Search

Both the transformation from innovation systems to innovation ecosystems and university reforms in such a context require a renewed understanding of the nature of universities and their roles in society. While the recent flourishing concepts about new models of universities suggest that the notion of an entrepreneurial university needs to be replaced by a more suitable concept to capture the unprecedented changes in universities in the societal transformation, the features of a new model of university described by these concepts can hardly fit into a consistent framework. This paper responds to this research gap by integrating both conceptual and empirical literature about the transformations or reforms of universities, mainly in the European context. Our major research findings are as follows. First, we identified characteristics of an ideal-type university in innovation ecosystems, named a sustainable entrepreneurial university (SEU), in comparison with those of an entrepreneurial university. Second, we elaborated on three emerging roles of the SEU in innovation ecosystems. Third, we found that while a transition from entrepreneurial universities to SEUs can be seen in European university reforms, the paces of the transformations vary. At the end of the paper, we discuss the scholarly and policy implications of our research findings.

While interdisciplinarity has been widely addressed in higher education policies and university strategies across countries, universities and colleges are struggling with the implementation at the programme level. For instance, extant literature implies many barriers to establishing interdisciplinary degree programmes (IDPs). However, there is a lack of both conceptual understandings and empirical investigations on how these barriers can be resolved through appropriate management. Our paper addresses this research gap by constructing an analytical framework for understanding the cause of barriers in the context of establishing IDPs and managerial approaches to overcome them through the lens of managing organisational innovation, and applying it in an empirical study of two cases of establishing IDPs at a Finnish research university. Our study yielded four conceptualised and tested propositions on key factors that middle-level university managers should consider for both preventing and resolving barriers to establishing IDPs. It suggests that while managers should plan IDPs that largely fit the institutional environment and bring foreseeable benefits to participants in the programmes, the art of their management lies in leveraging all relevant resources to enhance institutional compatibility, to change peoples' perceptions about profitability and to empower other participants' agency.

While the Triple Helix and Quadruple Helix models are popular in innovation studies, the relations between them have not been addressed extensively in the literature. There are diverse interpretations of helix models in empirical studies that apply them, but these sometimes deviate from the original theses of the models. Such a situation can confuse newcomers to the field in terms of which helix model to apply in their empirical research. We discern that the cause of this research challenge is a lack of systematic comparison of the two models. To bridge the research gap, this paper compares the models from the perspectives of how they were introduced and discussed in the literature and improved and how useful they are in addressing the innovation processes in contemporary society. Our major findings are as follows: First, reviewing the extant literature applying the two helix models for identifying research gaps, we discover that these studies were influenced by three views on the relations between the two models that were located on a continuum between two extreme ends--namely, isolation versus integration of the two models. Second, we provide a systematic comparison of both the advantages and weaknesses of the two models, and this may help researchers choose suitable helix models as conceptual/analytical tools in their empirical innovation studies. Third, our comparison of the two models shows that they are largely supplementary to each other when analysing innovation processes in contemporary society, providing a ground for potential synergy building between the two helix models.

Purpose: The purpose of this article is (1) to provide a critical analysis of the Finnish experience of education reforms based on published Chinese research on Finnish education and (2) to discuss how such experience can serve as a model as China embarks on its own path toward educational reform. Design/Approach/Methods: This article is based on an analysis of the research on Finnish education contained in the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure database from 2000 to 2017. Findings: The analysis shows that although the various aspects of Finnish education have been extensively studied in China, the content of prior studies has generally been similar and is insufficiently in depth. In particular, current research (1) lacks effective exploration of the successful experience of Finnish education reform and (2) devotes insufficient attention to the social culture perspective and core concepts that serve as the basis of education in Finland. Originality/Value: This article extends the authors' recent review of Chinese research on Finnish education and places special emphasis on the discussions regarding how China can learn from Finland's experience with educational reform. It also identifies gaps in the current research in the field and calls for a change in the future research agenda from examining the successful elements of Finnish education to focusing on how the experience of Finnish education is relevant to reforms in China.

This article examines the trend of academic migration to mainland China. Notably, the most recent literature identified a new cohort of international academics in China, who are non-Chinese academics with long-term and full-time positions. Despite growing research interests, there is a lack of critical and synthesised reviews about the extant studies regarding this group of international academics, in terms of theoretical frameworks, methodologies and empirical findings. This article addresses this research gap by drawing on a critical review of existing scholarship, in combination with three empirical research projects conducted by the authors of this article. The article unpacks conceptual and methodological ambiguities in the existing research and reveals major findings with regards to the profiles, motivations, challenges and work roles related to international academics in China. It also proposes a new typology to define international academics in mainland China and future research agendas in this area.

While institutional logics theory has increasingly been applied in higher education research, especially in the past five years, agreement is lacking on how to approach institutional logics analysis. This results in proliferating institutional logics in higher education studies and often confuses newcomers to the field as to how to use institutional logics in their empirical research. As a response to this situation, our study outlines the state-of-the-art application of institutional logics in higher education studies through scrutinising 59 articles that apply institutional logics in organisation studies in the field of higher education. Specifically, we ask the following research questions: What approaches to institutional logics analysis are used in higher education studies? What institutional logics are identified/applied in higher education studies? What challenges are evident in applying institutional logics in higher education studies? How does the use of institutional logics in higher education research contribute to institutional logics theory? The most profound outcomes of our literature analysis are: First, we construct a novel typology of approaches to institutional logics analysis that is positioned on two-dimensions: the reasoning applied (deductive vs. inductive), and the level at which the logic is examined (societal vs. field/local); Second, we create an exhaustive list of institutional logics (over 50) applied and identified in these studies; Third, we discover major challenges in using institutional logics in higher education research. Finally, we clearly define societal-level and field-level logics and suggest a rationalisation of institutional logics approaches in order to fully utilise the explanatory power of institutional logics.

This paper explores how a novel university governance model at Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech), largely learned from the West, has been implemented in the highly institutionalised and centralised Chinese higher education system. For this purpose, we first constructed an analytical framework, integrating the conceptualisation of an innovation process in higher education and the concept of embedded agency. This framework was then applied to analyse eight interviews, seven policy documents and six news media reports in our empirical investigation of the case university. Our major research findings are: the governance model adopted by SUSTech was a disruptive innovation and it was mostly challenged by the incompatibility between the norms around the governance model and the institutional context of Chinese higher education; this challenge was mitigated through three agency strategies, labelled by the metaphors of "new wine in a new bottle," "new wine in an old bottle" and "old wine in a new bottle." Successfully implementing these strategies calls on the visions, skills of playing power games and social capital of those initiating the innovation. Finally, we discuss the theoretical contribution and practical implications of the study in the conclusion.

As Chinese doctoral education has grown dramatically in the past four decades and developed into one of the largest doctoral education systems in the world, it has become one significant and integral part of the global doctoral education landscape. However, in the literature, there is a lack of both a comprehensive understanding of the Chinese doctoral education system and of generic frameworks for understanding doctoral education in a global context, with an emphasis on the underlying value systems. This may not only hamper the research on doctoral education in China but also affect international comparison and collaboration with Chinese doctoral education. Using the theory of institutional logics, this study tries to bridge the gap by identifying the complex value systems underlying the context of the Chinese doctoral education system, through a qualitative study mainly based on interview data and complemented by documentary data. The interview involves 135 participants, including 45 university academic leaders, 33 doctoral supervisors and 56 doctoral students from 17 research universities, as well as one government policy-maker. We found that the context of Chinese doctoral education system consists of multiple logics of state, profession, family, market and corporation. The special constellation of institutional logics has shaped the current Chinese doctoral education system as a state-led model but meanwhile incorporating family characteristics, market orientation and regulated academic autonomy. The study also showed that Chinese doctoral education has been developing in line with international academic norms and global marketization trends, and has also been shaped by China's socio-cultural tradition and the strong state regulation. In addition to the institutional logics analysis of the Chinese doctoral education system, this study paves the way for developing a novel framework for analysing doctoral education systems in other contexts and for comparative purposes.

This paper contributes to research on the internationalization of higher education by integrating two separate research fields, namely, education export and intellectual capital. Specifically, we conceptualize education export as an activity aimed at transferring intellectual capital as a two-way process benefiting both provider and receiver, and apply this conceptualization to analyze the development and challenges of education export in a Finnish university. The empirical analysis demonstrates that intellectual capital is a useful concept for gaining a more profound understanding of the different kinds of knowledge-based resources conveyed during an education export activity. Depicting education export as intellectual capital transfer may help overcome some of the manifold challenges of education export identified in the previous literature.

This editorial discusses the quality of submissions to the Triple Helix journal and introduces the articles featured in the current issue. The editorial emphasizes the need for submissions to align with the journal's scope and meet specific criteria for high-quality articles. It also highlights key research gaps in Triple Helix studies and provides guidance for authors on identifying and justifying research gaps. The editorial concludes by presenting four articles in this issue that focus on collaboration, innovation, and learning in various contexts. This research article discusses two different models for managing science and technology (S&T) parks. The authors conducted surveys and found that demand-oriented policies are more effective than supply-side approaches. They suggest that S&T parks should change their ownership, funding sources, tenant incentives, and connections to align with demand-side models. [Extracted from the article]

This paper scrutinises and interprets the competing perspectives arising from institutional analysis in higher education studies. Contradictory views in this field include the perception of converging trends versus escalating diversification, and the view of universities as entities resisting change contrasted with those characterised by continual evolution or innovation. These different viewpoints are methodically examined, informed by a wide range of literature on institutional theory and institutional analysis in higher education. In endeavouring to reconcile these divergent perspectives, this paper illuminates the intricacies of institutional behaviour in higher education. The theoretical discussions also pave the way for developing a holistic approach to institutional analysis in the field of higher education research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This special issue focuses on the reforms and collaborations in Europe--China doctoral education. The articles in this special issue provide an insightful picture of the recent reforms in doctoral education in China and EU countries. Next to the structural reforms in Europe and China, the special issue papers have also specifically focused on EU--China cooperation in doctoral education, such as the current cooperation models, quality assurance in joint programmes and student experiences. In additions to an introduction of seven papers included in the special issue, the introduction provides necessary background information concerning Europe--China doctoral education as well as a reflection on the general issues, challenges and their implications.

This study investigates perceptions of European and Chinese stakeholders on doctoral education (DE) in China and Europe, particularly the cooperation between the two sides. Data were collected through online and paper survey from both European and Chinese stakeholders (N = 946). The results provide insights for policy-makers, university administrators, doctoral students and their supervisors when planning and engaging in DE in collaboration between European and Chinese higher education institutions (HEIs). Various cooperation models are currently implemented between Chinese and European HEIs. European respondents reported a higher awareness level of cooperation issues compared to the Chinese respondents. Significant differences were found between the Chinese and European respondents regarding their perceptions, perceived advantages and challenges, as well as expectations on cooperation in DE.

This paper intends to construct an analytical framework for understanding quality assurance in international joint programmes and to test it in a case analysis of a European--Chinese joint doctoral degree programme. The development of a quality assurance system for an international joint programme is understood as an institutionalization process of an organizational innovation, and the institutionalization process is also interpreted as a process of reconciling different institutional logics in the institutional changes. Based on these understandings, in the paper we construct an analytical framework by combining insights on conceptions of quality, the institutional logics perspective, and organizational innovation studies. The framework constructed aims mainly to tackle two issues: first, changes in multiple institutional logics underlying the quality assurance system, and second, factors facilitating/impeding the logics changes in the institutionalization process. In the empirical analysis, we take an international joint doctoral programme between a Chinese university and a Portuguese university as an example to analyse the initiation and implementation of a quality assurance system in the programme. While developing a system accommodating the traditions and needs of both sides is not an easy task, we found that several factors, namely profitability, compatibility and the agency of institutional entrepreneurs, may facilitate the process.

This paper intends to learn from international experiences in order to facilitating China's ongoing regional university transformation with an ultimate goal to enhance the role of university in regional economic development and innovation. In so doing, this paper compares major models of universities of applied sciences (UAS) around the world from the perspective of the Triple Helix Model with an emphasis on the nature of university-industry relation implied by each model, and then exploring their relevance for China's UASs transformation. It is concluded that the Finnish model is the most relevant to China. By comparing the Finnish and Chinese practices, a number of recommendations are solicited to Chinese policy-makers.

Since the 1990s, there have been more than 400 cases of university mergers in China, representing various types and involving 1000 public institutions. While China has provided good and abundant cases for studies on university mergers, such an opportunity has not yet been fully exploited by international scholars of university merger research. This paper tries to enhance communications between the Chinese and international literature on mergers by drawing lessons from merger studies in Chinese higher education to scholars doing university merger studies in a global context. The focus of our literature analysis is on key issues pertinent to understanding of merger outcomes, which is a general research gap in university merger studies. As a result, three issues are identified as important, namely environmental drives for university mergers, criteria for evaluation merger outcomes and organization factors affecting merger outcomes.

This paper tries to develop a conceptual framework for a comprehensive understanding of the merger process, which is regarded as a matter of institutionalization of organizational innovation. In the framework, a number of factors affecting merger process or institutionalization of merger are identified, such as those related to environmental issues, economic benefits, institutional compatibility and human agency. The framework hopefully narrows our knowledge gap on theorizing innovation process, in general, and university merger, in particular. It also has a potential to better assist decision-makers and managers in planning and implementing university mergers.