepreneurship training would create jobs and encourage new ventures and technology start-ups (Mwasalwiba, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref88">54</reflink>]). In 2008, the term "innovation and entrepreneurship education" replaced "entrepreneurship education" in policy documents to include quality training for all students and enhance their future career success. Meanwhile, the means of implementing entrepreneurship education gradually extended from curriculum to training, competition, and business incubation.</p> <p>Table 3 Entrepreneurship education policies in China, 1989–2021</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Dimensions</p></th><th align="left"><p>Items</p></th><th align="left"><p>Numbers<sup>a</sup></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Periods<sup>b</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>1989–2002: The exploratory stage</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2003–2007: The initial stage</p></td><td align="left"><p>14</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2008–2014: The improving stage</p></td><td align="left"><p>13</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2015–2021: The booming stage</p></td><td align="left"><p>27</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="8"><p>Issuing authorities</p></td><td align="left"><p>Ministry of Education (MoE)</p></td><td align="left"><p>35</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>State Council</p></td><td align="left"><p>16</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Central Committee of the Communist Youth League</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>National Development and Reform Commission</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Ministry of Science and Technology</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Ministry of Central Organisation</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Ministry of Personnel</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="5"><p>Themes<sup>c</sup></p></td><td align="left"><p>Entrepreneurship education</p></td><td align="left"><p>25</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Employment issues</p></td><td align="left"><p>18</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Social innovation and entrepreneurship</p></td><td align="left"><p>8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Technology park and entrepreneurship incubators</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Internet<italic> +</italic> Competition</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <sups>a</sups>As of 13 December 2021, 59 national-level policies in China relating to entrepreneurship education had been issued since 1989 <sups>b</sups>The periods are based on those proposed byMeng and Li ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref89">51</reflink>]) <sups>c</sups>The themes above were identified through a keyword analysis of policies</p> <p>Entrepreneurship education began to grow after 2015 when more policies were issued by the government. One major policy objective was to improve the entrepreneurial environment to encourage social innovation and entrepreneurship, and increase the social engagement of universities (Cai et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref90">9</reflink>]). Current entrepreneurship education reflects employment, social security, and national innovation development strategies. However, multiple policies have led to overlapping management at the institutional level, with various offices and organisations taking on entrepreneurship education responsibilities, causing confusion over where power, duty, and mandates lie.</p> <hd id="AN0176609716-12">The target and constraint of technology transfer policies</hd> <p>Entrepreneurial reforms are often regarded as a basic strategy for accelerating the development of HEIs and regions (Sperrer et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref91">65</reflink>]). In China, however, they primarily serve national innovation. Technology transfer is a key task of entrepreneurial reforms. It has been taken seriously in major national innovation strategies such as <emph>the Innovation-Driven Strategy for National High-Tech Industrial Development Zones</emph> in 2013 and the action plan of <emph>Made in China 2025</emph> in 2015. Yet, promoting regional economy is more of a secondary goal or by-product of technology transfer, and rarely appears in policy narratives. Fiscal dependence is a reason for such a situation: most leading universities in China are affiliated to the MoE with direct funding from the central government. They are prevented from becoming the "anchors" of local industries (Feldman, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref92">32</reflink>]) or the coordinators of local networks (Benneworth & Hospers, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref93">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>An institutional network of technology transfer has been formed through the hundreds of policies[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref94">1</reflink>] related to investments, talent introduction, intermediary services, incentives, and tax reduction (Wang & Zhang, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref95">73</reflink>]). However, the policies are contradictory to each other. Even if intellectual property rights (IPRs) are transferred to universities, they remain "state-owned assets" due to their nature as public entities. To prevent any loss of public assets, university-led technology transfer must go through strict administrative approval, leading to inefficiency. Institutions and individuals also become more hesitant for fearing of being accused of corruption.</p> <p>Since 2015, China has actively promoted and deployed technology transfer through <emph>the Law on Promoting the Transfer of Scientific and Technological Achievements</emph> (amended in 2015) and its supportive policies (issued in 2016). These policies stipulate intellectual property in respect of its interests and rights of use and disposal. In terms of interest, individuals benefit from long-term dividends in addition to direct cash revenue. As for the rights of use and disposal, the attempt to transfer IPRs and their long-term access to individuals is notable (Chen & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref96">13</reflink>]). Some progress has been clearly made on university-led process of technology transfer. However, the progress has been more procedural than truly autonomous.</p> <p>The implementation of China's technology transfer policies includes incentives such as financial support, tax breaks, and other rewards for individuals (Jiang et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref97">43</reflink>]). However, such incentives have not brought the expected results on any significant scale. According to the <emph>China Patent Survey Report 2020</emph>, the national patent industrialisation rate was 34.7%, but was 44.9% for companies, 11.3% for research institutions, and only 3.8% for universities (SIPO, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref98">63</reflink>]). While technology transfer has been included in the criteria for building "Double First-Class" universities, thinking outside the box is much needed at both university and individual levels.</p> <hd id="AN0176609716-13">Interview findings on the mixed perceptions of entrepreneurial universities</hd> <p>The notion of entrepreneurial universities has contributed significantly, yet ambiguously, to China's higher education reforms. The participants in our interviews were unable to precisely define an entrepreneurial university and its characteristics. However, they spontaneously connected it to two issues: transforming teaching, research, and social engagement (themes 1–3); and the constraints of achieving such transformation (theme 4).</p> <hd id="AN0176609716-14">Theme 1: from entrepreneurship education to industry-education integration</hd> <p>Nearly all the interviewees indicated that entrepreneurship education is now widely offered in various courses, training programmes, competitions, and practices in universities. The programmes are organised and delivered procedurally:Entrepreneurship education has promoted basic entrepreneurial knowledge, and has raised students' awareness of innovation and entrepreneurship. Through formal and informal curricula, students with entrepreneurial intentions are selected to particular classes and programmes that help them acquire entrepreneurial competencies. They then form teams to turn innovative ideas into entrepreneurial realities in competition and incubation. During this process, competitions serve as the conjunction for the learning, teaching, and venture incubation of innovation and entrepreneurship. (SCUT4)</p> <p>Universities have gradually developed an approach to identifying potential entrepreneurs and increasing levels of innovation and entrepreneurship. This can stimulate innovation and entrepreneurship in both universities and society in general.</p> <p>Education-industry integration is another side-effect of entrepreneurial reforms. Some of the interviewees claimed that education-industry integration is a more significant phenomenon than entrepreneurial education in terms of the transformation of teaching and learning under the reforms. "The concepts, objectives, means, and methods of teaching and learning are being reshaped in the entrepreneurial interactions between universities and the industry" (SUSTech1). After ongoing exchanges regarding the requirements of industry, universities have developed a consensus about how to cultivate innovative and entrepreneurial talents to meet the needs of the knowledge-based economy and industrial progress.</p> <p>The interviewees' interpretations of innovative and entrepreneurial talent were varied. Some suggested that it involves developing an awareness of both basic (liberal and scientific) and specialist knowledge, to meet the needs of industry (SYSU4, SCUT2, SZU3, SZU14). An intrinsic moral and ethical outlook was also noted, in terms of a sense of sustainability, a global perspective, patriotism, and the quality of innovation and entrepreneurship (SCUT1, SCUT13, SZU6, SUSTech23). As for talent development, a student-centred re-conceptualisation was also deemed to be central to teaching reforms (SUSTech1, SUSTech2, SUSTech20). This epistemological approach must then involve methodological innovation, and a mission-driven, outcomes-based, and industry-education integrated approach has begun to influence teaching and learning, gradually changing curricula, teaching methods and materials, and assessment means (SUSTech1, SUSTech2, SUSTech20).</p> <hd id="AN0176609716-15">Theme 2: the transformation of knowledge production</hd> <p>In the interviews, knowledge production in mode 1 and mode 2 was frequently mentioned. Mode 1 refers to university production of disciplinary knowledge focusing on basic research that provides comprehensive explanations (Carayannis & Campbell, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref99">11</reflink>]). Mode 2 refers to knowledge production based on the principles of knowledge produced in the context of application; transdisciplinarity; heterogeneity and organisational diversity; social accountability and reflexivity; and quality control (Gibbons, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref100">37</reflink>]). Most of the interviewees agreed that entrepreneurial universities were often intrinsically driven by the transformation of knowledge production from mode 1 to mode 2. They emphasised the applicability of knowledge in the specific social context. "Universities are able to produce knowledge that is highly relevant to their context to participate in their local socioeconomic development broadly" (SZU6). They even become "the co-producer of knowledge closely connected to the local industrial environment" (SUSTech9) and "advocate complex practice-based knowledge production with companies" (SYSU5).</p> <p>However, industry-university cooperation involves two-way knowledge transfer between universities and the industry (Geuna & Muscio, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref101">36</reflink>]), enabling universities to benefit from their collaborators' expertise rather than capitalising on the knowledge they themselves produce (Cai & Ahmad, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref102">10</reflink>]). Some of the academics associated with entrepreneurial activities confirmed that tackling the complex issues of modern life can produce new knowledge through proximity to the demand side (SUSTech1, SUSTech2, SUSTech16). One stated that "disciplinary knowledge is so well-established, we expect cross-boundary collaboration to inspire new contributions" (SZU16).</p> <p>The ongoing shift of knowledge production from mode 2 to mode 3 is marked by the bi-directional nature of knowledge flow (Carayannis & Campbell, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref103">11</reflink>]). Companies can both inform and validate research findings by initiating problem-solving projects. A researcher of algorithms said that "we can adapt our research to the company's application immediately, saving a lot of time on trial and error" (SCUT1). Through cooperation, academics and industry complement each other in research: "SMEs are inclined to cooperate with our research teams when they lack R&D funding and staff but hold forward-looking ideas" (SCUT1).</p> <hd id="AN0176609716-16">Theme 3: implied emerging social engagement roles</hd> <p>Entrepreneurial collaboration accelerates traditional linear knowledge exploitation to contribute to socio-economic development. Trust and agreement extend a university's social engagement through an inside-to-outside chain of technology transfer:Money is the most straightforward factor, but by no means the most important one. We have every right to choose whom we partner with. The people I'm working with must be a good match for my ideas. (SYSU6)</p> <p>Trust-building between universities and enterprises gradually extends through the technology transfer chain. Universities are expected to become an "anchor" by developing trust among the social actors in their innovation ecosystem (Cai & Ahmad, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref104">10</reflink>]). One academic entrepreneur noted that "my status as a university academic invariably facilitates trust when engaging with other social investors. When building collaborations, people are more likely to trust me and my university than other business partners" (SCUT13). A Technology Transfer Office (TTO) member opined similarly. Her job involved facilitating the cooperation discussions among local authorities, company representatives, and academics and research groups (SCUT4). Universities and local governments have increasingly developed incubator infrastructures and virtual co-innovation alliances, helping to establish "co-creation for sustainability" (Trencher et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref105">69</reflink>], p. 157) in wider society.</p> <p>Such engagement is initiated and facilitated by the government. A senior university administrator stated "we do this because it is required by the government. There is policy support from the central government and fiscal investment from the local government" (SYSU9). Chinese universities expand their social engagement through two approaches: top-down government technology transfer networks and bottom-up personal cooperation networks. An independent university-established network that benefits society has not yet been developed.</p> <hd id="AN0176609716-17">Theme 4: constraints to achieving goals</hd> <p>Our interviewees were influenced by the literature and policy rhetoric, taking the concept of entrepreneurial universities for granted. They did not think that universities needed to defend their ivory tower identities or that the entrepreneurial paradigm is the unifying model of future HEIs. Most agreed that these concerns do not apply in China. "The entrepreneurial university is an expression of higher education diversity," said an academic with an administrative role in higher education: "It is far from the point where we should worry about the erosion of entrepreneurial universities. On the contrary, if the model is successfully implemented in China, it would be a complement to diversity" (SZU10).</p> <p>The entrepreneurial mandate has been simplified in both literature and policy. Yet, evidence suggests that becoming an entrepreneurial university involves more than entrepreneurship education and technology transfer. "This is neither a monster nor a miracle," noted a researcher in the field of education: "Technology transfer and innovative education had emerged spontaneously in many universities long before the entrepreneurial label was created. But this in no way implies that these universities have all become entrepreneurial" (SYSU10). Most of the interviewees identified both the attitudes and impediments to the establishment of Chinese entrepreneurial universities.</p> <hd id="AN0176609716-18">The mentality of marginalised reforms as a development alternative</hd> <p>Due to inconsistencies in policy interventions, universities generally engage in entrepreneurial activities as a marginal development task. As one senior administrator pointed out, "The crux has never changed—there is only one overwhelming evaluation criterion for Chinese universities: China's discipline review by the MoE. University work centres on such evaluation. Any other tasks can be sacrificed" (SYSU10). Evaluation is also an issue for individuals in academia. As entrepreneurial success is not recognised in academic evaluations, the motivation to engage in entrepreneurial activities is lacking, only regarded as a "minor credit" (SYSU7, SCUT7). One researcher who had a valuable patent said that "the demanding evaluation criteria of publications and government-funded projects allow us no time to work on technology transfer" (SZU17).</p> <p>Yet, the entrepreneurial paradigm has become a development option for emerging universities to distinguish themselves from their traditional peers. "As a neo-type university, SUSTech aimed to become a 'small but brilliant' university through the entrepreneurial paradigm in the first few years" (SUSTech24). Entrepreneurial reforms also provide an alternative to academics, as it helps them to avoid the pressure from intense competition: "They will forgo promotion altogether and focus primarily on academic entrepreneurship" (SCUT7). For others, entrepreneurship can lead to career opportunities outside academia: "Having completed my promotion, it is the time to focus entirely on my own business" (SCUT3). Entrepreneurial reforms are not priorities for universities if they do not receive support from mainstream policies that complement the evaluation system. "Non-interference and tacit approval of our behaviour is the great encouragement from the university" (SCUT13). The ideal "dynamic and productive regime" (Etzkowitz, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref106">24</reflink>], p. 333) at the university level is not present in China, as top-down policies are disconnected from bottom-up initiatives.</p> <hd id="AN0176609716-19">The impediments to establishing entrepreneurial universities</hd> <p>Though advocated by the literature and policies, establishing entrepreneurial universities is still perceived as a wishful goal because of the impediments of mixed public–private identity and institutional incompetence. Academics in applied disciplines are often regarded as less academic than their peers, as they engage more in non-scholarly activities (Etzkowitz, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref107">23</reflink>]). Such a tension of scholarly identity is exemplified by the clash between independent professionals and profit-seeking entrepreneurs (Collyer, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref108">17</reflink>]). Although most of the practice-oriented interviewees believed that simultaneously being an academic and an entrepreneur was complementary, they also pointed out the incompatibility of being a civil servant and an entrepreneur. As most HEIs in China are public entities, academics paid by the government will in effect become state-subsidised entrepreneurs (Slaughter & Leslie, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref109">64</reflink>]). They may also be accused of undermining their teaching and research through the motivation of profit (SCUT2).</p> <p>Researchers also face dilemmas in their daily practice when approaching entrepreneurial reforms. As they are occupied by teaching, research, and social engagements, their allocation of time and energy becomes a zero-sum game (SUSTech5). This further deteriorates if their research norms conflict with the needs of clients and the rules of the market. For academic entrepreneurs, who have long been on the supply side, it is difficult to balance academia and the market (SCUT13). The bright minds who excel in frontier research may not have the skills to run a company (SYSU8).</p> <p>Considering these challenges, a moderate degree of involvement in entrepreneurial activities is becoming more commonplace. This sheds the academics' non-academic works to the newly established TTOs. Most TTOs in Chinese universities were previously research management offices. Their service providers are administrative staff that do not have experience of running a company or of the market. Lacking an in-depth understanding of research outputs, they are unlikely to see any commercial value in academia. The TTOs may also be unable to mediate between the worlds of academia and business, leading to widespread discontent: "They are regulators and approvers, not our partners at all" (SYSU5). The nascent venture capital system and the less-known Discovery Exchange Plan for start-ups are also blamed for the failure to spur innovation: "The high demands placed on start-ups by venture capitalists exacerbate our difficulties" (SZU8).</p> <hd id="AN0176609716-20">Discussion and conclusion</hd> <p>We offer the following findings from our research. (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref110">1</reflink>) The academic discourse has propagandised the entrepreneurial approach as a promising and successful route. It has simplified entrepreneurial reforms as fragmentary and superficial tasks. (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref111">2</reflink>) Following the literature, various pragmatic-oriented policies have been launched to encourage entrepreneurship education and technology transfer. These, however, are often cosmetic, inconsistent, and even contradictory. (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref112">3</reflink>) Influenced by the lopsided literature and marginalised policies, entrepreneurial reform initiatives have become ambiguous but powerful in Chinese universities. Despite the recognised new features of teaching, research, and social engagement, the identity of China's entrepreneurial universities is still yet to be explored due to the constraints of mentality and institution.</p> <hd id="AN0176609716-21">A Chinese paradox expressed through the literature, policies, and empirical interviews</hd> <p>As our three-dimensional evidence indicates, China faces a paradox, as although the government attempts to establish entrepreneurial universities through top-down policy support and academics have called for reform, entrepreneurial reforms remain ambivalent and inactive at the university level. The ultimate goal of establishing entrepreneurial universities is to support national rejuvenation. Academic praise clearly resonates with the government rhetoric. From political and educational elites to the general public, the entrepreneurial model remains a symbolic benchmark for an "ideal" university. However, instead of establishing a deeper understanding of the entrepreneurial university, researchers and policymakers are often overly concerned with the key to success, which limits the reforms to entrepreneurship education and technology transfer. Due to the fragmented introduction of theory and the marginalisation of policies, China is not yet ready to genuinely establish entrepreneurial universities.</p> <p>In contrast to the uneven support from Chinese academics, empirical data from China refutes some of the arguments in the classical literature on entrepreneurial universities. Rather than the strong isomorphic commitment to becoming entrepreneurial (Etzkowitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref113">27</reflink>]), the entrepreneurial reforms in Chinese universities are a marginalised developmental alternative. Although they possess some of the entrepreneurial characteristics proposed by Clark ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref114">14</reflink>]) and Etzkowitz ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref115">25</reflink>]), universities are still far from entrepreneurial, as they face impediments ranging from personal mindsets to socioeconomic limitations. In addition, China has less concern about university identity and higher education diversity triggered by entrepreneurial movements (Pelikan, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref116">56</reflink>]), due to the institutionalised and centralised nature of its higher education system. Entrepreneurial reforms are viewed as an approach to escaping institutional rigidity. To effectively guide the reforms in practice, China needs to reconceptualise entrepreneurial universities, moving beyond the narrowed mandates of entrepreneurship education and technology transfer.</p> <hd id="AN0176609716-22">The Chinese experience of building an identity of entrepreneurial universities</hd> <p>The Chinese experience also demonstrates the need for an entrepreneurial university identity in the current social climate. The level of economic contribution is no longer the main concern. Meanwhile, a recognition of intrinsic benefits is emerging, such as the transformation of teaching and learning, knowledge production, and social engagement. As noted in many recent studies elsewhere, entrepreneurial universities are embracing a new model in the ever-changing innovation ecosystem (Benneworth, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref117">4</reflink>]; Liu & van der Sijde, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref118">48</reflink>]).</p> <p>To identify the model of entrepreneurial universities, Etzkowitz and others (2017) have developed a 12-dimension framework to compare ivory-tower universities with entrepreneurial ones. Critically examining the model by associating sustainable development with universities' intertwined missions, Cai and Ahmad ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref119">10</reflink>]) group the twelve dimensions into four categories to form a conceptual framework of the sustainable entrepreneurial university (SEU). This framework combines the strengths of classic entrepreneurial university studies with the feature of integrating the three functions in societal transformation. In terms of the SEU framework, the Chinese experiences appear isomorphic but heterogeneous (see Table 4).</p> <p>Table 4 The SEU framework contrasting with Chinese experiences</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Missions</p></th><th align="left"><p>Spectrum category</p></th><th align="left"><p>Chinese experiences</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Teaching</p></td><td align="left"><p>Teaching location</p></td><td align="left"><p>Hubs of industry-research-education integration</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Research</p></td><td align="left"><p>Knowledge mission</p></td><td align="left"><p>National strategy, market demand, and individual curiosity</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Direction of research</p></td><td align="left"><p>Applied-basic research</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Knowledge-related intention</p></td><td align="left"><p>Useful knowledge for the country and the market</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Societal engagement</p></td><td align="left"><p>Technology and innovation transfer to industry</p></td><td align="left"><p>An extending technology transfer chain</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>University–society link</p></td><td align="left"><p>Activating mass innovation and entrepreneurship</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Contribution point</p></td><td align="left"><p>National, regional, and institutional development</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Stakeholders</p></td><td align="left"><p>A growing number of stakeholders</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Organisation and administration for achieving the missions</p></td><td align="left"><p>Disciplines in organisation</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cross-boundary hubs for interdisciplinary collaboration</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Source of university administration</p></td><td align="left"><p>New administration concepts from the market and the industry</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Perception of funding</p></td><td align="left"><p>Resources exchange</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Mindset</p></td><td align="left"><p>Integrating knowledge and practice and serving the country through developing industry</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The extended third mission is affecting the content and form of teaching and research and the links between them (Cai & Ahmad, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref120">10</reflink>]). Embedded in the co-creation process (Trencher et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref121">69</reflink>]), a new type of knowledge exchange is emerging in the nexus or hub formed in entrepreneurship incubators, collaborative research groups, joint laboratories, and spin-offs (Carayannis & Campbell, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref122">11</reflink>]). Academics, students, and industry professionals all interact through these hybrid organisations, creating a new education and research community. Through these hubs, teaching, research, and social engagement gradually facilitate each other in a closed loop: research and teaching integration is realised through students' participation in practice-based research projects; knowledge production and its social application are mutually reinforced through intensive university-industry collaboration; and teaching and learning are reformed through their integration with the ideas, methods, resources, and opportunities from industry. This can help clarify the confusing mix of relationships resulting from the multiple functions and roles of contemporary universities.</p> <p>The inter-relatedness of teaching, research, and social engagement lies at the core of an entrepreneurial university (Cai & Ahmad, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref123">10</reflink>]). Entrepreneurship plays a central role to stimulate the "academic heartland" (Clark, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref124">14</reflink>]), in which the three functions are integrated to provide a stronger combined force. Universities then actively identify their needs and exploit the opportunities for self-improvement. This leads to spill-over effects (Sam & Van Der Sijde, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref125">61</reflink>]), while universities become the anchor for the innovation ecosystem (Cai & Ahmad, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref126">10</reflink>]). At the institution and government levels, the three missions need to be integrated through renewed ideas, organisational innovation, and aligned evaluation criteria.</p> <p>To conclude, our triangulated analysis of the literature, policies, and empirical data reveals China's unique problems regarding the development of entrepreneurial universities, and the theoretical, political, and practical challenges faced. The perceptions and practices of China's latecomer universities have broader implications for the identity-building of entrepreneurial universities with Chinese characteristics. To develop entrepreneurial universities in China, small-scale research and practice deserve to be encouraged to prompt more systematic cultural and institutional changes.</p> <hd id="AN0176609716-23">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We acknowledge and appreciate the detailed and valuable comments and suggestions from the reviewers and the support we received during data collection from the two research projects entitled "Research on Challenges and Institutional Innovation in the Integrated Development of Education in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area" (AGA200016) and "Accelerating the Development of a Global Innovation and Technology Hub in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area: The Roles of Public Research Universities in Hong Kong (S2018.A7.006.18S). We thank the participants from the four Chinese universities for sharing their views and the time they committed to the interviews.</p> <hd id="AN0176609716-24">Data Availability</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, Jun-hua Zhu, upon reasonable request.</p> <hd id="AN0176609716-25">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176609716-26">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no competing interests.</p> <hd id="AN0176609716-27">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0176609716-28"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Altbach PG, Reisberg L, Salmi J, Froumin I. Accelerated universities: Ideas and money combine to build academic excellence. 2018; Brill. 10.1163/9789004366107</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ball SJ, Maguire M, Braun A. How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. 2012; Routledge</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Benneworth P, Hospers GJ. The new economic geography of old industrial regions: Universities as global-local pipelines. Environment and Planning c: Government and Policy. 2007; 25; 6: 779-802. 10.1068/c0620</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref117" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Benneworth, P. (2013). University engagement with socially excluded communities. In University engagement with socially excluded communities (3–31). Springer</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref23" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bizri R, Hammoud J, Stouhi M, Hammoud M. The entrepreneurial university: A proposed model for developing nations. The Journal of Management Development. 2019; 38; 5: 383-404. 10.1108/JMD-11-2018-0347</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref78" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Brem A. Linking innovation and entrepreneurship–literature overview and introduction of a process-oriented framework. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management. 2011; 14; 1: 6-35. 10.1504/IJEIM.2011.040820</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref47" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bressler CE. Literary criticism: An introduction to theory and practice. 20115; Longman</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref4" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cai YTierney RJ, Rizvi F, Erkican K. Policy isomorphism: A lens for understanding the influence of globalization on national education policymaking. International Encyclopedia of Education. 20234; Elsevier: 271-279. 10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.01041-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref90" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cai Y, Ma J, Chen Q. Higher Education in Innovation Ecosystems. Sustainability. 2020; 12; 11: 4376. 10.3390/su12114376</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cai, Y, & Ahmad, I. (2021). From an entrepreneurial university to a sustainable entrepreneurial university: Conceptualization and evidence in the contexts of European university reforms. Higher Education Policy, 1–33.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carayannis, E. G, & Campbell, D. F. J. (2012). Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems: 21st-century democracy, innovation, and entrepreneurship for development (1. Aufl. ed, Vol. 7). Springer-Verlag</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen D. The theory and practice of building entrepreneurial universities by local universities (in Chinese). 2016; Fujian Education Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen Y, Wang Y. Rethinking the practice and policies of transferring scientific and technological achievements (in Chinese). Theoretical View. 2021; 255; 05: 54-58</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark BR. Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. 1998; IAU Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clarke V, Braun V. Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2017; 12; 3: 297-298. 10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K. Research methods in education. 2017; Routledge. 10.4324/9781315456539</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collyer FM. Practices of conformity and resistance in the marketisation of the academy: Bourdieu, professionalism and academic capitalism. Critical Studies in Education. 2015; 56; 3: 315-331. 10.1080/17508487.2014.985690</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 20154; Sage Publications</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Creswell, J. W, & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (Fourth edition. ed.). SAGE</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dalmarco G, Hulsink W, Blois GV. Creating entrepreneurial universities in an emerging economy: Evidence from Brazil. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2018; 135; October: 99-111. 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.04.015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Etzkowitz H. Technology centers and industrial policy: The emergence of the interventionist state in the USA. Science and Public Policy. 1994; 21; 2: 79-87</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Etzkowitz H. The Triple Helix: Academic-industry-government relations: Implications for the New York regional innovation environment. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1996; 787; 1 The Technology: 67-86. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1996.tb44849.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Etzkowitz H. The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages. Research Policy. 1998; 27; 8: 823-833. 10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00093-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Etzkowitz H. The European entrepreneurial university: An alternative to the US model. Industry and Higher Education. 2003; 17; 5: 325-335. 10.5367/000000003773007256</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Etzkowitz H. The triple helix: University-industry-government innovation in action. 2008; Routledge. 10.4324/9780203929605</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Etzkowitz H, Zhou C. The triple helix: University–industry–government innovation and entrepreneurship. 2017; Routledge. 10.4324/9781315620183</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Etzkowitz H, Webster A, Gebhardt C, Terra BRC. The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy. 2000; 29; 2: 313-330. 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00069-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Etzkowitz, H, Bikkulov, A, Kovaleinen, A, Leitner, K. H, Poutanen, S, Grey, D, Leonchuck, L, Axelberg, J, Plonski, G. A, & Almeida, M. (2017). Metrics for the Entrepreneurial University. Triple Helix Working Papers Series, 6(3–4). https://<ulink href="http://www.triplehelixassociation.org/helice/volume-6-2017/helice-vol-6-issue-3-4/working-paper-series">www.triplehelixassociation.org/helice/volume-6-2017/helice-vol-6-issue-3-4/working-paper-series</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fan Y, Wang F. Running a university: An exploration of the ideal of the University of Warwick, UK (in Chinese). Chongqing Higher Education Research. 2014; 02: 103-106</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farrelly M, Mulderrig J, Montessori NM. Critical policy discourse analysis. 2019; Edward Elgar Publishing</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fayolle A, Gailly B. From craft to science: Teaching models and learning processes in entrepreneurship education. Journal of European Industrial Training. 2008; 32; 7: 569-593. 10.1108/03090590810899838</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feldman, M. (2005). The locational dynamics of the US biotech industry: Knowledge externalities and the anchor hypothesis. In Research and technological innovation (pp. 201–224). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fellnhofer K. Toward a taxonomy of entrepreneurship education research literature: A bibliometric mapping and visualization. Educational Research Review. 2019; 27: 28-55. 10.1016/j.edurev.2018.10.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fu B. A review of research on entrepreneurial universities (in Chinese). Heilongjiang Higher Education Research. 2012; 07: 4-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fu B. The theoretical misunderstanding of the localisation of entrepreneurial universities—An analysis on the academic capital transformation of entrepreneurial universities (in Chinese). Jiangsu Higher Education. 2018; 11: 7-11</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geuna A, Muscio A. The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva. 2009; 47; 1: 93-114. 10.1007/s11024-009-9118-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibbons M. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. 1994; SAGE Publications</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grant D, Keenoy T, Oswick CGrant D, Keenoy T, Oswick C. Introduction: Organizational discourse: Of diversity, dichotomy and multi-disciplinarity. Discourse and organization. 1998; Sage: 1-13. 10.4135/9781446280270</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guerrero M, Urbano D. The impact of Triple Helix agents on entrepreneurial innovations' performance: An inside look at enterprises located in an emerging economy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2017; 119: 294-309. 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.06.015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guo H, Mao Y, Bai X, Zeng Z. Study on the impact of college entrepreneurship education on students' intention (in Chinese). Soft Sciences. 2009; 09: 69-74</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu Q. From dependence to autonomy — The rise of entrepreneurial universities from the perspective of academic capitalism (in Chinese). Educational Research. 2020; 41; 08: 96-111</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huang M. On the relationship between entrepreneurship education and professional education in universities (in Chinese). The South of China Today. 2008; 12: 41-42</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jiang X, Xie H, Ma W. Research on the transfer of scientific and technological achievements from the perspective of policy analysis (in Chinese). Science and Technology Management Research. 2016; 02: 54-59</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kezar ASmart JC. To use or not use theory: Is that the question?. Higher education handbook of theory and research. 2006; Springer: 283-344</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kitagawa, F, Sánchez Barrioluengo, M, & Uyarra, E. (2016). Third mission as institutional strategies: Between isomorphic forces and heterogeneous pathways. Science and Public Policy, scw015. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scw015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, Y. (2015). Research on Entrepreneurship Education Curriculum in Local Universities (in Chinese) (master's thesis, Shandong Normal University)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu B. Pursuit of diversified excellence Research on the construction path of inno vative universities (in Chinese). Journal of Hebei Normal University. 2021; 23: 1-7. 10.13763/j.cnki.jhebnu.ese.2021.03.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu S, van der Sijde PC. Towards the entrepreneurial University 2.0: Reaffirming the responsibility of universities in the era of accountability. Sustainability. 2021; 13; 6: 3073. 10.3390/su13063073</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marginson S, Considine M. The enterprise university: Power, governance and reinvention in Australia. 2000; Cambridge University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Matlay H, Westhead P. Virtual teams and the rise of e-entrepreneurship in Europe. International Small Business Journal. 2005; 23; 3: 279-302. 10.1177/0266242605052074</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meng L, Li P. The rise of entrepreneurship education: A double helix driven by academic leadership and policy orientation — A perspective based on a literature review (in Chinese). Journal of Liaoning Normal University (social Science Edition). 2018; 05: 49-57</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mok KH, Yue K. Promoting entrepreneurship and innovation in China: Enhancing research and transforming university curriculum. Frontiers of Education in China. 2013; 8; 2: 173-197. 10.1007/BF03396970</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mulderrig J, Montessori NM, Farrelly M. Introducing critical policy discourse analysis. 2019; Edward Elgar Publishing. 10.4337/9781788974967.00006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mwasalwiba ES. Entrepreneurship education: A review of its objectives, teaching methods, and impact indicators. IEEE Engineering Management Review. 2012; 40; 2: 72-94. 10.1109/EMR.2012.6210519</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neck HM, Greene PG. Entrepreneurship education: Known worlds and new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management. 2011; 49; 1: 55-70. 10.1111/j.1540-627X.2010.00314.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pelikan J. The idea of the university: A re-examination. 1992; Yale University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pineda P, Celis JE. Towards the entrepreneurial University? Market-based reforms and institutional isomorphism in Colombia. Education Policy Analysis Archives. 2017; 25; 71: 71. 10.14507/epaa.25.2837</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pinheiro R, Stensaker B. Designing the entrepreneurial university: The interpretation of a global idea. Public Organization Review. 2014; 14; 4: 497-516. 10.1007/s11115-013-0241-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Qian H. Domestic literature review on entrepreneurship education research. Hebei Vocational Education. 2020; 04: 105-108</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salamzadeh A, Kesim HK, Salamzadeh Y. Entrepreneurial universities and branding: A conceptual model proposal. World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development. 2016; 12; 4: 300-315. 10.1504/WRSTSD.2016.082188</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sam C, Van Der Sijde P. Understanding the concept of the entrepreneurial university from the perspective of higher education models. Higher Education. 2014; 68; 6: 891-908. 10.1007/s10734-014-9750-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmitz A, Urbano D, Dandolini GA, de Souza JA, Guerrero M. Innovation and entrepreneurship in the academic setting: A systematic literature review. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 2017; 13; 2: 369-395. 10.1007/s11365-016-0401-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> SIPO. (2021). 2020 China Patent Survey Report. State Intellectual Property Office, PRC. https://<ulink href="http://www.cnipa.gov.cn/art/2021/4/28/art%5f88%5f158969.html">www.cnipa.gov.cn/art/2021/4/28/art%5f88%5f158969.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slaughter S, Leslie LL. Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. 1997; The Johns Hopkins University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sperrer M, Müller C, Soos J. The concept of the entrepreneurial university applied to universities of technology in Austria: Already reality or a vision of the future?. Technology Innovation Management Review. 2016; 6; 10: 37-44. 10.22215/timreview/1026</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stake RE. Qualitative research: Studying how things work. 2010; Guilford Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stensaker B, Benner M. Doomed to be entrepreneurial: Institutional transformation or institutional lock-ins of 'new'universities?. Minerva. 2013; 51; 4: 399-416. 10.1007/s11024-013-9238-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strauss, A. L, & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trencher G, Yarime M, McCormick KB, Doll CN, Kraines SB. Beyond the third mission: Exploring the emerging university function of co-creation for sustainability. Science and Public Policy. 2014; 41; 2: 151-179. 10.1093/scipol/sct044</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vorley T, Nelles J. Building entrepreneurial architectures: A conceptual interpretation of the third mission. Policy Futures in Education. 2009; 7; 3: 284-296. 10.2304/pfie.2009.7.3.284</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang L. Research on the symbiosis and integration path of entrepreneurship education and professional education (in Chinese). Journal of Wuxi Commercial Vocational and Technical College. 2010; 05: 47-50</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang J. Why and how to establish innovative and entrepreneurial universities (in Chinese). Journal of East China Normal University. 2021; 12: 99-106</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang Y, Zhang S. 2009–2016: Quantitative analysis of China's scientific and technological achievements policy texts (in Chinese). Science and Technology Management Research. 2018; 02: 39-48</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu L. The reform and development of entrepreneurial universities in Germany and its enlightenment — Take the Technical University of Munich as an example (in Chinese). Higher Education Research. 2016; 12: 45-50</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xue S, Liu Z. The path and enlightenment of the construction of the world first-class latecoming university —Take two universities in Singapore as examples (in Chinese). College Education Management. 2019; 04: 27-38</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang R, Welch A. A world-class university in China?. The Case of Tsinghua. Higher Education. 2012; 63; 5: 645-666. 10.1007/s10734-011-9465-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang R, Vidovich L, Currie J. "Dancing in a cage": Changing autonomy in Chinese higher education. Higher Education. 2007; 54; 4: 575-592. 10.1007/s10734-006-9009-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang Y, Jiang Y. The rise of the entrepreneurial university and the construction of modern university system (in Chinese). Educational Research. 2021; 42; 04: 103-117</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhou C. Emergence of the entrepreneurial university in evolution of the triple helix: The case of Northeastern University in China. Journal of Technology Management in China. 2008; 3; 1: 109-126. 10.1108/17468770810851539</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhou C, Peng X. The entrepreneurial university in China: Nonlinear paths. Science & Public Policy. 2008; 35; 9: 637-646. 10.3152/030234208X363187</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhuo Z, Cao Y. How American universities build an innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystem — A perspective of resource investment (in Chinese). Academic Forum. 2016; 39; 01: 162-167</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0176609716-29"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> The policies considered in this study include national laws, regulations, and administrative orders promulgated by relevant departments of the government. From 2009 to 2016, 153 policies on technology transfer were issued by the Chinese government and relevant authorities (Wang & Zhang, [73]). From 2016 to 2021, dozens of policies were consecutively issued by governments at different levels.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Jun-hua Zhu and Rui Yang</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref118"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1420874
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Perceptions of Entrepreneurial Universities in China: A Triangulated Analysis
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jun-hua+Zhu%22">Jun-hua Zhu</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0131-1807">0000-0003-0131-1807</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rui+Yang%22">Rui Yang</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Higher+Education%3A+The+International+Journal+of+Higher+Education+Research%22"><i>Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research</i></searchLink>. 2024 87(4):819-838.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 20
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Entrepreneurship%22">Entrepreneurship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Universities%22">Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Policy%22">Educational Policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Institutional+Characteristics%22">Institutional Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attitudes%22">Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Barriers%22">Barriers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Practices%22">Educational Practices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sustainability%22">Sustainability</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22China%22">China</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10734-023-01038-4
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0018-1560<br />1573-174X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Following the West, China exhibits a proactive attitude and conservative actions to developing entrepreneurial universities. This article deconstructs such a paradoxical approach by analysing the scholarly literature, policy discourses, and empirical data and their various perceptions of entrepreneurial universities in the Greater Bay Area (GBA). We conducted 71 interviews in four case universities to obtain empirical data for triangulation with the literature and policies. Our main research findings include the following: (1) there is a desire to introduce the concept of entrepreneurial universities from the West, along with their characteristics and aims; (2) China's policy discourse of excellence and pragmatism affects entrepreneurship education and technology transfer; and (3) an emerging identity of entrepreneurial universities is constrained by attitudes and barriers at the institutional level. China's perceptions and practices reflect a lack of sustainability of and fragmented approach to developing entrepreneurial universities, with strong implications for establishing entrepreneurial universities elsewhere.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1420874
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1420874
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10734-023-01038-4
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 20
        StartPage: 819
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Entrepreneurship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Universities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Policy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Institutional Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Barriers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Practices
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sustainability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: China
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Perceptions of Entrepreneurial Universities in China: A Triangulated Analysis
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jun-hua Zhu
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rui Yang
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0018-1560
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-174X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 87
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1