Business School
PROMOTING ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN UNIVERSITIES Case study of four Finnish universities
Master ´s thesis, Innovation management Linda Aheristo (283445)
1 December 2020
UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies Business School
Innovation management
AHERISTO, LINDA: Promoting entrepreneurship in universities - Case study of four Finnish universities, Yrittäjyyden edistäminen yliopistoissa - Case-tutkimus neljästä suomalaisesta yliopistosta
Master´s thesis, 59 pages Mentor: Päivi Eriksson December 2020
Keywords: entrepreneurship, social impact of universities, entrepreneurial university
The promotion of an entrepreneurial culture in universities is considered key for successfully meeting the demands of our rapidly changing society. It was suggested that universities promote entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial skills and entrepreneurship. There are also requirements that are imposed on universities with regard to the tasks specified by law. The tasks assigned include teaching and research. In addition, the so-called “third task” – the social impact – is the one with which the entrepreneurial culture is associated. As a result, the third task as well as the concept of entrepreneurship have also become a more prominent component of university strategies. Based on previous research, both the phenomenon of entrepreneurship and the third task are associated with the conceptual differences.
The aim of the study was to determine how Finnish universities present themselves with regard to entrepreneurial culture. The study examined how universities portray themselves in relation to social impact and entrepreneurship. The theoretical goal was to induce openness to change and related concepts for universities. The main theories employed in the study were new public management, entrepreneurial universities, academic entrepreneurship and academic strategy. In the theoretical part, theories were examined from the perspective of universities.
The study examined four Finnish universities. These universities were chosen based on them being of different sizes, being geographically separated and having different profiles. The research data consisted of the strategies communicated through the universities’ websites and the interviews conducted with their management.
The results indicated that the universities promote entrepreneurship through the exhibition of extremely similar characteristics. They promoted entrepreneurship in terms of key resources, entrepreneurial leadership, experiments that facilitate entrepreneurial culture and the creation of sustainable growth. The study found that the universities do not aim to make everyone an entrepreneur but, instead, to provide them with entrepreneurial skills. These institutions believed it to be their role, as social influencers, to develop and renew the Finnish society through research- based knowledge, creativity and entrepreneurship.
ITÄSUOMEN YLIOPISTO
Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunta Kauppatieteiden laitos
Innovaatiojohtaminen
AHERISTO, LINDA: Yrittäjyyden edistäminen yliopistoissa - Case-tutkimus neljästä suomalaisesta yliopistosta, Promoting entrepreneurship in universities - Case study of four Finnish universities,
Pro gradu-tutkielma, 59 s.
Tutkielman ohjaaja: Päivi Eriksson Joulukuu 2020
Avainsanat: yrittäjyys, yliopistojen yhteiskunnallinen vaikuttavuus, yrittäjyysyliopisto
Yrittäjyyskulttuurin edistämistä yliopistoissa pidetään menestyksen avaintekijänä vastattaessa nopeasti muuttuvan yhteiskunnan vaatimuksiin. Yliopistoja on kehotettu edistämään yrittäjyyttä, yrittäjyystaitoja ja yrittäjämäistä toimintaa. Vaatimuksia asetetaan yliopistoille myös laissa määritettyjen tehtävien osalta. Säädetyt tehtävät ovat opetus ja tutkimus ja lisäksi niin sanottuna
”kolmantena tehtävänä” on yhteiskunnallinen vaikuttavuus, johon yrittäjyyskulttuuri on yhdistetty.
Näin ollen ”kolmas tehtävä” sekä yrittäjyys ovat tulleet näkyvämmäksi osaksi myös yliopistojen strategioita. Aiempien tutkimusten perusteella molempiin ilmiöihin niin yrittäjyyteen kuin kolmanteen tehtävään liittyy käsitteellisiä eroja sekä sisältöjen monitulkintaisuutta.
Tutkimuksen tavoitteena oli selvittää kuinka suomalaiset yliopistot esittävät itsensä yrittäjyyttä edistäviksi. Tutkimuksessa selvitettiin miten yliopistot kertovat itsestään suhteessa yhteiskunnalliseen vaikuttavuuteen ja yrittäjyyteen. Teoreettisena tavoitteena oli avata yliopistoihin kohdistuvaa muutosta ja siihen liittyviä konsepteja. Keskeisimpiä teorioita tutkimuksessa olivat julkinen hallinto, yrittäjyysyliopisto, akateeminen yrittäjyys sekä strategia.
Teoriaosuudessa teorioita tarkasteltiin yliopistojen näkökulmasta.
Tutkimuksessa tarkasteltiin neljää suomalaista yliopistoa. Yliopistoiksi valittiin erikokoisia, maantieteellisesti erillään sijaitsevia sekä profiloitumiseltaan erilaisia yliopistoja. Aineisto koostui yliopistojen verkkosivuilla viestityistä strategioista sekä johdon haastatteluista.
Tulokset osoittivat yliopistojen edistävän yrittäjyyttä hyvinkin samankaltaisten asioiden kautta.
Tuloksissa yrittäjyyttä edistettiin yrittäjyyttä tukevien keskeisten resurssien, yrittäjyysjohtajuuden, yrittäjyyttä mahdollistavien kokeilujen sekä kestävän kasvun luomisen osalta. Tutkimuksessa todettiin, ettei yliopistojen tarkoituksena ole tehdä kaikista yrittäjiä vaan tarjota yrittäjyystaitoja.
Yliopistot kokivat oman roolinsa yhteiskunnallisena vaikuttajana kehittämällä ja uudistamalla suomalaista yhteiskuntaa tutkimukseen perustuvan tiedon, luovuuden ja yrittäjähenkisyyden avulla.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ... 1
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ... 4
2.1 New Public Management ... 4
2.2 Entrepreneurial university ... 8
2.3 Academic entrepreneurship ... 13
2.4 Strategy ... 14
2.5 Theoretical Framework ... 17
3 METHODS ... 19
3.1 Methodological approach ... 19
3.2 Data collection ... 20
3.3 Analysis of the data ... 23
4 FINDINGS ... 26
4.1 The strategy narrative of the third task, societal impact and entrepreneurship ... 26
4.2 The management narrative of third task and its societal impact ... 36
4.3 The management narrative of entrepreneurship ... 43
5 DISCUSSION ... 53
5.1 Summary of results ... 53
5.2 Research evaluation ... 59
6 REFERENCES ... 62
1 INTRODUCTION
All over the world, universities are perceived to have an imbalance between the demands placed upon them and their capacity to fulfil the same if they remain in their traditional form (Clark. 2001).
This has driven universities in Finland to focus on updating their academic profiles and renewing their strategies to better respond to the Universities Act and the tightened financial model published by the Ministry of Education and Culture in 2010 (Hytti et al., 2017).
The university law defines the tasks of the universities as follows: “The mission of universities is to promote free research and scientific and artistic education, to provide research-based higher education, and to educate students to serve the homeland and humanity” (Universities Act 558/2009). A university’s main duties, as prescribed by law, can be summarised as scientific research, high-quality education and social impact. The university law aims to create better operating conditions for universities to maintain the quality and effectiveness of their teaching and research activities.
This reformation of the public sector to which universities belong, also called as New Public Management (Reiter & Klenk, 2019), serves as a starting point for this dissertation. The purpose of this work is to explore the strategic changes implemented by universities. Social impact, the so- called third task that is one of the duties of universities, plays a key role for this change and in this study. Although, according to Ilmavirta et al. (2013), it is not a separate task and, instead, is a part of the other tasks.
The key factor for universities to succeed not only at the EU level but also globally in the rapidly emerging international world of learning is the promotion of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial activity in the universities (Clark, 2001; Heiskari et al., 2016). The concept of an entrepreneurial university is the solution of the universities for the rapidly changing needs of society, the pressures associated with funding and local, and even global, competition (Chanphirun & van der Sijde, 2014).
The need for transformation towards entrepreneurship-university is global, and Finnish universities are not the first or only ones to face such transformation. However, this study focuses on Finnish universities, as higher education institutions in Finland are considering and developing their strategies precisely from the perspective of social impact (Aarrevaara et al., 2016).
Purpose of this study, research questions
As universities are advised to promote an entrepreneurial approach and academic entrepreneurship (Siegel & Wright, 2015), this study aims to identify whether there are any entrepreneurial activities and key steps being undertaken by Finnish universities to become entrepreneurial institutes. Each university must formulate its own solutions for how to bring about change (Clark, 2001). Further, according to Hytti et al. (2017), “the concept of entrepreneurship is more closely related to the practical than the academic realm”. In addition to the concept being understood differently among the top and middle academic management (Hytti et al., 2017), there are differences between universities and disciplines with regard to how entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial behaviour occur in the university community as a whole, including aspects such as leadership and strategy levels (Heiskari et al., 2016).
It is important to study universities as a separate cases to understand their individual approaches. I have chosen four Finnish universities as my research targets. My research demonstrates that changes towards becoming an entrepreneurial university are occurring at every studied university at the strategic level as well as at the leadership level.
My preliminary research question is: How do Finnish universities present themselves as being entrepreneurship-focused institutes?
I answer this question by dividing my research assignment into two sections. I start by examining universities’ strategies communicated through their websites and unravel how the tasks necessitated by the Ministry of Education and Culture are reflected in the same. For this section, my secondary research question is as follows: How do Finnish universities present their strategy regarding the third task of societal impact and entrepreneurship?
Second, my research illustrates how academic leaders understand the so-called third task of universities. I look for answers to this based on interviews conducted with the management of the universities. Here my research question is: How do the academic managers of Finnish universities portray the third task of societal impact and entrepreneurship?
I examine the situation of every university as a story by focusing on their narrative as a mode of analysis. I am interested in the kind of understandings that universities have about the third task and entrepreneurship and how these are reflected through their employed strategies. The key concepts covered in my research are new public management, strategy, entrepreneurial university and academic entrepreneurship.
I will begin my research by discussing the ongoing change in the public sector that has led universities to require reform and consider the concepts, such as that of an entrepreneurial university and academic entrepreneurship, that are recommended to the universities and that they are aiming to realise. It is also essential to consider the importance of the strategy used by the universities because I utilise it as a data source in this research. Following this, the methodological approach will be described, which comprises a twofold data collection method and a method of analysis.
In the next section of Chapter 4, the four studied universities are introduced as narrative case stories formed on the basis of strategy and interviews. I will introduce the results by first examining the strategy narratives of each university before moving on to the management narratives to offer a deeper understanding of the concepts of both uniqueness and commonality. I will also provide solutions for how to bring about change.
In the last chapter, I present the main research results and compare them to the framework of my thesis. I conclude the chapter with an evaluation of this work and suggest some future research ideas.
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This section examines the importance of new public management, entrepreneurial universities, academic entrepreneurship and strategy for universities. I will first consider New Public Management because universities that are reforming their definition in society and the economy are currently facing institutional and cultural changes (European Commission & OECD, 2012).
For my research, it is important to understand the different areas of New Public Management and how these affect Finnish universities.
Second, I will analyse the meaning of an entrepreneurial university, which has been said to be a solution for universities to survive institutional and cultural changes. I will discuss this concept and explain the different elements of entrepreneurial universities that have been stated in previous studies. I will continue by examining academic entrepreneurship, which extends the entrepreneurial university concept from the organisational level to the staff. There is also a discussion in this section comparing entrepreneurship and academic entrepreneurship. Finally, I examine strategy and the related recommendations for university strategies for implementing the concept of entrepreneurial university.
2.1 New Public Management
New Public Management (NPM) is synonymous with public sector reform (Reiter & Klenk, 2019), and its aim is to increase the efficiency and the effectiveness of the higher education sector (Broucker et al., 2015). NPM has been described by Verger and Curran (2014) as a “philosophical corpus of managerial ideas that aims at driving public sector reform in a range of policy areas” (p.
253). In other words, NPM covers the sectors and activities that occur in public administration.
One of these sectors is education, which has, in most countries, the largest budgets and number of employees. “NPM has drastically altered the governance of education institutions, and principles, such as school autonomy, result-based performance or client’s choice, have deeply penetrated the regulation of education systems” (Verger & Curran, 2014, p. 254).
However, NPM has been severely criticised for years, and the model is said to be in crisis and considered dead (Reiter & Klenk, 2019). However, NPM has been severely criticised for years, and the model is said to be in crisis and considered dead (Reiter & Klenk, 2019). Hood (1991) identified four criticisms of NPM that can be counted as its main limitations. The first asserts that NPM is akin to Hans Andersen’s story The Emperor’s New Clothes, in that the advent of NPM has changed little. The second criticism is that NPM has not realised its promise of lowering costs but, in fact, has resulted in the “aggrandisement of management” in many cases and has thus damaged the service being given to public. The third common criticism was that, while NPM claims to promote the “public good”, it promotes the interests of an elite group of “new managerialists”
rather than those of the public-service customers or low-level staff. The fourth criticism was regarding the claim of universality implied by NPM. Critics argue that NPM cannot be “public management for all seasons”, since different administrative values have different implications for the fundamental aspects of administrative design (Hood, 1991.) The “replaced trend”, which is also referred to as post-NPM, has been introduced and reviewed by Reiter and Klenk (2019). However, as a result of their literature review, it needs further adjustments to be effectively used.
Finland is one of the OECD countries, which have implemented public sector reforms during recent decades. These reforming acts have been classified under the concept of NPM, which has been a part of the vocabulary used in administrative studies over the years. NPM was found to be the remedy for countries that suffered from economic recession and tax revolts and was adapted by most OECD countries (Tiili, 2008). In comparison to other OECD countries, Finland is defined as a “latecomer” with regard to NPM adoption, as the new university law was passed in 2009. Before this, Finnish universities were under traditional, strict legal control (Broucker et al., 2015). On the other hand, Finland has been defined as a “moderniser” with respect to the actions taken during the adoption of NPM, which has been described to have used a more adventurous strategy rather than a conservative one (Tiili, 2008).
NPM consists of various elements that different authors have emphasised. Broucker et al. (2015, p.6) have classified the NPM areas into four board areas, which offers “a solid approach to analyses reforms in higher education’s different contexts”. These four areas are 1) market-based reforms, 2) budgetary reforms, 3) autonomy, accountability and performance and 4) new management style and new management techniques. An NPM reform does not need every element to be implemented
to the same extent to qualify as an NPM reform (Broucker et al., 2015). The following table summarises the NPM characteristics that have been discussed by several authors.
Table 1: NPM areas in higher education
Marginson (2009) Hénard and Mitterle (2006)
Bleiklie and Michelsen (2013)
Ferlie et al. (2008)
Market-based reforms
Role expansion of private institutions;
encouragement of commercial activity;
competition creation
Competition between public agencies and private entities
Competition for students and funding; market entrance encouragement and failure acceptability
Budgetary reforms
Increase in student fees
Financial incentives
Budgetary constraints
Value for money; real prices development and introduction of higher student fees; hardening of soft budgetary constraints Autonomy,
accountability and
performance
Output modelling Incentives Formalisation of evaluation; more autonomy
Performance measurement and monitoring; audit and checking systems; vertical steering
New management style and new management techniques
Corporatisation reform
Leadership principles
Hierarchisation Development of strong executive and managerial roles; reduction in faculty representation; local government influence reduction
Source: Broucker et al. (2015, p. 6)
The identified NPM areas and the other elements presented in the literature are not equally adopted by every OECD country because there is no one “correct” way of adopting NPM (Tiili, 2008). The model of NPM highlights strategic steering as the strategic approach that is a part of NPM’s performance orientation, “meaning that it permits the organization to focus more clearly and consistently on its high-priority goals and leads to a more intensive pursuit of the results that are deemed to be of the greatest importance” (Tiili, 2008, p. 1). To demonstrate that the NPM reform has been adopted and is visible in Finland, I will go through the NPM areas presented earlier by examining the implementation of every element and showing their effects in universities.
Market-based reforms
Many OECD governments have moved towards increasing the marketisation of the higher education sector in a bid to enhance its efficiency and accountability while reducing the financial burden of the government (Broucker et al., 2015, Meek & Davies, 2009).
According to Broucker et al. (2015), higher education institutes have traditionally been under legal control in Finland. The revised university law, however, enhanced the institutes’ financial freedom as well as legal status and introduced an entrepreneurial culture in them.
Budgetary reforms
The funding model of universities consists of basic funding, granted by the Ministry of Education and Culture, and external funding, such as funding received from the Finnish Academy, TEKES, companies, foundations or from the European Union. In general, extensive competition exists for external funding. (OKM, 2019). The state remains the main funder in Finland, although the increase in university autonomy has provided more opportunities for institutes to seek private funding (Broucker et al., 2015). The funding model used for Finnish universities will be revised in 2021 by the Ministry of Education and Culture.
Specifically, the changes support the strategic development of universities by increasing the share of strategic funding from 12% to 15%. Further, from 2021, strategy-based funding will be divided into a program-based segment and one that supports higher education institutions’ own strategy and renewal. In addition, the state funding of universities will consider national tasks. The purpose of the funding model is to strengthen the quality, efficiency and productivity of higher education institutions (OKM, 2019).
Autonomy, accountability and performance
Although Finnish higher education institutes have been granted increased autonomy, the control of the state is still strong. According to Broucker et al. (2015), in Finland as well as in many other OECD countries, the state’s role has changed, going from using a control model to a supervisory model, wherein management is based on results. According to the Ministry of Education and Culture, at the beginning of the four-year contract period, the higher education institutions and the
Ministry negotiate and agree on the university’s common goals, key university-specific measures, mission, profile, strengths and new emerging areas, degree goals and allocations. The processes of reporting on these achievements are also defined in the agreement (OKM, 2019). According to Etzkowitz (2017), the objective is to encourage universities to play a creative role in the economy while still being responsive to the priorities of the government and the industry.
New management style and new management techniques
The last broad area of NPM relates to the introduction of a new management style, which Broucker et al. (2015) combine with the position of rector and a board with external members in the Finnish context. Referring to the Finnish university law, universities have a board, a rector and a university collegiate body. The board is the highest authority with respect to decision-making and consists of 7–14 members that comprise professors, students and other teaching and research staff. At least 40% of the board members must be external stakeholders. The rector is elected by the board and holds the main executive power (University Act, 2009).
As the earliest review shows, the NPM reform in Finland has been studied but mostly at the country level. Its impact at the university level, particularly from the perspective of academic leaders, is minor. However, its influence on universities is significant, especially from a financial point of view. My research highlights the impact of the changes in both university strategy and managerial interviews.
2.2 Entrepreneurial university
The concept of an entrepreneurial university can be considered being developed by Clark Burton in 1998 in his case studies on European universities, including Joensuu University in Finland. Clark studied for the first time how universities responded to the imbalance between institutional autonomy and state control and argued that integrated entrepreneurial culture is one of the five transformation pathways obtained from these cases. This study formed the concept of an entrepreneurial university, and since then, Clark has expanded the studies around this concept (Clark, 1998, 2005; Shattock, 2010). The diversified funding base is also one of the pathways considered as the reason for the birth of the concept as universities became independent legal
entities with economic autonomy, thus forcing universities to act entrepreneurially to find funding (Chanphirun & van der Sijde, 2014).
One of the explanations for the concept of an entrepreneurial university defines it as a university that actively seeks innovations for its business (Chanphirun & van der Sijde, 2014). Other definitions include entrepreneurial activities that aim to improve regional or national economic performance as well as the university’s financial interest and its faculty (Chanphirun & van der Sijde, 2014).
As the definition for the entrepreneurial university is ambiguous for the European Higher Education Area, the European Commission and OECD have determined a framework that brings together the existing literature and models for commonly identified features of an entrepreneurial university (European Commission & OECD, 2012). I consider this framework important for my research because it is an identified tool for the pathway towards establishing an entrepreneurial university in the Finnish universities considered in this study.
The ideology behind this framework is that instead of a single definition, the entrepreneurial university comprises a wide range of entrepreneurship approaches that distinguish the entrepreneurial approaches (European Commission & OECD, 2012). The framework includes seven areas that cover many of the commonly identified features of an entrepreneurial university.
These seven areas are: 1) Leadership and governance, 2) Organizational capacity, people and incentives, 3) Entrepreneurship development in teaching and learning, 4) Pathways for entrepreneurs, 5) Business/external relationships for knowledge exchange, 6) Entrepreneurial university as an internationalised institution and 7) Measuring the impact of the entrepreneurial university. (European Commission & OECD, 2012.) These areas are explained in detail below.
1) Leadership and governance are both vital for an entrepreneurial university to develop the entrepreneurial culture in an institution (European Commission & OECD, 2012). Entrepreneurial leadership is required for successful institutional autonomy (Clark, 2001) “through the development of policy and related instruments and their interpretation of external signals” (Davies, 2001, p. 41). More attention is also paid to leadership due to the reform of Finnish university law, following which 12 out of 13 Finnish universities have appointed a leader or senior-level recruits.
Regarding the impact assessment of the university reform, the development of leadership and management systems are highlighted in several universities’ strategies (Niinikoski et al. 2012.).
2) Organisational capacity, people and incentives can be organizational constraints that universities are suggested to look at for fulfilling their entrepreneurial agenda (European Commission &
OECD, 2012). The number of university staff has been growing in the last few years until 2010.
However, after the reform of the law, the number has been falling (Niinikoski et al. 2012). Staff is the key resource of an entrepreneurial university, so the profile of the employees must also support entrepreneurial activities. “Encouraging and rewarding entrepreneurial behaviour in all staff reinforces the commitment to developing as an Entrepreneurial University” (European Commission & OECD, 2012, p. 7). In its traditional form, universities’ internal academic attitudes do not meet the current growing external expectations (Coaldrake, 2001).
3) Entrepreneurship development in teaching and learning needs the organizational structure to support entrepreneurial development. Professor of entrepreneurship or someone responsible for entrepreneurship at the faculty level in the university as well as different learning approaches, such as living labs and startups, have been raised as structures to stimulate and support entrepreneurial mindset and skills. (European Commission & OECD, 2012, p. 8). Tenure-track career structure is an example of supporting employment in universities that also have an entrepreneurial approach.
Career progression is based on scientific evidence and networking, teaching and leadership skills and the ability to obtain external funding (Niinikoski et al., 2012). The framework also highlights the importance of collaboration with external stakeholders, which Etzkowitz (2017) recommends for an academic entrepreneurial transition with increased autonomy.
Interest in entrepreneurship is rising, especially among young people. According to Heiskari et al.
(2016), in the academic year 2014–2015, up to 21% of university students considered entrepreneurship a likely or highly probable career choice. The biggest influence on this increasing interest has been identified as events like Slush that are founded to change the general public attitude towards entrepreneurship. Universities should be strongly involved in this due to the importance of their role and mission in the entrepreneurship ecosystem. (Heiskari et al. 2016.) 4) Pathways for entrepreneurs: “For universities to be entrepreneurial, they need to support the pathways taken by would-be entrepreneurs (staff and students) from ideas to market growth or into employment” (European Commission & OECD, 2012, p. 10). Universities are recommended to provide opportunities for staff and students to experience entrepreneurship and possibilities to move an entrepreneurial idea to execution (European Commission & OECD, 2012).
5) Business/external relationships for knowledge exchange: The key to a successful entrepreneurial university is to build external relationships for knowledge exchange. With the collaboration of the external environmental elements, such as the public sector, industry and society, universities can reach the full potential in entrepreneurship (European Commission & OECD, 2012, p. 13), as modern universities are expected to (Chanphirun & van der Sijde, 2014, p. 901). Universities are recommended to take an active role in the entrepreneurship ecosystem by providing a platform for diverse new business development (Heiskari et al. 2016).
6) The entrepreneurial university as an internationalised institution: Reforms on the economic and administrative status of universities are conducive to the emergence of stronger and more independent universities, which in turn are expected to contribute towards the strengthening of their international competitiveness (Niinikoski et al., 2012). Internationalisation is identified as one of the characteristics of an entrepreneurial university. “It is not possible for a university to be entrepreneurial without being international, but the university can be international without being entrepreneurial” (European Commission & OECD, 2012, p. 14). The third task also presents an international perspective in its definition, as Goddard (2009, p. 4) states that universities have ‘‘a civic duty to engage with wider society on the local, national and global scales and to do so in a manner which links the social to the economic spheres’’. Transforming to a new form where universities are also viable, autonomous and competitive at the international level—a requirement that Clark (2001, p.11) calls “entrepreneurial response”—has become a necessity for universities across the world.
7) Measuring the impact of the entrepreneurial university is mentioned in the framework as the most underdeveloped element in universities. To create an entrepreneurial university, the impact of changes in the perspectives that affect graduate entrepreneurship, talent retention, local economic development or the impacts of the broader entrepreneurial strategy should be measured.
In addition to measuring, it is suggested that universities monitor and evaluate the impact of entrepreneurship education and approaches during different phases of action (European Commission & OECD, 2012). Implementing entrepreneurship approaches with entrepreneurial activities does not automatically transform the university into an entrepreneurial university.
Entrepreneurial activities must produce results that are considered as added value for education and research. (Chanphirun & van der Sijde, 2014).
Picture 1: A guiding framework for entrepreneurial university
Source: European Commission & OECD, 2012
According to Chanphirun & van der Sijde (2014) “Whether or not universities are becoming entrepreneurial universities, all universities seek and are challenged to seek opportunities to collaborate with stakeholders in their innovation ecosystem as well as to commercialize their knowledge” (p. 902). Entrepreneurial universities describe the role that universities have come to play in modern economic development activities. A transformation through the integration of the three missions is difficult but necessary for responding to the needs of the knowledge driven society, collaborating with stakeholders and keeping up with global developments.
According to Chanphirun & van der Sijde (2014) “Universities in many countries are inclined to adopt the third mission and shifting their traditional institutions based on teaching and research to the entrepreneurial ones to respond to the rapidly changing demands of the knowledge-based economy in the global context” (p. 901). New knowledge and know-how produced at universities are essential preconditions for creating sustainable growth and prosperity in society. The
entrepreneurial approach is seen as an element for transferring knowledge and know-how to the capital and resources of companies that can stimulate economic growth and create new jobs (Heiskari et al. 2016).
It has been studied that Finnish universities implement the topics raised by the framework, as these universities have also been used as case material (European Commission & OECD, 2012).
However, these studies do not show how the recommendations of the framework are adopted in the university strategies or how the concept of an entrepreneurial university is interpreted by the university management.
2.3 Academic entrepreneurship
Academic entrepreneurship is linked to the third task in the framework for an entrepreneurial university. Entrepreneurial universities set its requirements not just for the management but also for university staff and students by adopting and sharing an entrepreneurial culture (European Commission & OECD, 2012). Efforts and acts that are aimed at commercialising the outcomes of research by the university faculty and their industry partners can be termed academic entrepreneurship (Wood, 2010).
The term ‘academic entrepreneur’ is mostly applicable to researchers who started a company based on a technology they developed while working in an academic department (Abreu & Grinevish, 2012). Now, the definition also focuses on the university staff and students who are called ‘would- be entrepreneurs’. Their career development or entrepreneurship pathway should be supported by universities, starting from ideas to market growth and into employment (European Commission &
OECD, 2012). In summary, academic entrepreneurs are researchers, teachers, students and administrators who work on entrepreneurial activities referred to in the third task of the framework (Hytti et al., 2017).
It has been criticized that the academic entrepreneurship literature currently focuses on entrepreneurship acts from a commercialization perspective, whereas it should be widened to include other informal commercial and non-commercial entrepreneurial activities, such as “student learning within entrepreneurial environments and the sustainability of institutions during economic
downturns” (Abreu & Grinevish, 2012, p. 410). “In commercial entrepreneurship, value is typically defined by the creation of new products, services or transactions that customers are willing to purchase and that render a profit for the entrepreneur” (Wadhwani et al., 2017, p.185). Today, the aim is to define value no longer on commercial terms, but to focus on the inspiration and motivation that is necessary for individuals to move ideas to action that may be deemed worthy. It is about creating value in many areas of society (European Commission & OECD, 2012).
In Finland, the internationally known tenure-track career system (the career path of the professor) was first introduced at Aalto University through a new university law and was later adopted by other universities. According to Maria Pietilä (2015, p. 383), this career structure has two main goals. First, it will support the development of the academic career pathway from three different perspectives: research excellence, teaching excellence and internationalisation. Secondly, it will help allocate resources to build distinct faculty profiles with ‘special competence’ and strengthen the strategic visions and missions of universities.
2.4 Strategy
It has been said that strategies are not needed unless there is competition. This is why strategies have remained influential in the private sector and have fallen behind in the public sector (Tiili, 2008). Llewellyn and Tappin (2003, p. 957) identified three issues that have prevented strategic management of the public sector agenda. Firstly, the lack of competition due to the monopoly of public services reduces the motivation for strategy development. Secondly, public organizations are not affected by changes since the ways of service production have remained the same. Third, public services frequently face inconsistent demands and insoluble problems (Llewellyn and Tappin, 2003, p. 957). Tiili (2008, p. 31) states that the first two issues faced by the public sector have changed in the OECD countries chiefly due to NPM, but the third issue is still prevalent (Tiili, 2008, p. 31).
Although universities do not face competition similar to organizations in the private sector, the newly reformed university law and funding model has set new strategy-level requirements for the higher education sector. Stewart (2004) states that strategy in the public sector, in this case, universities, is a tool for managers to gain public value and generate genuine traction in the public
sector. Three kinds of strategic thinking are considered key factors in the public sector: policy strategy, organizational strategy and managerial strategy (Stewart, 2014).
The government wants to change the policy strategy through the new university law and tasks. The Ministry of Education and Culture has set three tasks in university law: research, teaching and social impact. University law specifies goals and targets, especially for the third task (social impact), which it aims to improve (University Act, 2009). Universities are expected to react to the changes, diversify their funding base, compete with international research funding agencies, cooperate with foreign universities and research institutes, allocate resources to the top research and strategic areas of focus, strengthen the quality and effectiveness of their research and teaching activities and strengthen their role in the innovation system (Niinikoski et al., 2012, p. 11). Also, the Ministry of Education and Culture and the universities agree with the targets for education and science policy as well as the monitoring and evaluation of their implementation (University Act, 2009).
Regarding to policy level strategy in the context of Finnish universities, common vision for year of 2025 has been defined for Finnish universities. The vision is based on the view that Finland's strength lies in the new knowledge and high-level know-how produced by universities. Universities are social innovators, builders of success, and internationally esteemed future-minders (Universities Finland UNIFI, 2016).
The universities will be internationally recognised leaders into the future, social reformers and builders of success. The universities support sustainable growth and strengthen well-being through high quality research-based education and impressive academic and artistic activities. (Universities Finland UNIFI, 2016)
The common mission has also been defined for the universities. “The universities provide impressive scientific knowledge, high-level expertise and in-depth education” (Universities Finland UNIFI, 2016)
“Organisational strategy must derive from policy strategy, because this is an obvious way of meeting ministerial expectations, but it also takes in the values-based, cultural and historical qualities of the agency itself” (Stewart, 2014, p. 19). Organizational strategy also includes details on how to meet the needs and expectations of stakeholders and the different focal areas of teaching
that the university offers. According to Niinikoski et al. (2012, p. 33), a university’s areas of focus and profile building are dependent on the competence of professors and their ability to acquire funding. Universities acquire regional, national or international research based on the faculty profiles and their strengths. Through organizational strategy, the university should be able to define the prerequisites for the success of its core business strategy and leadership (Aarrevaara et al., 2016).
Managerial strategy includes the technical aspects of organizational strategy (Stewart, 2014) at the university level and is usually described in the form of a strategic implementation program, presented separately on the university website, highlighting the key measurements and coordinates of the university’s action plans and finances for the upcoming year. According to Fenton and Langley (2011, p. 1172), strategic activities in organizations take place through text, talk and conversation.
Strategy is a social practice present in the everyday lives of organizational members (Mantere, 2005) and encompasses fundamental problems faced by managers in applying the strategy to their field of practice (Tovstiga, 2013, p. 3). Strategic thinking and leadership in higher education define how well the prevailing strategies are performing (Aarrevaara et al., 2016).
The European Commission and OECD (2012) have made recommendations for university strategies to implement the concepts of the entrepreneurial university. First, the framework states that internationalisation should be a key part of the university’s strategy and that entrepreneurship goals should be reflected in the internationalisation strategy. Secondly, the framework states that
“there has to be commitment to implementing the strategy in relation to the entrepreneurial agenda”
(European Commission & OECD, 2012, p. 4). Additionally, it is stated that the strategy should be known, understood and supported by the institution´s staff and students through internal communication. The third recommendation states that “the university assesses the impact of its entrepreneurial strategy and the strategy is responsive to change” (European Commission &
OECD, 2012, p.16). In addition, “universities should be able to demonstrate that it collects evidence of the effect of activities on its entrepreneurial agenda that the evidence is actively used as a tool for reflection and review of the strategy and mission of the university” (European Commission & OECD, 2012, p. 16).
2.5 Theoretical Framework
This chapter introduces the concepts of New Public Management (NPM), entrepreneurial university, academic entrepreneurship and strategy through university reform. This will form the theoretical framework of my study. First, I reviewed the background of NPM that has been implemented as a part of an administrative reform in Finland (Tiili, 2008). Administrative reform represents the acts of the Ministry of Education and Culture that have legally set tasks to universities and introduced the funding model.
Based on previous studies, I looked at different areas of NPM from the perspective of Finnish universities and highlighted the reforms implemented by these universities. Then I reviewed the concept of the entrepreneurial university and its various definitions. I concluded that during the reform, entrepreneurial activities should be established as part of the strategy to facilitate the development of the university as an entrepreneurial organization with an entrepreneurial culture (European Commission & OECD, 2012) that is seen as the right choice to meet the needs of a changing environment. The aim is to increase co-operation in entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial activities within and between universities and to promote the visibility of different forms of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial behavior so that they can be embraced as common practices among universities and different disciplines (Heiskari et al., 2016). I introduced the concept by explaining the framework for entrepreneurial universities developed by the European Commission and OECD (2012) that gives practical guidelines for universities to transition towards this otherwise difficult-to-understand concept.
According to the European Commission and OECD framework, “universities are expected to encourage staff and students to develop entrepreneurial mindsets, behavior and skills through a range of mechanisms which can be tailored to the individual” (European Commission & OECD, 2012). Academic entrepreneurship has been strongly connected to commercialisation acts, but this study will focus more on non-commercial entrepreneurial activities and attitudes. The concept of academic entrepreneurship is fading the gaps between the so-called traditional entrepreneurship and academic career through a change of attitude and by combining the operating environment of universities and businesses. The challenge, however, is that academic entrepreneurship remains a concept that never comes to practice. This affects the universities’ mission to create an
entrepreneurial university to fulfill the expectations set by the Ministry of Education and Culture, which leads to financing. This underlines the role of an academic leader, the importance of their personal views about this concept and its implementation in universities. Following my conceptual framework, I will investigate the personal views of university managers to understand strategic- level decisions and managerial-level key measures taken for the development of an entrepreneurial university.
Finally, I examined the realization of the reform through law changes, highlighting the importance of university strategy, which includes both objectives and key operational guidelines. Ministerial expectations strongly affect universities’ strategies that are built for competitive success in a rapidly changing world, and that is why “it is hard to imagine a university without a strategy process...” (Lehtimäki, 2017, p. 8). University strategies should be incorporated in key relationships, such as internal and external stakeholders, and represent the vision, mission, goals and targets in written form (documents or webpages) or strategy talk (interviews) (Lehtimäki, 2017). Strategic funding is granted to universities on the basis of the measures proposed by them working with the Ministry of Education and Culture. Funding is based on accelerating the transition to working life, developing research and learning environments, utilizing know-how, enhancing the effectiveness of higher education and research, creating regional and sectoral competence centers and reforming structures and practices of the university.
3 METHODS
In this chapter, I start with the background information that my research was formed on. I explain how I collected my strategic-level research data on university strategies and how I chose my case universities. Second, I will research the practical level and explain how I study the research concepts by conducting interviews with top and middle management. Finally, I introduce how I connected the strategy analysis and interview analysis as a narrative case story. A case study research method was chosen to study the individuality and complexity of each university regarding this transformation (Stake, 1995).
3.1 Methodological approach
The current study is part of the Academic Entrepreneurship as a Social Process Research project funded by Finnish Academia. The Academy of Finland finances high-quality scientific research, acts as an expert in science and science policy and strengthens the position of science and research.
The academy works in the administrative sector of the Ministry of Education and Culture (Academy of Finland, 2018). Research under this project is linked to academic entrepreneurship from different perspectives by seeking an understanding of the concept. For my study, this research project offered a unique opportunity to use personal interviews with the top and middle academic management of all Finnish universities, using these for my own research perspective.
Seeking an understanding of the phenomenon can be seen as an adventure to enter into a specific topic; this is what qualitative research can offer. I chose a qualitative approach to investigate the phenomenon, recognising the fact that this method is not the easiest to work with and can create chaos inside my mind: “For many novice researchers, analysing qualitative data is found to be unexpectedly challenging and time-consuming” (Erlingsson & Brysiewicz, 2017, p. 93). In this kind of situation, it is good to remember that with chaos, you will find a deeper understanding of your research phenomena: “Good advice for the qualitative researcher is to be open to the complexity in the data and utilise one’s flow of creativity” (Erlingsson & Brysiewicz, 2017, p. 94).
My goal is to increase the understanding of the timely phenomena of entrepreneurial university among Finnish universities. Here, I am interested in research universities as unique cases but also in studying their commonalities. To do this, the most useful approach is the case study approach, which should be chosen if the subject of the research is phenomenon (Erikson & Koistinen, 2014, p. 5). As Stake (1995) states, we seek to understand cases and would like to hear stories. The case study research approach not only enables a way for assembling the stories of universities during the reform, but it also reveals similarities and uniqueness.
Also, the fact that strategies are always university-specific makes them cases that need to be researched as such. A case study is characterised by a contextual approach, where the aim is to understand the case as part of the environment (Eriksson & Koistinen, 2014). Because the context affects all Finnish universities and is investigating multiple cases, I will gain a better understanding of the phenomena, and the cases can be compared with each other. Stake (1995, pp. 4-5) defines this as a collective case study.
3.2 Data collection
I started by collecting the data on university strategies based on the information on their website.
At this point, I wanted to take each and every Finnish university into account to obtain the most comprehensive picture possible. However, I excluded the Finnish National Defence University;
after this, the number of universities was 13. I aligned the renewing of strategies to the information found on the webpages; doing this did not take into account separated documents or implementation programmes.
Based on the analysis of these strategies, I chose four universities to be my research cases. The chosen universities are spread geographically across Finland and represent both big and small universities. The choice of these universities was also influenced by the desire to have universities with different specialisations. Next, I briefly introduce each university by providing their basic information based on each universities websites.
The University of Turku
The University of Turku, which was established in 1920, has seven faculties (Faculty of Humanities, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Faculty of Medicine, Faculty of Law, Faculty of Social Sciences, Faculty of Education and Turku School of Economics) and 11 independent units.
The university has 19,554 students and 3,300 staff members. The employment rate is impressive, with 95% of graduates being employed in a field corresponding to their education. Turku’s current strategy was created for the years 2016–2020 and can be found on the university’s official websites.
The university has profiled itself as an entrepreneurial university with an entrepreneurial strategy, which makes this university particularly interesting. Turku has also introduced a new strategy for the years 2021–2030 in a separate presentation, which has been considered in addition to the current strategy. (University of Turku.)
Aalto University
Aalto University has six schools with nearly 20,000 students and 4,000 employees, 386 of whom are professors. There is a wide variety of bachelor’s and master’s degree programmes in Aalto University, and they also offer doctoral programmes in all their fields of study. Aalto University was founded in 2010 when Helsinki University of Technology, the Helsinki School of Economics and the University of Art and Design Helsinki merged together. The main campus is located at Otaniemi, Espoo, Finland. The other campuses are in Töölö and Arabia in Helsinki. Aalto University states on its website a new strategy that will take effect in 2021. (Aalto University.) Lappeenranta University of Technology (LUT)
Lappeenranta University of Technology (LUT) is a pioneering science university in Finland, bringing together the fields of science and business; it first opened its doors in 1969. The university’s international community is composed of approximately 6,500 students and experts engaged in scientific research and academic education. The university promotes business generated by scientific research. This is demonstrated by the university’s own investment company, Green Campus Innovations, which supports LUT’s research-based start-up companies. LUT has three different schools: the School of Energy Systems, the School of Engineering Science and the School of Business and Management. The university describes itself as a solver looking for solutions to
the conditions of life (clean energy, water and air) through technical and economical know-how.
The university’s strategy is presented on its main webpages. (LUT University.)
The University of Vaasa
The University of Vaasa educates responsible leaders and experts in the needs of the future. The education and research that the university provides is wide ranging, spanning from business studies, administration, and technology to communication. The research is relevant to our time, and the university produces scientific knowledge of high international quality. The strength of the university is its community spirit, which promotes multidisciplinary studies and research. The campus is located on the western coast of Finland and offers a modern study environment for 5,000 students on the shore of the beautiful archipelago. University of Vaasa is profiled as “Business- oriented and multidisciplinary science university” (University of Vaasa.)
These universities were chosen based on them being of different sizes, being geographically separated and having different profiles. After choosing the case universities, I obtained access to the academic managers’ interviews. In the Academic Entrepreneurship as a Social Process Research Project, academic top and middle managers from all Finnish universities were interviewed. I used analytic memoing, which is a brief or extended narrative that documents the researcher’s reflections and thinking processes about the data. Memos are not just descriptive summaries of the data but are attempts to synthesise them into higher-level analytic meanings (Miles et al., 2014). The interviews were held in Finnish, which indicates that memoing was easier to do in Finnish, too. Reading the spoken language and understanding the core of the matter turned out to be very challenging and made me read the interviews again and again.
The interviews focused on the personal experiences of each manager. In my analysis, I focused on the concept and meaning of academic entrepreneurship and how the interviewees have promoted entrepreneurship and what they consider important, risky or undesirable. Also, I focused on the acts made by the university to promote entrepreneurship regarding should be done next, the best- case and worst-case scenarios for the university in the future in terms of entrepreneurship and the importance of entrepreneurship at the national level. The questions were open and required reflection from the interviewee, which is why the interviews cover a variety of themes in different orders. This made the analysis rather challenging.
3.3 Analysis of the data
To better understand the research phenomenon and answer my research question, I applied analytical methods suitable for my own research. I started by analysing the universities’ strategies based on the information collected from their websites. I focused on the following types of information for each university:
• The time period for which the strategy was made
• Strategic goals/ themes
• Mission
• Vision
• Phrases related to entrepreneurship or social impact
• Findability of the strategy in websites
I highlighted all the words and sentences that were related to entrepreneurship, academic entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial university, societal impact and strategy. In my classification, societal impact also includes the words or phrases related to working life, employment, environment and innovation. For choosing the case universities, I used direct interpretations in addition to categorising the words and phrases under the themes introduced previously. This was carried out according to Stake’s (1995) general strategic way of analysing case studies, which relies on both of these methods. The four chosen universities represent my own interpretation of the fact that the research phenomenon is visible in their strategy and aroused interest in further research.
Next, I started analysing academic managers’ interviews from four universities. I started the qualitative content analysis by going through each interview one by one, marking the text sections with different colours and side notes where entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial university, strategy or social impact were talked about. In this way, I formatted the content by themes, which is a widely used method for analysing the qualitative data collected in a case study (Eriksson & Koistinen,
2014). Highlighting the right words was still not enough to understand the interviews; they required interpretation as well. It was surprisingly difficult to understand the interviewee based on the text, which is why it required several readings and lots of time. “Systematic coding is an essential part of traditional content analysis, which aims to the quantification of qualitative data. Various coding procedures can also be applied in qualitative content analysis” (Eriksson, & Kovalainen, 2016, p.
120). It is also mentioned by Eriksson & Kovalainen that qualitative content analysis can be conducted without coding (Eriksson, & Kovalainen, 2015).
I started to write narrative memos one interview at a time. Narratives make it easier to find contacts, to form fragmented entities and to understand the world (Eriksson & Koistinen, 2014). I decided to use the same frame as in the questionnaire because even though every question was not related to the topics of my research, they contained stories about them or continued from previous questions, which made it easier to understand the overall picture. Lots of unknown concepts concerning the university world emerged from the interviews and required background research so that the contexts could help form understandable entities. Analysing the data and writing theory was done at the same time so that they could support each other.
At this point, I had finished the strategy analysis and interview analysis for my case universities.
The next step was to connect them as narrative case stories of each university to gain an understanding of the phenomenon on the strategic and managerial levels. I present the results through strategy narratives and management narratives.
As Nowak et al. (2017) states, social phenomena interplay between the micro-, meso- and macrolevels. Microlevel (individuals) meaning contains the top and middle academic managers and their interviews. The mesolevel (system structures) meaning contains the strategic level of universities. The macrolevel comprises the whole socioeconomic system, which relates to the universities’ societal impact. Through these different levels, social and economic processes can be analysed (Nowak et al., 2017).
The microlevel considers the individuals who relate to the mesolevel and macrolevel by belonging to groups and organisations. Individuals can affect other levels, for example, by making decisions in groups, which can result in poor outcomes (Nowak et al., 2017). This reflects the decision made in universities’ top and middle management to improve academic entrepreneurship, the
entrepreneurial university and social impact. Also, this level contains all the university staff with their attitudes and behaviour related to the concepts defining the outcomes in other levels.
The mesolevel is between the microlevel and macrolevel and determines the connection of them (Nowak et al., 2017); therefore, it well describes the universities and their strategies. In my research, the strategy part consists of the mesolevel because it has been created by individuals (microlevel) to meet the expectations of the socioeconomic system (macrolevel). The mesolevel is blurry, changing and heterogeneous. The macrolevel consists of the societal system as produced by individuals and organisations. It covers the continuously changing needs, intensified competition and knowledge-based society, which I have described in the theoretical background of this research. As a result, I have constructed four narrative case studies of the universities where the strategy analysis can be combined as a mesolevel analysis and the interview analysis as a microlevel analysis. All of this affects the macrolevel concepts of new public management and the societal impact.
4 FINDINGS
4.1 The strategy narrative of the third task, societal impact and entrepreneurship
University of Turku
In the strategy narrative, the University of Turku states that through their mission, they have carried out the tasks assigned to the university by law. The university’s main duties prescribed by law are scientific research, high-quality education and social impact, which are clearly identifiable as separate tasks in the university’s mission statement and presented in the same order as the law states:
“The University of Turku is an internationally competitive science university whose operations are based on high-quality, multidisciplinary research. We promote education and free science and provide higher education that is based on research. The university is part of the international academic community. We collaborate closely with Finnish society and participate actively in the development of our region”. (University of Turku, 2020)
Through strategic goals, the university tells the story of an inspiring and timely educator who supports researchers’ career paths, produces studies that are important to society and promotes entrepreneurial attitudes.
An effective researcher is one of the university’s strategic goals, which supports an academic career rather than entrepreneurship. On the website, there is a site dedicated to researchers’ career opportunities, showing the importance for the university to train new researchers and scientists.
Effectiveness is strongly linked to societal impact through the research. With this goal, the strategy highlights the career path of the researcher.
“We solve today’s and tomorrow’s complicated problems with the help of our basic research.
We apply an interdisciplinary approach to research in order to increase its quality and societal effectiveness. We strengthen the researcher career path, open science and support for research.” (University of Turku, 2020)
The second strategic goal, presented as responsible education, states that as an educator, the university is inspiring and timely and offers flexible and clear studies. Societal impact also exists in this goal:
“We are a multidisciplinary and inspiring higher education institution. Our education is based on the latest scientific knowledge and meets the changing needs of society. We ensure that the study tracks are flexible and straightforward.” (University of Turku, 2020)
Being a catalyst for social well-being and the economy is the strategic goal, which brings about entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial attitudes. This goal states that the university is recognising innovations and globally competitive educational products that have economic significance.
Societal impact is implemented through collaboration with business life:
“We recognise the innovations emerging from research and our globally competitive education services. We promote entrepreneurial attitude and utilisation of research in collaboration with business life.” (University of Turku, 2020)
Community well-being is the last strategic goal, which is also strongly linked to the university’s values (ethics, criticality, creativity, openness and communality). Through this goal, the university creates an environment in which the previously mentioned goals can be achieved:
“We are a responsible employer, and our operations are built on common values. We are building an encouraging and interactive university, where it is a pleasure to study and work.”
(University of Turku, 2020)
At this point, the strategy does hint at an entrepreneurial university with an entrepreneurial strategy.
The mission statement or strategic goals do not mention the concepts of an entrepreneurial university or entrepreneurial strategy, nor can these be found on the other webpages of the university.
For some reason, the entrepreneurial university of Turku is separated as its own webpage from the university’s official website, where the strategy page is lacking a link to the entrepreneurial university. The entrepreneurial university has been introduced entirely through its own webpages at yrittajyysyliopisto.fi, where the earlier story of the university changes because here, it is fully focused on entrepreneurship, which was not highlighted so much in the strategy:
“The University of Turku has developed a strategy for entrepreneurial training and entrepreneurship, which incorporates goals for enhancing entrepreneurial attitudes, behaviour, and culture across the entire university and various activities. The Entrepreneurial University is an up-to-date academic and societal influencer. As an Entrepreneurial University, the University of Turku consolidates entrepreneurship awareness and enhances entrepreneurial education.” (University of Turku, Entrepreneurial University, 2020)
Although entrepreneurial strategy is mentioned in the introduction, a more detailed description cannot be found. It seems that the strategy has not been opened in the same way as the university’s main pages. This also leaves open questions about whether the strategies are separate or not and what the entrepreneurial strategy includes.
Because my intention was to study strategy, I will only consider the strategy presented on the main pages of Turku University.
Turku University’s website presents its strategy for the years 2017–2021, but through a separate brochure, there is an opportunity to become acquainted with the strategy for 2030. Turku University 2030 is titled, ‘Building a strong and sustainable future’, where the vision is aimed at a ‘high- quality, internationally recognised research university which fosters both well-being and a sustainable future’. (University of Turku, 2021)
The mission is still narrated through the tasks assigned to the university, and it has not changed from the present strategy of 2017-2021: promoting education and free science while providing a higher education based on research. The societal impact has been stated as “collaboration with Finnish society that includes active participation in the development of the region”. The international aspect arises in both the vision and mission, which is highlighted more here because the vision is to be an ‘internationally recognised research university and mission ‘internationally active’. This is the biggest change between strategies when the vision and mission are compared.
(University of Turku, 2021)
In summary, the strategy narrative of Turku University states the university is carrying out the tasks assigned to it. As a third task, societal impact occurs through many goals, and entrepreneurial attitudes are improved in this university. On the other hand, Turku University tells the story of two
