Abstract
There is an increasing interest in the analysis of how universities should maximise their specific regional contribution alongside their traditional teaching and research goals. However, due to the institutional heterogeneity it is necessary to understand the process by which universities create regional benefits, specifically through their third mission outputs. To cover this gap, this paper investigates the extent to which internal institutional configurations affect the production of these benefits on the UK Higher Education sector. It focuses on four elements of the universities' structural configuration (steering core, administrative machinery, internal coupling and academic heartland) in different university models: the entrepreneurial university and the (regional) engaged university model.
Highlights
There has been an explosion of interest on the role of universities and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) as motor of regional development, economic growth and social change in recent years (Lawton Smith and Bagchi-Sen, 2012; Peer and Penker, 2016)
We argue that individual university institutional configurations affect the production of specific impacts and we focus on one element of the process by which
Universities; in this paper we seek to extend the framework to make it suitable for deductive, quantitative research. We extend their model by operationalising it in terms of empirically testable variables, focusing upon the four dimensions along which universities internal structures might affect the delivery of third mission outputs, focusing on two operational questions: Which components of universities' internal structural university affect university performance? And, do the entrepreneurial university and engaged university models differ in the relationship between their structural configuration and the performance? we hypothesize that the four organizational structures affect positively third mission outputs, the particular emphasis on one or another will differ between the entrepreneurial university and the engaged university model
Summary
There has been an explosion of interest on the role of universities and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) as motor of regional development, economic growth and social change in recent years (Lawton Smith and Bagchi-Sen, 2012; Peer and Penker, 2016). Goddard, 2012) that universities need to be more strongly managed to choose appropriate strategic priorities towards ‘entrepreneurship’ to contribute more systematically to knowledge based development These discourses portray universities strategically orchestrating core teaching and research activities to harmoniously contribute to regional growth processes (Pinheiro et al, 2012). Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx universities create societal benefits, on the creation of third mission outputs, and the extent to which internal institutional configuration affects the production of these benefits This contributes to the current discussion on the key strategic challenges of entrepreneurial universities as drivers for economic growth and social change by emphasising how university internal choices regarding organizational structures plays a key role shaping third mission outputs.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
