Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

International entrepreneurship of universities: Process-oriented and capabilities perspectives



Objective: The objective of the article is to propose a model of process-oriented dimension and capabilities perspective on the basis of existing literature and the concept of university-based international entrepreneurship.

Research Design & Methods: The article is conceptual and based on scientific literature from online databases. The method used in the research was the critical and reflective analysis of published research results in the area of process-oriented dimension and capabilities perspective for the international entrepreneurship of universities.

Findings: An entrepreneurial university is mainly supported by incremental changes flowing from organisational identity and culture. Leadership is strongly concentrated on sense-making. The creative processes in HEI’s are of entrepreneurial and social nature. Process-oriented and capabilities perspectives consist of a useful cognitive base for explaining entrepreneurial activities of universities.

Implications & Recommendations: Dominant functionalistic approach to the entrepreneurship of universities does not fully explain the social nature of activities of HEI’s. To develop entrepreneurial orientation in HEI, leaders should concentrate on sense-making and sense-giving.

Contribution & Value Added: Process-oriented dimension and capabilities perspective for the international entrepreneurship of universities is a new approach in management theory. Cognitive value lies in the novel approach to entrepreneurial universities as benefiting from the interpretative paradigm and incrementalism.


international entrepreneurship, higher education, entrepreneurial university, entrepreneurship in higher education

(PDF) Save


  1. Al-Aali, A., & Teece, D.J. (2014). International Entrepreneurship and the Theory of the (Long-Lived) International Firm: A Capabilities Perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), 95-116.
  2. Aspelund, A., & Moen, Ø. (2005). Small international firms: Typology, performance and implications. Management International Review, 1(1), 37-57.
  3. Autio, E. (2005). Creative tension: The significance of Ben Oviatt’s and Patricia McDougall’s article towards a theory of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(1), 9-19.
  4. Barnett, R. (2000). Thinking the University, Again. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 32(3), 319-326.
  5. Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Scott, L. (2009). Modernizacja refleksyjna: Polityka, tradycja i estetyka w porządku społecznym nowoczesności. Warszawa: PWN.
  6. Becker, M. (Ed.). (2010). Handbook of organizational routines. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
  7. Bloom D.E., Hartley M., & Rosovsky H. (2007). Beyond Private Gain: The Public Benefits of Higher Education. In J.J.F. Forest, P.G. Altbach (Eds.), International Handbook of Higher Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education (vol 18). Dordrecht: Springer.
  8. Cooper, R. (2015). Process and Reality. In J. Helin, T. Hernes, D. Hjorth, & R. Holt (Eds.), Process Philosophy and Organization Studies (pp. 585-605). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  9. Dvorský, J., Petráková, Z., Zapletalíková, E., & Rózsa, Z. (2019). Entrepreneurial propensity index of university students. The case study from the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland. Oeconomia Copernicana, 10(1), 173-192.
  10. de Boer H., Enders J., & Schimank U. (2007) On the Way towards New Public Management? The Governance of University Systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany. In D. Jansen (Eds.), New Forms of Governance in Research Organizations. Dordrecht: Springer.
  11. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Kappa Delta Pi.
  12. Dzimińska, M., Fijałkowska, J., & Sułkowski, Ł. (2020). A Conceptual Model Proposal: Universities as Culture Change Agents for Sustainable Development. Sustainability, 12(11), 4635.
  13. Eckhardt, J.T., & Shane, S.A. (2003). Opportunities and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), 333-349.
  14. Etemad, H. (2016). Special Thematic Issue on: International Interactions and Activities of University-Based Technology Entrepreneurship. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 14, 277-284.
  15. Etemad, H. (2017). The emergence of online global market place and the multilayered view of international entrepreneurship. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 15, 353-365.
  16. Evers, N., Cunningham, J.A., & Hoholm, T. (2016). International entrepreneurship in universities: Context, emergence and actors. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 14, 285-295.
  17. Gherardi, S. (2012). How to conduct a practice-based study. Northampton: Edward Elgar.
  18. Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D., & Vaara, E. (2010). Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  19. Hallová, M., Polakovic, P., & Slováková, I. (2017). Current trends in training of managers in the field of information and communication technologies and identifying the barriers to education of managers. Agris on-Line Papers in Economics and Informatics, 9(4), 45-52.
  20. Hernes, T. (2014). A Process Theory of Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  21. Hood, C. (1995). Contemporary public management: A New Global Paradigm?. Public Policy and Administration, 10(2), 98-105.
  22. Howard-Grenville, J., (2005). The Persistence of Flexible Organizational Routines: The Role of Agency and Organizational Context. Organization Science, 16(6), 618-36.
  23. Jarzabkowski, P. (2005). Strategy as practice. An activity based approach. London: Sage Strategy Series, Sage Publications.
  24. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.E. (1977). The Internationalization Process of the Firm – A Model of Knowledge Development and Increasing Foreign Market Commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1), 23-32.
  25. Johnson, G., Langley, A., & Melin, L., Whittington, R. (2007). Strategy as practice. Research Dimensions and Resources. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  26. Jones, M.V., & Coviello, N.E. (2005). Internationalization: conceptualizing an entrepreneurial process of behavior in time. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3), 284-303.
  27. Kobylińska, U., & Lavios, J. J. (2020). Development of research on the university entrepreneurship ecosystem: trends and areas of interest of researchers based on a systematic review of literature. Oeconomia Copernicana, 11(1), 117-133.
  28. Keupp, M.M., & Gassmann, O. (2009). The Past and the Future of International Entrepreneurship: A Review and Suggestions for Developing the Field. Journal of Management , 35(3), 600-633.
  29. Kirzner, I.M. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: an Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35, 60-85.
  30. Knight, G.A., & Cavusgil, S.T. (1996). The born global firm: a challenge to traditional internationalization theory. Advances in International Marketing, 8, 11-26.
  31. Knight, G.A., & Cavusgil, S.T. (2004). Innovation, organizational capabilities and the born-global firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(2), 124-141.
  32. Liesch, P.W., Welch, L.S., & Buckley, P.J. (2011). Risk and Uncertainty in Internationalisation and International Entrepreneurship Studies Review and Conceptual Development. Management International Review, 51, 851-873.
  33. McDougall, P.P. (1989). International vs domestic entrepreneurship: a comparison of new venture behavior and industry structure in the computer and communications industries. Journal of Business Venturing, 4, 387-400.
  34. McDougall, P.P., & Oviatt, B.M. (2000). International entrepreneurship: The intersection of two research paths. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 902-908.
  35. Meyer, N. (2019). South African female entrepreneurs’ business styles and their influence on various entrepreneurial factors. Forum Scientiae Oeconomia, 7(2), 25-35.
  36. Mikhailova, O., & Olsen, P.I. (2016). Internationalization of an academic invention through successive science-business networks: The case of TAVI. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 14(3), 441-471.
  37. Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  38. Novák, V., Pavlík, J., Stočes, M., Vaněk, J., & Jarolímek, J. (2020). Welfare with IoT technology using fuzzy logic. Agris on-Line Papers in Economics and Informatics, 12(2), 111-118.
  39. Orlikowski, W. (1996). Improvising Organizational Transformation Over Time: A Situated Change Perspective. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 63-92.
  40. Oviatt, B.M., & McDougall, P.P. (1994). Towards a theory of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1), 45-64.
  41. Oviatt, B.M., & McDougall, P.P. (2005). The internationalization of entrepreneurship. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(1), 2-8.
  42. Pentland, B.T., Feldman, M.S., Becker, M.C., & Liu, P. (2012). Dynamics of Organizational Routines: A Generative Model. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1484-1508.
  43. Rogalska, E. (2018). Multiple-criteria analysis of regional entrepreneurship conditions in Poland. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 13(4), 707-723.
  44. Rudawska, I., & Kowalik, J. (2019). Towards university-business cooperation: Key drivers, barriers and modes. International Entrepreneurship Review (previously published as International Entrepreneurship | Przedsiębiorczość Międzynarodowa), 5(2), 91-105.
  45. Schumpeter, J.A. (1934). Change and the Entrepreneur. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  46. Servantie, V., Matthieu, C., Gilles, G., & Boissin, J.P. (2016). Is international entrepreneurship a field? A bibliometric analysis of the literature (1989–2015). Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 14, 168-212.
  47. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). Promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226.
  48. Shane, S. (2003). A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual-Opportunity Nexus. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  49. Shattock M., & Temple P. (2006). Entrepreneurialism and the Knowledge Society: some conclusions from cross national studies (paper presented at the EAIR Forum, Rome).
  50. Simpson, B., & Lorino, P. (2016). Re-Viewing Routines through a Pragmatist Lens. In J. Howard- Grenville, C. Rerup, A. Langley, & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), Organizational Routines: How They are Created, Maintained, and Changed (pp. 47-70). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  51. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1999). Academic Capitalism, Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  52. Solesvik, M.Z. (2019). Entrepreneurial competencies and intentions: the role of higher education. Forum Scientiae Oeconomia, 7(1), 9-23.
  53. Sporn, B. (2006). Governance and Administration: Organizational and Structural Trends. In: J.J.F. Forest, Ph.G. Altbach (Eds.), International Handbook of Higher Education. Dordrecht: Springer.
  54. Sporn, B. (1999a). Towards More Adaptive Universities: Trends of Institutional Reform in Europe. Higher Education in Europe, 24(1), 23-33.
  55. Sporn, B. (1999b). Adaptive University Structures. An Analysis of Adaptations to Socioeconomic Environments of US and European Universities. London: Jessica Kingsley.
  56. Sporn, B. (2001). Building Adaptive Universities: Emerging Organisational Forms Based on Experiences of European and US Universities. Tertiary Education and Management, 7, 121-134.
  57. Styles, C., & Seymour, R. (2006). Opportunities for marketing researchers in international entrepreneurship. International Marketing Review, 23(2), 126-145.
  58. Sułkowski, Ł. (2016a). Accountability of university: Transition of public higher education. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 4(1), 9-21.
  59. Sułkowski, Ł. (2016b). Kultura akademicka: koniec utopii?. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
  60. Sułkowski, Ł. (2012). Meta-paradigmatic cognitive perspective in management studies. Argumenta Oeconomica, 2(29), 33-51.
  61. Sułkowski, Ł. (2017). The culture of control in the contemporary university. In M. Izak, M. Kostera, & M. Zawadzki (Eds.), The future of university education (pp. 85–108). Palgrave Macmillan.
  62. Teece, D.J. (1976). The multinational corporation and the resource cost of international technology transfer. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing.
  63. Teece, D.J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.
  64. Teece, D.J. (2009). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  65. Welsh, L.S., & Loustarinen, R. K. (1993). Inward and outward connections in internationalization. Journal of International Marketing, 1, 46-58.
  66. Tsoukas, H. (2017). Don’t Simplify, Complexify: From Disjunctive to Conjunctive Theorizing in Organization and Management Studies. Journal of Management Studies, 54(2), 132-153.
  67. Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  68. Wright, M., Lockett, A., Clarysse, B., & Binks, M. (2006). University spin-out companies and venture capital. Res Policy, 35(4), 481-501.
  69. Young, S., Dimitratos, P., & Dana, L.P. (2003). International entrepreneurship research: what scope for international business theories. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 1, 31-42.
  70. Zahra, S.A., Zheng, C., & Yu, J. (2018). Learning advantages of newness: A reconceptualization and contingent framework. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 16, 12-37.
  71. Zygmunt, J. (2018). Entrepreneurial activity drivers in the transition economies. Evidence from the Visegrad countries. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 13(1), 89-103.


Download data is not yet available.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>