Reader’s guide
The Entrepreneurial HEI: a growing role for the HEI in their region
Over the past four decades, the role of higher education institutions (HEIs) in their surrounding ecosystems has changed. In connection with their teaching and research, HEIs collaborate with external stakeholders and support entrepreneurs, contributing to growth and well-being, especially in their own communities and networks. The interconnections between HEIs and their stakeholders may enhance the performance and resilience of all the parties involved. We assume that physical proximity plays an important role connecting actors and aligning agendas.1 For this reason, it is possible to describe these “spaces” as “entrepreneurial ecosystems” (or local ecosystems) and the HEIs as “entrepreneurial universities”.
Etzkowitz defines the entrepreneurial university as one that carries out activities beyond teaching and research, to fulfil its “third mission” (Etzkowitz, 2013[1]).2 Gibb, Haskins and Robertson (2013[2]) further argue that entrepreneurial universities are dedicated to “creating public value via a process of open engagement, mutual learning, discovery and exchange with all stakeholders in society – local, national and international”. Now oriented towards external stakeholders, entrepreneurial universities engage with their ecosystem, some universities having turned into drivers of economic development in their own regions.
These HEIs help to motivate individuals with an entrepreneurial mindset, by teaching entrepreneurship, providing incubation facilities, and co-specialising in their research activities. Stanford University in California or the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are two celebrated examples, attracting talent, training a new generation of entrepreneurs and liaising with local technological companies to produce pioneering research and technology (Jaffe, 1989[3]). However, they should not be taken to be absolute benchmarks. HEIs can be entrepreneurial in many ways, by promoting transdisciplinary teaching activities and collaborating and co-creating with stakeholders in their communities and networks.
To be successful, however, entrepreneurship HEIs must strike a balance between supporting their regional communities and generating internationally relevant research (and skills). The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated how entrepreneurial, collaborative universities can play a fundamental role in providing knowledge-based solutions and scientific and technological innovation in their respective ecosystems. For example, many HEIs have mobilised scientific and medical resources to address the health emergency, contributing to research but also to the production of medical equipment (e.g. respirators, masks, hand sanitisers). HEIs can continue this work and support their regions by offering teaching and research that reflect entrepreneurial and innovation opportunities. They should not, however, become regional development agencies, and it is important for them to generate activities that are internationally relevant, and to represent a gateway for the communities that host them. Ideally, place-responsive HEIs can achieve a sustainable equilibrium between curiosity-driven research and co-specialisation, managed by an entrepreneurial leadership and organisation that makes use of the fruits of research. (Atta-Owusu; Fitjar; Rodriguez-Pose, 2020[4]).
The Geography of Higher Education, a place-responsive approach to innovation and entrepreneurship
This review is part of a series of national and regional reports on the topic of the Geography of Higher Education undertaken by the OECD Centre for Entrepreneurship, SMEs, Cities and Regions. The reports are part of a policy dialogue that aims to assess the role of universities in their local ecosystems, and explore how they can be drivers of growth for their regions. In assessing how HEIs can support regional economies, it is assumed that collaboration and co-specialisation are more likely to thrive in a set of conditions in which physical proximity plays an important role (Gust-Bardon & Irena, 2012[5]).
Focusing on collaboration and co-specialisation of HEIs in their communities may help to drive reform in higher education policy, to overcome the “space-blindness” typical of this policy area and to encourage complementarities with other policy sectors. Creating synergies between entrepreneurship, innovation, regional development and employment policy, for example, can have positive effects on policy outcomes and public investment.
The review will also draw on the HEInnovate guiding framework, offering a comprehensive understanding of HEIs’ entrepreneurial and innovative agendas and of how they are implementing this agenda (Box 1). This study draws inspiration from the guiding framework to understand how HEIs promote entrepreneurship education and co-produce knowledge to support regional innovation. Two key concepts help explain the impact that universities have in their surrounding ecosystems. The GoHE framework builds on HEInnovate, by adding the concept of a “place-responsive” HEI and how each institution adapts its entrepreneurial and innovation activities to their surrounding communities, also taking into account the policy agenda of the given national or sub-national concept.
HEInnovate is a guiding framework that was created by the European Commission (EC) and the OECD in 2011, for higher education institutions (HEIs) wishing to develop their entrepreneurial and innovative potential. The framework developed by the European Commission in collaboration with the OECD includes an interactive self-assessment tool, which helps higher education institutions assess their entrepreneurial and innovative agenda and facilitates discussion in an institution on how to drive the agenda. The tool also helps HEIs to monitor their progress, take inspiration from material available on the HEInnovate webpage and become part of a community of practice. HEInnovate covers eight broad areas, which include statements for self-assessment:
Source: EC/OECD (2022[3]), HEInnovate, https://heinnovate.eu/en, accessed 24 October 2022.
Understanding entrepreneurship education and the entrepreneurial mindset
These reviews assume that entrepreneurs are not born but made. The entrepreneurial mindset and entrepreneurial skills can be taught and learned (Saraiva, 2015[6]). For many countries and education institutions, teaching entrepreneurship has become a priority, and courses have been created at every level of education, from primary and secondary students to lifelong learning courses. Entrepreneurship education introduces students to a set of cognitive skills, such as financial literacy, business plan development and accounting, but also to a set of non-cognitive skills. The set of non-cognitive skills and attitudes includes perseverance, tolerance of risk, leadership and creativity (Bacigalupo et al., 2016[7]).
This combination of transversal cognitive and non-cognitive skills is a value-added for students, whether or not they are interested in starting a business. Entrepreneurship education helps create transdisciplinary pedagogical spaces, which can have a positive impact on individuals (OECD/EU, 2021[8]). These skills help them in the job market, and more specifically, helps them to navigate uncertain and changing labour markets.
In many countries across the globe, entrepreneurship teaching and support initiatives have flourished. The bulk of these initiatives are at the tertiary education level. In Slovenia, for instance, GEA College (the faculty of entrepreneurship) teaches students entrepreneurship courses. Some students have created their own ventures, but some have taken over their family-owned businesses, providing fresh perspectives for existing ventures (OECD/EU, 2021[8]). Many universities have also established infrastructure to support aspiring entrepreneurs, such as centres for entrepreneurship incubators, accelerators, co-working spaces and technology transfer offices. These are designed as “safe spaces” where students can apply their entrepreneurial skills, access a large network of potential funders and meet other student entrepreneurs. Some institutions have a closer relationship with the market than others, for example accelerators and technology transfer offices where entrepreneurial ventures can be matured and tested in the market.
From knowledge transfer to collaboration and co-creation
The third mission of HEIs (Etzkowitz 2001[21], 2003[21]) encompasses any activity that constitutes an exploitation and application of knowledge for socioeconomic development. In practice, this implies connecting teaching and research activities, to link them to the needs of external stakeholders, including businesses, to make them more innovative. In HEIs that have developed a specific focus on entrepreneurship, knowledge transfer and collaboration activities with external stakeholders have become an essential task. Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000[21]) further analyse knowledge exchange between actors as an exchange between government, industry and universities (the “triple helix”), and subsequently the “quadruple helix” (universities, government, industry and civil society interlinkages). (Carayannis and Campbell, 2009[9]) have analysed knowledge exchange between these actors. The concept of a “civic university” as an institution embedded and active in its territory echoes this discussion (Goddard et al., 2016[10]). All these analytical frameworks questioned the linear model of innovation, which proposed that model knowledge is transmitted between actors in a linear fashion, and proposed bi-directional flows of knowledge, making collaboration between HEIs and external stakeholders a central element in the discussion.
HEIs in many countries have recently redoubled their efforts to support innovation, not only through entrepreneurship but also by promoting cutting-edge research and technology development and engagement in societal issues. This is reflected in the fact that in OECD countries in recent decades, the share of higher education expenditure on research and development (R&D) has risen steadily, overtaking government expenditure in such areas. This is particularly true of Canada and Québec, as Figure 1 shows.
Note: GOVERD, or government intramural expenditure, comprises all expenditure of the government sector in a given territory. Business expenditure on R&D (BERD) comprises business expenditure, and higher education expenditure in research and development (HERD) comprises all expenditures of the higher education sector.
Source: For Canada: OECD calculations based on OECD, Main Science and Technology Indicators Database, November 2022. For Québec: Ministry of Economy, Innovation and Energy, 2023.
The place-responsive HEI
Proximity is important to innovation and entrepreneurship, and knowledge exchange, collaboration and co-production have a strong spatial dimension.3 Entrepreneurial HEIs are well-placed to respond to the innovation needs, including the need for social innovation, of their own communities and networks. In other words, HEIs are able to generate innovation and entrepreneurship that reflect the needs and opportunities of their communities and networks without replicating collaboration models in a spatially blind way.4 The place-responsiveness of an HEI can help an institution tap into the needs of its ecosystem and help reduce regional obstacles (Atta-Owusu; Fitjar; Rodriguez-Pose, 2020[1]). Place-responsive HEIs are particularly important in non-metropolitan or less developed regions, where HEIs generate linkages with local stakeholders and can help co-ordinate narratives and policy interventions. Place-responsiveness is driven by three factors:
the ability of an HEI to co-specialise part of its research, education and innovation activities to respond to the specific needs and opportunities of a given region, both at the economic level (for industries, labour markets and entrepreneurships) and the community level (including the social, cultural and environmental dimensions);
the capacity of an HEI to offer multilevel responses to regional needs and operate as an international gateway for the community;
the availability of metrics that recognise “responsiveness” and measure the HEI’s impact in the region.
However, place-responsive HEIs are also able to engage in internationally relevant research by identifying a sustainable balance and integration between teaching, research and collaboration. In other words, some co-specialisation appears to be desirable, with the following qualifications:
full co-specialisation is not desirable, and the aim is to find a balance between developing regional specific assets and maintaining generic programmes;
co-specialisation should not mean co-obsolescence later. Developing specific assets to respond to regional gaps and opportunities needs to be dynamic. The region and the university will need to engage in strategic interactions to transform the regional system continuously and move together towards areas where the region can build new competitive advantages and manage the transition of its economy. This is the philosophy of smart specialisation – a strategy of regional transformation in which the local university plays a central role.
In this context, the Geography of Higher Education Reviews aim to explore the role of HEIs in their local ecosystems, and how these can be drivers of growth for their regions, enhancing the role HEIs play in supporting regional economies.
The concepts of developing an entrepreneurial mindset; promoting knowledge co-creation; and building a place-responsive HEI are assessed throughout the Geography of Higher Education Reviews. Following an approach that involves a wide range of stakeholder from the assessed country/region/province (e.g. policy makers, HEI leaders, academic and administrative staff members, researchers, governmental representatives, experts and peers from other countries), these reviews identify strengths and discuss areas for improvement, referred to as “recommendations” and based on examples of international good practice that could provide relevant inspiration.
The series of reports at various governmental levels (state/province/region) on the theme of the Geography of Higher Education is conducted by the OECD Centre for Entrepreneurship, SMEs, Cities and Regions. The reports are part of a policy community, the Entrepreneurial Education Collaboration and Engagement (EECOLE) platform, which aims to find innovative solutions to the challenges of the current economic and societal context. EECOLE hosts HEIs representatives, policy makers and civil society to promote a multidimensional and multistakeholder policy dialogue connecting places, businesses and people. While Québec is the first Review undertaken in the Geography of Higher Education (GoHE) framework, similar efforts are under way in Newfoundland (Canada) and the United Kingdom at the time of writing.
The province of Québec presents an ideal case study for illustrating the role of place-responsive HEIs and the “geography of higher education”. The provincial government is actively promoting innovation and entrepreneurship, and exploring the role higher education institutions play in relation to their own communities. It offers an opportunity to understand the potential of a place-responsive approach to higher education, reflecting on the tension between local needs and international relevance, in terms of teaching, research and engagement activities.
The Review is a collaborative effort between the OECD’s Centre for Entrepreneurship, SMEs, Cities, and Regions, the Ministry of Economy, Innovation and Energy of Québec (MEIE), and the Council of Innovation of Québec (CI). The methodology used in the Québec Review uses the standard approach to the GoHE framework, and includes the steps described below:
Creation of Steering Group
To guarantee quality control and complete the information gathered, the Review benefited greatly from the advice and support of the Steering Group (Comité de Pilotage). The group is composed of 12 members representing the innovation and higher education landscape of the province of Québec. Members were selected at the start of the Review process by the MEIE and the CI.
Selection of HEI case examples
The selection of HEIs to be covered in the study visits was undertaken collaboratively by the review partners. Several factors were considered in the selection of HEIs, including the type of institution and its academic focus, size (e.g. number of students) and location (e.g. rural, urban areas). The Steering Group, the Ministry of Economy, Innovation, and Energy of Québec, the Council of Innovation of Québec and the OECD jointly selected ten higher education institutions for an in-depth study. These included the following:
Study visits
In May and October 2022, a delegation composed of OECD staff and international experts completed two study visits to the province of Québec, interviewing each of the case study HEIs listed above. The OECD delegations met with representatives, deans, professors, career offices, technology transfer offices, business incubators, student associations, student and staff start-up companies, students taking entrepreneurship courses, and alumni. In addition to meeting with local and regional representatives, they held several meetings with national stakeholders, including the Ministry of Economy, Innovation and Energy (MEIE); the Council of Innovation (CI); and other federal and provincial governmental actors.
HEI Leader Surveys (research and education) and Entrepreneurial Education Survey
As part of the GoHE Review of Québec, two HEI Leader Surveys were administered to the senior management of HEIs in the province. The first survey focused on entrepreneurial education (the “education” survey), while the second focused on co-specialisation (“research” survey). The aim of the surveys was to illustrate the ways in which HEIs are adapting their activities, institutions and governance to become more entrepreneurial, deliver entrepreneurship education to individuals, and promote innovation in their own communities.
The subjects of the two surveys were HEIs in the Québecois territory. In particular, the “education” survey was targeted to general and professional teaching colleges (Cégeps) and universities; the “research” was targeted to College Technology Transfer Centres (CCTTs) and universities. The response rate was relatively high. At the time of writing (as of January 2023), the total number of responses, and the response rate, for both surveys, was the following:
Education: the total number of responses received was 42, of which 28 were from Cégeps and 14 from universities. Overall, the response rate was 67.5%.
Research: the number of responses received was 47 in total, of which 31 were from CCTTs, and 16 from universities. Overall, the response rate was 70%.
The Review also illustrates the results of the Entrepreneurial Education (EE) Survey. Designed in co-operation with the University of Oslo (Norway), the survey aims to assess the entrepreneurial mindset and the impact of entrepreneurial education on HEI students. The survey was administered to students from Québec HEIs, including student unions and associations. The total number of responses received was 290 (as of January 2023).
Quantitative assessment, in co-operation with Statistics Canada
The Review of Québec is also informed by a quantitative study, which aimed to measure the interactions between HEIs and their surrounding communities, and their effects on regional innovation and regional development. This assessment adopted a multidimensional analysis based on census and administrative data. The analysis will use the Linkable File Environment (LFE)5, an advanced statistical tool that links multiple data sources on the Canadian business environment, on the federal level. The constructed model will be divided into subsamples for different distances between firms and universities and will take into account: R&D transfers; sector of activity; innovative status; Employment size; and value of support for innovation. The study will promote a territorial approach in the higher education policy field. The quantitative study is conducted jointly by OECD Centre for Entrepreneurship, Regions and Cities and Statistics Canada, the federal statistical office of Canada. Further information on the methodology of the research is provided in Annex B of this report.
Chapter 1 presents the entrepreneurship, innovation and higher education frameworks of Québec. It illustrates data and trends in the province, including governmental policies, strategies and funds set up by the federal and, in particular, the provincial government to support innovation, entrepreneurship and higher education in all regions.
Chapter 2 focuses on entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial education practices of HEIs in Québec. In particular, it discusses the way in which entrepreneurial education has developed within the HE system in the province, the impact of entrepreneurship on innovation ecosystems, and how a broader approach to entrepreneurship can help Québec deploy its ambitious innovation policy. In addition, the chapter presents the results from the Entrepreneurial Education survey.
Chapter 3 illustrates the dynamic within provincial efforts to create entrepreneurship ecosystems and discusses opportunities and challenges ahead to promote sustainability and inclusiveness.
Chapter 4 presents the policy side of innovation and entrepreneurship in Québec. In particular, it illustrates the recent provincial efforts to provide a spatial approach to innovation, while leveraging higher education institutions.
Chapter 5 illustrates selected policy recommendations to help Québec succeed in implementing innovative policy actions and reform packages. Recommendations refer to a collection of international good practices identified by the OECD in the past decade.
References
[4] Atta-Owusu; Fitjar; Rodriguez-Pose (2020), “What Drives University-Industry Collaboration: Research Excellence or Firm Collaboration Strategy? by Kwadwo Atta-Owusu, Rune Dahl Fitjar, Andrés Rodríguez-Pose :: SSRN”, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3594186 (accessed on 18 December 2022).
[7] Bacigalupo, M. et al. (2016), “EntreComp: The Entrepreneurship Competence Framework.”, https://doi.org/10.2791/160811.
[11] Boschma, R. (2005), “Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment”, https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887, Vol. 39/1, pp. 61-74, https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887.
[9] Carayannis, E. and D. Campbell (2009), “’Mode 3’ and ’Quadruple Helix’: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 46/3/4, p. 201, https://doi.org/10.1504/ijtm.2009.023374.
[1] Etzkowitz, H. (2013), “Anatomy of the entrepreneurial university”, Social Science Information, Vol. 52/3, pp. 486-511, https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018413485832.
[2] Gibb, A., G. Haskins and I. Robertson (2013), “Leading the Entrepreneurial University: Meeting the Entrepreneurial Development Needs of Higher Education Institutions”, in Universities in Change, Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management, Springer New York, New York, NY, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4590-6_2.
[10] Goddard, J. et al. (2016), “The civic university : the policy and leadership challenges”, p. 328, https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/gbp/the-civic-university-9781784717711.html (accessed on 3 November 2022).
[5] Gust-Bardon & Irena (2012), “The role of geographical proximity in innovation: Do regional and local levels really matter?”, Arbeitspapiere Unternehmen und Region, No. R4/2012, Fraunhofer-Institut für System- und Innovationsforschung ISI, Karlsruhe,.
[3] Jaffe (1989), “Real Effects of Academic Research”, The American Economic Review.
[8] OECD/EU (2021), “Supporting Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Higher Education in Slovenia”.
[6] Saraiva, P. (2015), Empreendedorismo: do conceito à aplicação, da ideia ao negócio, da tecnologia ao valor, Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra, https://doi.org/10.14195/978-989-26-0991-1.
Notes
← 1. For a discussion about the interaction between different kinds of proximity, see (Boschma, 2005[11]).
← 2. Concretely, third mission activities may refer to continuous education or lifelong learning, innovation, knowledge and technology transfer, social engagement (volunteer work, cultural programmes) and entrepreneurship programmes.
← 3. In this context, concepts such as collaboration, co-specialisation and co-creation describe the activities and engagement of HEIs with their networks/communities/territories.
← 4. A place-responsive strategy refers to a strategy that responds to the needs of a local community in a given territory.
← 5. For more information: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/about/statcan/lfe. The LFE uses administrative data and survey data from multiple sources, such as the Data from Research and Development in Canadian Industry (RDCI) survey, which collects data on R&D payments to universities and will be used to identify enterprises that have a linkage with universities, as well as the number of researchers working in R&D activities (knowledge base). The Survey of Innovation and Business Strategy 2017 (SIBS) would be used to identify other types of business-enterprise linkages, such as innovation activities and proximity to customers. The Business Innovation and Growth Support database (BIGS) contains information on the value of federal support to innovation. All these data sources will subsequently be combined with other administrative files, from which are drawn: sector of activity, number of employees; revenue, sales, profits, export value and characteristics of ownership, among other data points.