Advances in Business Education and Training 6

Amber Dailey-Hebert
Kay S. Dennis Editors

Transformative
Perspectives
and Processes
in Higher
Education
Transformative Perspectives and Processes
in Higher Education
Advances in Business Education and Training

Volume 6

Series Editor:
Piet Van den Bossche, Department of Educational Research and Development,
Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Maastricht University, the
Netherlands
Institute for Education and Information Sciences, University of Antwerp, Belgium

Associate Editors:
Wim Gijselaers, Department of Educational Research and Development, Faculty of
Economics and Business Administration, Maastricht University, the Netherlands
Richard G. Milter, Carey Business School, Johns Hopkins University, USA

Scope of the series

Advances in Business Education & Training is a Book Series to foster advancement

in in the field of Business Education and Training. It serves as an international
forum for scholarly and state-of-the-art research and development into all aspects of
Business Education and Training. It will not only publish empirical studies but also
stimulate theoretical discussions and address practical implications. Also reviews
of important developments in the field are encouraged. The editors welcome
contributions in which a line of reasoning is illustrated with experiments, design-
based studies, best practices, and theory development. In addition, the editors
encourage submission of new ideas for business education and training, papers that
are not necessarily empirical in nature, but describe interesting new educational
tools, approaches or solutions.
The book series will include both edited volumes comprised of peer-reviewed
articles as authored books. Each volume is dedicated to a specific theme in business
education, and will be complemented with articles that can be a resource to advance
business education and training

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8104

Amber Dailey-Hebert • Kay S. Dennis
Editors

Transformative Perspectives
and Processes in Higher
Education
Editors
Amber Dailey-Hebert
Kay S. Dennis
Park University
Parkville, MO, USA

ISBN 978-3-319-09246-1 ISBN 978-3-319-09247-8 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-09247-8
Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London

Library of Congress Control Number: 2014955068

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection
with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and
executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this
publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s
location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer.
Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations
are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for
any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein.

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

The collection is dedicated to lifelong
learners and practitioners everywhere who
are working to challenge the status quo,
seeking to shape the future, and creating new
pathways to innovate together.
Preface

As learning opportunities today reflect a more interdisciplinary, interconnected, and

collaborative approach, this collection is geared for those interested in innovating
higher education. Innovators may include educators, faculty, administrators, univer-
sity leaders, lifelong learners or external partners. Whatever ‘label’ you choose for
yourself, if you are interested in innovating higher education, this collection has
something to offer you.
For those interested in emerging trends that redefine and reshape higher education,
Part I provides an overview of such developments and presents a reconceptualiza-
tion of higher education as it is occurring in the 21st century university – particularly
in light of transformations induced by technological advances, economic con-
straints, and increased mobility of learners. We explore the challenges, solutions
and potential futures. Trends discussed include proprietary learning establishments,
entrepreneurial universities, technology-based pedagogies, and organizational
structures to support innovation. Part I provides a conceptual look at changes occur-
ring and opportunities awaiting higher education.
For those interested in more practitioner-based application and empirical research
of innovation in the classroom, Part II offers case studies for course-based integra-
tion of emergent technologies and unique facilitation strategies. Part II chronicles
the events of one university’s 3-year initiative to innovate teaching and learning and
shares the results of the pilot courses/programs offered. Part II provides practice-
situated examples of curricular transformation based on changes presented in Part I,
and shares course integrations from doctoral, undergraduate, and professional pro-
grams, all of which can inform one another.
For those seeking a forward-thinking, inspirational outlook on the future of
higher education, Part III engages in a conversation that will allow you to think
more meaningfully and deeply on the questions we should consider while moving
into the uncertain future before us.
While this series is focused on business education and training, this particular
text seeks to extend beyond the business school sector to embrace learning across
the disciplines in higher education, to integrate views from psychology, science,
business, social sciences and health, and to include views of learning from experts

vii
viii Preface

in Europe, the United States and Australia. This collection also aims to share diverse
perspectives (which may contradict one another at times). This work is not a pre-
scription for learning, but rather an array of possibilities for you to use based on
your own needs. Therefore, we leave it to you the reader to draw connections that
are relevant and appropriate to your specific context and environment. As with every
phenomenon, readers will differ on how they perceive and describe those circum-
stances; consequently we expect and appreciate a variety of perspectives to be
adopted and decisions made based upon diverse needs. This book is offered as an
assortment of fresh viewpoints on contemporary higher education and its impact,
rather than a collection of research studies alone.

Parkville, MO, USA Amber Dailey-Hebert

Contents

1 Introduction: New Opportunities for Development?........................... 1

Amber Dailey-Hebert and Kay S. Dennis

Part I Higher Education Redefined and Broadened

2 The Impetus for Change: Why Entrepreneurial Universities

Will Transform the Future (While Others
Will Cease to Exist) ................................................................................. 15
Richard G. Milter
3 Challenging the Status Quo: The Influence of Proprietary
Learning Institutions on the Shifting Landscape
of Higher Education................................................................................ 31
B. Jean Mandernach, Hank Radda, Scott Greenberger,
and Krista Forrest
4 From Envisioning to Managing Educational Development
and Organizational Innovation .............................................................. 49
Katerina Bohle-Carbonell and Amber Dailey-Hebert
5 Heutagogy, Technology, and Lifelong Learning
for Professional and Part-Time Learners ............................................. 75
Lisa Marie Blaschke and Stewart Hase

ix
x Contents

Part II Curricular Transformations

6 Making Students Responsible for Their

Learning – Empowering Learners to Build Shared
Mental Models ......................................................................................... 97
Herco Fonteijn
7 Bringing Learning to the Workplace: A Smartphone
App for Reflection and Increased Authenticity of Learning ............... 117
Karen D. Könings and Wim H. Gijselaers
8 From Challenge to Advantage: Innovating
the Curriculum Across Geographic Boundaries .................................. 137
Natalia Timuş
9 The Potential of Communities of Learning
for Dual Career PhD Programs – A Case Study .................................. 155
Martin Rehm and Mindel van de Laar
10 Recommendations from Instructors for Adopting
Successful Online Learning .................................................................... 179
Maike Gerken and Therese Grohnert

Part III Looking Ahead: Learning in the Future

11 What Can Higher Education Learn from the Workplace? ................. 195
David Boud and Donna Rooney
12 Higher Education Shaping the Unscripted Future:
The Imperative to Affirm Human Values
in Transformative Times ......................................................................... 211
Laurie N. DiPadova-Stocks
13 Higher Education 3.0: Knowmads Create Their Own Value! ............ 233
John W. Moravec and Ronald van den Hoff
14 Transformative Perspectives and Processes
in Higher Education: Concluding Thoughts ........................................ 241
Kay S. Dennis and Amber Dailey-Hebert

About the Contributors .................................................................................. 247

About the Editors ............................................................................................ 253

Contributors

Lisa Marie Blaschke Center for Lifelong Learning (C3L), Carl von Ossietzky
Universität Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany
Katerina Bohle-Carbonell Department of Educational Research and Development,
Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
David Boud Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Technology,
Sydney, Broadway, NSW, Australia
Amber Dailey-Hebert Department of Adult and Continuing Education, Park
University, Parkville, MO, USA
Department of Educational Research and Development, Maastricht University,
Maastricht, The Netherlands
Kay S. Dennis Park University, Parkville, MO, USA
Laurie N. DiPadova-Stocks School of Graduate and Professional Studies and
Hauptmann School of Public Affairs, Park University, Parkville, MO, USA
Herco Fonteijn Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Department of Work
and Social Psychology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Krista Forrest Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska at Kearney,
Kearney, NE, USA
Maike Gerken Department of Educational Research and Development, Maastricht
University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Wim H. Gijselaers Department of Educational Research and Development,
Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Scott Greenberger Center for Innovation in Research and Teaching, Grand
Canyon University, Phoenix, AZ, USA

xi
xii Contributors

Therese Grohnert Department of Educational Research and Development,

Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Stewart Hase Stewart Hase and Associates, Tweed Heads, NSW, Australia
Karen D. Könings Department of Educational Development and Research and
Graduate School of Health Professions Education, Maastricht University, Maastricht,
The Netherlands
B. Jean Mandernach Center for Innovation in Research and Teaching, Grand
Canyon University, Phoenix, AZ, USA
Richard G. Milter The Johns Hopkins Carey Business School, Johns Hopkins
University, Baltimore, MD, USA
John W. Moravec Education Futures LLC, Minneapolis, MN, USA
Hank Radda Center for Innovation in Research and Teaching, Grand Canyon
University, Phoenix, AZ, USA
Martin Rehm Educational Media & Knowledge Management, Universität
Duisburg Essen, Duisburg, Germany
Donna Rooney Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Technology,
Sydney, Broadway, NSW, Australia
Natalia Timuş Maastricht Graduate School of Governance, Maastricht University,
Maastricht, The Netherlands
Sciences Po., Paris, Campus Menton, France
Mindel van de Laar Maastricht Graduate School of Governance, Maastricht
University/UNU-MERIT, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Ronald van den Hoff CDEF Holding BV, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Chapter 1
Introduction: New Opportunities
for Development?

Amber Dailey-Hebert and Kay S. Dennis

What might our future look like if higher education focused on the needs of
humankind and the enablers for meeting those needs? How might our reality
change if we embraced the complexity and uncertainty surrounding us and lever-
aged them to the advantage of the learner (and society as a whole)? We begin this
chapter with questions that have helped to shape a growing conversation on the
need for higher education to shift dramatically from its traditional paradigm. It has
been said that higher education is broken, that we have fallen behind the emerging
trends of our time. It has also been said that higher education is the indispensible
cornerstone of culture and society. We assert that revolutions in education have
already occurred worldwide and will continue to shape the face of learning as we
know it. As lines blur across all forms of learning – be it informal, formal, tradi-
tional, professional, networked or otherwise – shifts in our perspectives and
understanding are necessary to accompany such change. This chapter outlines
concepts for consideration as we challenge ourselves to participate in innovating
the future of learning.

1.1 Reality Check

Hypercomplex, hyperconnected, globalized: these words characterize the environ-

ment we now inhabit. Companies, organizations, schools and higher education all
struggle to adapt to the new reality. Despite the escalating need for contextualized
learning and workforce training (Berman 2010; Friedman 2005; Kanes 2010),

A. Dailey-Hebert (*) • K.S. Dennis

Department of Adult and Continuing Education, Park University, 8700 NW River Park Drive,
Parkville, MO 64152, USA
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 1

A. Dailey-Hebert, K.S. Dennis (eds.), Transformative Perspectives
and Processes in Higher Education, Advances in Business
Education and Training 6, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-09247-8_1
2 A. Dailey-Hebert and K.S. Dennis

higher education is producing ill-prepared, dissatisfied graduates who emerge from

outdated curricula (Fischer 2013; Frenk et al. 2010; Hacker and Dreifus 2011;
Bennis and O’Toole 2005). Steeped in outdated tradition and infrastructures that
fail to support innovation, higher education as we have known it is no longer viable.
Part of the struggle for higher education, a struggle experienced for centuries, is the
need to expand from elitist to mass higher education, with universal access (Selingo
2013; Owens 2011; Trow 1973). In Westernized and European societies, tradi-
tional higher education is being assailed by competition from newer forms of
‘learning institutions’ (such as corporate universities, online universities, research
institutes, and employer-provided training and development programs) – a trend
which calls into question the value of a formalized degree, the changing role of the
university, and a shift in employer perspectives on workplace learning (Christensen
and Eyring 2011; Horn 2012; Kanes 2010). This shift also affects academia’s
traditional undergraduate audience, which now must consider its role in workforce
training, professionalization, and lifelong learning on the global scale (Altbach
et al. 2010). These changes are producing a shift of responsibility on the part of the
university from conserving and transmitting knowledge to creating knowledge.
However, the shortened shelf life of knowledge, innumerable modes for creating
knowledge, and multiple outlets for transmitting knowledge further accelerate this
new reality (Blaschke 2012; Friedman 2005). Therefore, the solution to the problem
must evolve continuously as the environment, in which the learner and the univer-
sity are embedded, changes.
Universities and business schools are challenged to tackle interconnected,
ill-defined problems in urgent need of innovative solutions. Yet higher education has
difficulty organizing initiatives to address such issues, and continues to structure
solutions in traditional, hierarchical, and restrictive ways (Christensen and Eyring
2011; Bore and Wright 2009; DeMillo 2011). In order to confront these changes
and remain a relevant part of society, higher education must re-examine the present
and future needs of those it would serve and the manner in which it should do so
(Bohle-Carbonell et al. 2013; Taylor 2012).
Furthermore, as we consider the needs and enablers for meeting them and as we
explore ways to embrace complexity and uncertainty, we should challenge ourselves to
gauge the actual value we add to the learning landscape, and the embodied values
needed in today’s global society, which education can (potentially) help to promote. To
achieve this goal, alternative structures, processes, and perspectives are needed to rede-
fine the roles of teacher and learner, broaden the scope of both formal and informal
learning, acknowledge the modalities available to connect learning and life, and estab-
lish beneficent environments that support learning for the greater good of society.
Rather than trying to ‘fix’ or adapt the traditional model of higher education with
its lectures, face-to-face classrooms, faculty-centered methods, and a hierarchical
tenure system (Jackson-Weaver et al. 2010), many innovators have moved to support
learning in new ways (Smith 2011, 2012). As you will discover in various chapters
of this collection, we explore several “opportunity areas” to meet the changing needs
of humankind for learning. They include: innovating the ecosystem of academia;
networked learning as an enabler; and individualized learning pathways.
1 Introduction: New Opportunities for Development? 3

1.2 Innovating the Ecosystem of Academia

As high ranking and tenured professors ourselves, we might be tempted to support

the status quo that has brought us rank, autonomy, and job security. It would be easy
enough to teach our courses and conduct our research as we have done for the past
20 years. It would be easy to maintain curriculum based on what benchmark studies
suggest employers want. For administrators and academic leadership of an institu-
tion, it might be easier to maintain the status quo as well – to keep traditional pro-
grams and tenure systems in place throughout an institution, and to cater to
traditional student populations. For learners, it might be easy to memorize material
and focus on earning the grade to get the degree. It would be easier to maintain this
status quo. Yet it would not be sustainable, not anymore. Those who continue to
ignore or refute this assertion are kindly reminded of the wicked problems which
await – wicked problems, which are exponentially more complex and ill-defined,
lacking any definitive solution or conclusive end, and which have already shaped
our learning reality today (Spanier 2010; Taylor 2009; Carr 2012; Dew 2012; Rittel
and Webber 1973; McFadden et al. 2010). Universities are faced with wicked prob-
lems on two fronts: we must prepare graduates for a world beset by wicked prob-
lems, and we must find our place in society using new systems and methods that are
agile and capable of supporting innovation.

1.2.1 Innovating from Within

In the past, we have turned to the hallowed Ivy League institutions or sought
‘best practices’ to implement on our campuses. However, this strategy may no
longer be realistic; it cannot endure. At this juncture, in order for your organiza-
tion to survive and thrive in such transformative times, you must have the capac-
ity to answer this question – what is our institution’s dream? It may seem like a
simple question, yet the answer is not so easily reached. While we have been
conditioned to create strategic plans, organize shared governance structures, and
invest in frameworks to meet required standards or accreditation criteria (Dooris
et al. 2004), we rarely have time to think about our dream and vision for the
future, let alone how we might restructure our organizational culture to get there.
Such deep and significant change requires an entrepreneurial spirit (on all levels
of institutional hierarchy) which supports experimentation and has the capacity
to view failures as learning experiences (Schulz 2010; Carmeli et al. 2010). The
paradox is that we need a dream or vision (which is difficult to develop), and then
we must allow people to experiment with that vision, (which is messy, difficult
to accept, inherently risky, and cannot be learned from a book). This paradox has
prevented countless institutions from moving forward, and continues to plague
traditional learning infrastructures today (Altbach et al. 2010; Spanier 2010;
Christensen and Eyring 2011).
4 A. Dailey-Hebert and K.S. Dennis

In recent years, universities and learning institutes (such as the Open University,
University of Phoenix, Khan Academy, or Codecademy), have experienced
significant growth, due largely to their entrepreneurial efforts, adaptive learning
models, and ability to fill a growing gap in higher education (Douglass 2012;
Shaarples et al. 2013; Miller et al. 2000; Allen and Seaman 2011). These organiza-
tions have broadened the scope of higher education to include professional, part-
time, and lifelong learners; they have expanded their modalities to better facilitate
learning across time and space; and they have redefined the roles of the learner,
faculty, and organization to support a shifting landscape in higher education (Staley
and Trinkle 2011). A note of importance, particularly for business schools in the
academy, is the connection these learning institutes have made between learning
and working (Niall 2013). They have invested in connecting learners with practi-
tioner-based learning environments – ‘educative scenarios’ – which extend beyond
the traditional classroom (Hodge et al. 2011). Inherent in such an entrepreneurial
spirit is an environment that supports risk-taking, establishes a psychologically
safe communication climate (Edmondson 2012), and promotes innovation through
collaboration at all levels (Harris 2011). And while their growth has redefined how
we learn today, we have no guarantee that their models will work in five years. It is
not their organizational model that we should try to replicate, but rather the entre-
preneurial spirit, which generated their innovative solutions for learning. It is only
through a continued state of innovation, a dissatisfaction with comfort in the status
quo, and a vision for the future, that higher education can move forward and remain
relevant. So we caution against looking to these organizations, or any other organi-
zations, as ‘examples’ for your institution to emulate. Instead, we would encourage
each institution to define its unique dream and allow employees the freedom to
explore and invent in new ways to support it. Thus, moving forward, it will be essen-
tial to innovate from within your institution and to seek ways to create an entrepre-
neurial mindset. Such a mindset is evident with institutions of higher education
which have taken this risk to innovate such as Quest University in Canada, Western
Governor’s University in the United States, the Open University in the UK, the
Knowmad Business School in Amsterdam, and no doubt many more worldwide.
They have each created their own unique brand of education that redefined a tradi-
tional element of higher education – from modality offerings, to multidisciplinary
curriculum, to reshaping faculty roles or redefining the meaning of a degree – each
institution innovated from within their vision for the future of higher education.

1.2.2 Establishing a Hub to Empower and Create

The new ecosystem of academia will need to focus on cross-institutional, cross-

geographical, cross-disciplinary collaborations, which expand relationships beyond
the traditional four-walled classroom and beyond the traditional campus. Such
collaborations take advantage of our globalized world and the tools that enable us to
create a shared learning experience. Such an ecosystem eliminates disciplinary
1 Introduction: New Opportunities for Development? 5

boundaries to promote a more connected approach to learning, and empowers

students in co-constructing, co-branding, and co-developing curriculum with their
instructors and external partners (Scardamalia and Bereiter 2006). It is based on
problem-solving and collaboration (Di Blas and Paolini 2014) rather than content
and independent study. Furthermore, it attains sustainability by capitalizing on the
ideas of individuals rather than relying primarily on organizational leadership. For
too long we have looked to the organization to provide the answers to our questions
in times of uncertainty. However, today, one person’s innovative idea might serve as
the catalyst to shape or save the organization; one person’s ideas could lead to orga-
nizational learning and advancement (Senge 2006). Yet we rarely empower employ-
ees to share or ‘scale up’ such ideas; and even if such ideas are realized, we tend to
move at a snail’s pace toward implementation. We need to dedicate more time and
resources to scaling up successes in our organizations (Dede et al. 2005). The indi-
vidual employee rarely is rewarded or given any incentive to experiment or take a
risk with unorthodox methods. Therefore, the new ecosystem of academia reconsid-
ers the review, tenure and promotion process (Boyer 1990; Trower 2009) and identi-
fies ways to integrate and affirm multiple forms of contributions from the student,
institution, and society as a whole. The new academic ecosystem should be a hub of
innovation, exchange, and collaborative knowledge building.
Consequently, we can anticipate a role reversal among students, educators, admin-
istrators, and external partners. Rather than having guest speakers present to students
about industry, students are now working on real-world problem-, project-, design-, or
service-based learning activities where they offer fresh insights and solutions to
external organizations. Students are engaged in participatory course redesign
(Cook-Sather 2002; Könings et al. 2010) in which they provide direct feedback on
how to restructure their course to better meet their needs. The roles have reversed in
our new ecosystem, as described by Sergio (2012, par. 16):
In other words, imagine kids who are raised with programming and video-production
knowledge from very early ages creating educational materials for their peers, or even to
teach adults, exposing them to very young people’s points of view of the world. Imagine a
12-year-old boy explaining how (effectively) to communicate health information to him as
a tutorial for nurses, physicians, and parents.

As we think about innovating the ecosystem of academia, we might consider

taking a ‘sky’s the limit’ orientation, for in today’s kinetic galaxy, that which can
be conceived will be achieved, and much sooner than most of us can imagine. Best
of all there is room for everyone at the table, and each stakeholder group has a
unique role and service to offer. The new ecosystem’s primary role in establishing
a hub is to create an environment to connect – to establish connections in which we
bring all valued stakeholder groups together as never before. We hold immense
potential and possibility to create hubs for learning that involve the global com-
munity and which can contribute to the greater good for society. Imagine studies in
which learners around the globe are connected with experts in the field who work
together to solve a global challenge facing society today (be it global warming,
AIDS, unemployment, etc.). The learning is not structured by course number or
6 A. Dailey-Hebert and K.S. Dennis

discipline, but rather by topic or challenge. The new ecosystem of academia can be
the global learning hub of the future if we leverage our challenges to become our
advantage and if we create opportunities for connection.

1.3 Networked Learning as an Enabler

Networked learning has allowed us to progress from social nets (such as Facebook™,
Twitter™, etc.) to professional nets (such as LinkedIn™, etc.) to learning nets (such
as MOOC’s, EdX™, and Khan Academy). These new forms of community have
created opportunities for learning and redefined the environment, learner, peer and
instructor. Rather than having students attend school ‘to get information from the
instructor’, we can harness such learning networks to create opportunities for
exchange and collaborative knowledge production and sharing. Furthermore, tradi-
tional institutions are particularly well positioned to scale up networked learning
quickly by leveraging their vast and established networks of students, faculty,
alumni, peers, and external partners (Sergio 2012).

1.3.1 Ubiquitous, Ageless, Boundless

Ubiquitous learning represents learning that can be accessed in various situations

and contexts – it is omnipresent (Yahya et al. 2010). U-learning, as it is known, sur-
rounds the learner, enabled by a constant connection and interaction with an adap-
tive environment. It extends beyond distance education, mobile learning, and
e-learning philosophies, to acknowledge the importance of context and the ability to
learn and apply information in various settings, in essence, everywhere (Cope and
Kalantzis 2009). Such ubiquitous learning has been possible largely due to the
expansive networks and tools which connect us with accessible information and
exchange.
Learners are connected as never before and gain information from multiple
sources through multiple modalities, which has led to an evolution of content they
are involved in creating. For example, consider the historic 20-volume encyclopedia
sets as ‘traditional education’, and Wikipedia as the ‘networked’ form of such con-
tent. From serious gaming to mobile and ubiquitous learning, people are utilizing
these networks to collaborate and learn across time and space and to co-create and
produce ideas. Consequently, we are able to establish knowledge-creating cultures
that encourage world citizenship, co-creation, co-branding, and co-development in
innovative ways.
It (knowledge building) involves students not only developing knowledge-building compe-
tencies but also coming to see themselves and their work as part of the civilization-wide
effort to advance knowledge frontiers. In this context, the Internet becomes more than a
desktop library and a rapid mail-delivery system. It becomes the first realistic means for
1 Introduction: New Opportunities for Development? 7

students to connect with civilization-wide knowledge building and to make their classroom
work part of it (Scardamalia and Bereiter 2006, p. 98).

In a French university, students and teachers are co-branding and co-designing

serious games with major companies, as part of their curriculum (Michel and Steiler
2013). Elsewhere in Europe we see curricula that integrate customized apps to help
working professionals connect learning and their work experience (Könings et al.
2013). We see simulated learning environments used to teach brand management
and marketing to learners in Europe (Noteborn et al. 2013). In China, cloud comput-
ing is used to design and apply continuing education network training (Zhang 2012).
We see partnerships involving MOOC providers, World Bank, and organizations in
Africa which aim to educate the masses in resource-challenged areas that have pre-
viously had no access to quality education (Lee 2013). All of these opportunities, in
addition to so many more, are made possible through the networked learning avail-
able to us today. Furthermore, they are connecting multiple groups (learners, fac-
ulty, industry, non-profits, etc.). Yet the question remains, how can we utilize such
networks effectively (which will be illuminated in the forthcoming chapters) and
why have we not witnessed their integration in higher education to a greater degree?

1.4 Individualized Learning Pathways

The manner in which education has been structured was based on the assumption
that everyone learns in the same way, at the same pace, and in the same place – and
it was done so in a way that made poor use of our talents (Robinson 2010). For
decades, research confirmed this fact and showed us the importance of considering
the uniqueness and multiple capacities of each individual learner (Bloom et al.
1956; Gardner 1983; Brookfield 1987; Pink 1998; Knowles et al. 2011). In recent
times, we find not only do students defy the mold that we have tried to place upon
them, but also they are sidestepping traditional education altogether to create their
own customized learning path to meet their unique needs. Kamenetz (2010) refers
to these learners as ‘edupunks’ and highlights the vast opportunities (and cost effec-
tive strategies) by which learners today can ‘hack’ their own education to create the
customized learning experience they seek. The rather unfortunate reality is that they
are working around higher education rather than being supported by it. While some
see this as the end of the academy, such indicators suggest a significant opportunity
for higher education to organize informal learning, to help centralize resources, and
to offer credentialing for these learned experiences. Whether via diplomas, degrees,
certifications, digital badges, or other credentialing that has yet to be created, higher
education is positioned to certify learning that is connected through an educational
hub, in which learners participate and find value throughout their lifetime. Although
lifelong learning is not a new term, it could become policy priority among all coun-
tries around the world that are dealing with issues of unemployment, skills deficits,
and shifting labor markets, and the need to focus on developing human capital and
8 A. Dailey-Hebert and K.S. Dennis

capacity building (Istance and Kools 2013). Business schools could easily seize this
opportunity to connect learning in the workplace and university-based credential-
ing. Furthermore, lifelong learning is inclusive and accommodates heterogeneity –
and we seem to be missing our opportunity to coordinate and formalize informal
learning. Therefore, the future of learning in higher education relies heavily on our
ability to create environments for collaboration, customization, and informalization
of learning.
One consequence of such networked and lifelong learning is the obliteration of
the typical, age-defined learning environment. We now have 8-year-olds and
88-year-olds who can access the same information and connect or collaborate with
one another from different parts of the world, based on their interest in the topic
(Pappa et al. 2011). Therefore a byproduct of this continuous and truly lifelong
learning journey emphasizes an intergenerational approach to all learning based on
interest, curiosity, passion or need. The expanded population of learners also
includes those parts of the world whose residents have been denied access to educa-
tion based on gender, location, physical ability, or socioeconomic status. Networked
learning opportunities have lowered the barriers to education for such groups, and
have helped shape an entire generation of people for whom access typically was
limited (Chatti et al. 2010). And the key to successful channeling of the networked
learning movement will not simply involve digitizing current educational systems:
the beauty lies in a new freedom to select one’s own life path, leverage talents, and
pursue passions, dreams, and callings (Sergio 2012).
While emergent technologies may be viewed as mere instruments to support
learning and interaction, the weight of their impact cannot be underestimated.
However, part of the wickedness we face today is the tendency to focus on the
instrument or technology itself (learning networks) rather than the need which the
instrument could help address (access and individualized learning pathways). If we
shift our paradigm, we have the opportunity to enable setting up communities and
certifying the learning pathway.

1.5 Engage in Shaping the Future

Despite popular belief, change is not something that merely ‘happens to us’ – it is
something we can embrace and shape. And while uncertainty and an unknown
future can create anxiety, they can also create opportunity. Innovation can flourish
when faculty members are given the autonomy, money and time to experiment and
explore unorthodox methods. Similarly, we need to reconsider our views of the
learner as a self-regulating, autonomous being who deserves individualized learn-
ing pathways in the lifelong journey of growth and development. Innovative
approaches that offer contextualized learning through real-life industry and work-
force challenges should be explored in order to create meaningful connections and
transfer among learning, working, and living. Furthermore, strategies should be
devised to enable collaborative knowledge building and meaningful dissemination
1 Introduction: New Opportunities for Development? 9

so that the creative ideas of one person can ultimately translate into organizational
learning and adaptation. Our focus must be on our future and the needs of human-
kind, and we should utilize the enablers for meeting those needs.
Today, catalytic conversations are needed – those which have the potential to
change the face of higher education and which already have been occurring world-
wide. Perhaps you are involved in such conversations, or perhaps you are even leading
such conversations at your institution; perhaps you are new to the conversation. Hence,
we conclude this chapter not with generalized answers to guide you, but rather with
questions that we hope will challenge you and shape your thinking:
• How can these changes and opportunities be harnessed to our collective
advantage?
• What is the future you see?
• What will invoke your next learning innovation?
What might our future look like if higher education focused on the needs of human-
kind and the enablers for meeting those needs? How might our reality change if we
embraced the complexity and uncertainty surrounding us and leveraged them to the
advantage of the learner (and society as a whole)? These questions will be explored
in the chapters ahead.

References

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance: Online education in the United States, 2011.
Newburyport: Sloan Consortium.
Altbach, P. H., Reisberg, L. & Rumbley, L. E. (2010). Trends in global higher education: Tracking
an academic revolution. A report prepared for the UNESCO 2009 world conference on higher
education. Paris: UNESCO, 2009. http://www.unesco.org/tools/fileretrieve/2844977e.pdf
Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business
Review, (May issue), 1–10.
Berman, S. (2010). Capitalizing on complexity. IBM Global Business Services, Somers, USA.
Blaschke, L. M. (2012). Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of heutagogical practice and
self-determined learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 13(1), 56–71. http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1076/2087
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (1956).
Taxonomy of educational objectives – The classification of educational goals – Handbook 1:
Cognitive domain. London: Longmans, Green & Co. Ltd.
Bohle-Carbonell, K., Dailey-Hebert, A., & Gijselaers, W. (2013). Unleashing the creative potential
of faculty to create blended learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 29–37.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.10.004.
Bore, A., & Wright, N. (2009). The wicked and complex in education: Developing a transdisci-
plinary perspective for policy formulation, implementation and professional practice. Journal
of Education for Teaching, 35(3), 241–256. doi:10.1080/02607470903091286.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. New York: The
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers: Challenging adults to explore alternative
ways of thinking and acting. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10 A. Dailey-Hebert and K.S. Dennis

Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive leadership and employee involvement
in creative tasks in the workplace: The mediating role of psychological safety. Psychology
Faculty Publications. Paper 30. http://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/psychfacpub/30
Carr, N. (2012). The crisis in higher education. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved December 18, 2013,
from http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/429376/the-crisis-in-higher-education/
Chatti, M. A., Jarke, M., & Specht, M. (2010). The 3P Learning Model. Educational Technology
& Society, 13(4), 74–85.
Christensen, A., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of higher
education from the inside out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorizing students’ perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, and change in
education. Educational Researcher, 31, 3–14.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2009). Ubiquitous learning. Champaign: University of Illinois
Press.
Dede, C., Honan, J. P., & Peters, L. C. (2005). Scaling up success: Lessons from technology-based
educational improvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
DeMillo, R. A. (2011). Abelard to apple: The fate of American colleges and universities.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dew, J. R. (2012). The future of American higher education. World Future Review, 4(4), 7–13.
Di Blas, N., & Paolini, P. (2014). Multi-user virtual environments fostering collaboration in formal
education. Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 54–69.
Dooris, M. J., Kelley, J. M., & Trainer, J. F. (2004). Strategic planning in higher education. New
Directions for Institutional Research, 123, 5–11.
Douglass, J. A. (2012). Money, politics and the rise of for-profit higher education in the US: A story
of supply, demand and the Brazilian effect. Research & occasional paper series: CSHE. 2.12.
Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education.
Edmondson, A. C. (2012). Teaming: How organizations learn, innovate, and compete in the
knowledge economy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fischer, K. (2013). The employment mismatch: A college degree sorts applicants, but employers
wish it meant more. The Chronicle of Higher Education. http://chronicle.com/article/The-
Employment-Mismatch/137625/#id=overview
Frenk, J., Chen, L., Bhutta, Z. A., Cohen, J., Crisp, N., Evans, T., Fineberg, H., Garcia, P., Ke, Y.,
Kelly, P., Kistnasamy, B., Meleis, A., Naylor, D., Pablos-Mendez, A., Reddy, S., Scrimshaw, S.,
Sepulveda, J., Serwadda, D., & Zurayk, H. (2010). Health professionals for a new century:
Transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. Lancet,
376(9756), 1923–1958. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61854-5.
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York:
Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Hacker, A., & Dreifus, C. (2011). Higher education? How colleges are wasting our money and
failing our kids – And what we can do about it. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin.
Harris, A. (2011). System improvement through collective capacity building. Journal of
Educational Administration, 49(6), 624–636.
Hodge, P., Wright, S., Barraket, J., Scott, M., Melville, R., & Richardson, S. (2011). Revisiting
‘how we learn’ in academia: Practice-based learning exchanges in three Australian universities.
Studies in Higher Education, 36(2), 167–183.
Horn, M. (2012, April 12). Yes, University of Phoenix is disruptive; No, that doesn’t make it
the end-all. Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelhorn/2012/04/12/yes-university-of-
phoenix-is-disruptive-no-that-doesnt-make-it-the-end-all/
Istance, D., & Kools, M. (2013). OECD work on technology and education: Innovative learning
environments as an integrating framework. European Journal of Education, 48(1), 43–57.
doi:10.1111/ejed.12017.
Jackson-Weaver, K., Baker, E. B., Gillespie, M. C., Ramos Bellido, C. G., & Watts, A. (2010).
Recruiting the next generation of the professoriate. Peer Review, 12(3), 11–14.
1 Introduction: New Opportunities for Development? 11

Kamenetz, A. (2010). DIY U: Edupunks, edupreneurs, and the coming transformation of higher
education. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Kanes, C. (Ed.). (2010). Elaborating professionalism. Studies in practice and theory (Innovation
and change in professional education, Vol. 5). Dordrecht/London/Boston: Springer.
Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2011). The adult learner: The definitive classic
in adult education and human resource development (7th ed.). Oxford: Elsevier Inc.
Könings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2010). An approach to participa-
tory instructional design in secondary education: An exploratory study. Educational Research,
52, 45–59.
Könings, K. D., Koopmans, R., Van Berlo, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Van der Vleuten, C.
(2013, August). The smartphone as a mobile reflection tool for learning at the workplace.
Paper presented at the 15th Biennial conference of the European Association for Research on
Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Münich, Germany.
Lee, P. (2013, October 18). World Bank, Coursera to take MOOCs to developing world.
University World News, Issue 292. http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?st
ory=20131017131951244
McFadden, K., Chen, S., Munroe, D., Naftzger, J., & Selinger, E. (2010). Creating an innovative
interdisciplinary graduate certificate program. Innovative Higher Education, 36, 161–176.
doi:10.1007/s10755-010-9164-6.
Michel, H., & Steiler, D. (2013). Do it yourself: Why and how teachers are going to create their
own serious games. In P. Daly, K. Reid, & S. Reeb-Gruber (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th
EDINEB conference: Future skills for competitive business education. Haarlem: EDINEB
Association.
Miller, J. W., Martineau, L. P., & Clark, R. C. (2000). Technology infusion and higher education:
Changing teaching and learning. Innovative Higher Education, 24(3), 227–241.
Niall, P. (2013). Evaluating experiential learning in the business context: Contributions to group-
based and cross-functional working. Innovations in Education & Teaching International,
50(2), 202–213.
Noteborn, G., Dailey-Hebert, A., Carbonell, K. B., & Gijselaers, W. (2014). Essential knowledge
for academic performance: Educating in the virtual world to promote active learning. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 37, 217–234.
Owens, J. (2011). Enlightenment and education in eighteenth century America: A platform for
further study in higher education and the colonial shift. Educational Studies, 47, 527–544.
Pappa, D., Dunwell, I., Protopsaltis, A., Pannese, L., Hetzner, S., de Freitas, S., & Rebolledo-
Mendez, G. (2011). Game-based learning for knowledge sharing and transfer: The e-VITA
approach for intergenerational learning. In P. Felicia (Ed.), The handbook of research on
improving learning and motivation through educational games: Multidisciplinary approaches.
Hershey: IGI Global, Information Science Reference. 10.4018/978-1-60960-495-0.ch045.
Pink, D. H. (1998). A whole new mind: Why right-brainers will rule the future. London: Marshall
Cavendish.
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy
Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
Robinson, K. (2010). Bring on the learning revolution! Ted Talks. http://www.ted.com/talks/sir_
ken_robinson_bring_on_the_revolution.html
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology.
In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Schulz, K. (2010). Being wrong: Adventures in the margin of error. New York: Harper Collins
Publishers.
Selingo, J. (2013). College (un)bound: The future of higher education and what it means for stu-
dents. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
New York: Doubleday.
12 A. Dailey-Hebert and K.S. Dennis

Sergio, F. (2012). mLearning: Revolutionizing education. DesignMind. http://designmind.

frogdesign.com/blog/mlearning-revolutionizing-education.html
Shaarples, M., McAndrew, P., Weller, M., Ferguson, R., FitzGerald, E., Hirst, T., Gaved, M.
(2013). Innovating pedagogy 2013: Explore new forms of teaching, learning and assessment,
to guide educators and policy makers. Milton Keynes: The Open University. http://www.open.
ac.uk/personalpages/mike.sharples/Reports/Innovating_Pedagogy_report_2013.pdf
Smith, K. (2011). Cultivating innovative learning and teaching cultures: A question of garden
design. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(4), 427–438.
Smith, K. (2012). Lessons learnt from literature on the diffusion of innovative learning and
teaching practices in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International,
49(2), 173–182.
Spanier, G. B. (2010). Creating adaptable universities. Innovative Higher Education, 35, 91–99.
Staley, D. J., & Trinkle, D. A. (2011). The changing landscape of higher education. Educause
Review, 46(1), 16–33.
Taylor, M. C. (2009, April 27). End the university as we know it. The New York Times. Retrieved
December 18, 2013, from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27taylor.html
Taylor, M. P. (2012). The entrepreneurial university in the twenty-first century. London Review of
Education, 10(3), 289–305.
Trow, M. (1973). Problems in the transition from elite to mass higher education (Carnegie
Commission on Higher Education 57). Berkeley: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.
Trower, C. (2009, September 7). Rethinking tenure for the next generation. Chronicle of Higher
Education. http://advance.cornell.edu/documents/Rethinking-Tenure-for-the-Next-
Generation.pdf
Yahya, S., Ahmad, E. A., & Jalil, K. A. (2010). The definition and characteristics of ubiquitous
learning: A discussion. International Journal of Education and Development using Information
and Communication Technology, 6(1), 117–127.
Zhang, T. (2012). Design and application of continuing education network training platform based
on cloud computer. In Proceedings of the 2012 international conference on cybernetics and
information. New York: Springer. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-3872-
4_154#page-1
 Part I
Higher Education Redefined and
Broadened

We are in a constant state of flux, and higher education needs to respond in more
proactive, intentional, and innovative ways to remain a relevant cornerstone to soci-
ety and culture. The purpose of this edited collection is to provide insight into the
complexities confronting higher education today and to highlight tangible opportu-
nities that exist to address such issues. The chapters are arranged to inform the
reader seeking knowledge on how to (1) reshape and redefine the 21st century uni-
versity, with its evolving role in these transformative times; (2) design and implement
courses that address the changing needs of the university and the non-traditional
student; and (3) utilize research on innovative strategies with processes that promote
organizational learning. The chapters profile the fluid nature of learning as it evolves
in higher education and the workplace, often with a blurred line separating the two
environments. Exciting ideas related to heutagogy, problem-based learning, innova-
tive constructivist strategies, authentic learning, and self-regulated learning all con-
verge in this volume. The editors begin by asking how our collective reality might
change if the complexity and uncertainty surrounding us were embraced and lever-
aged to serve the learner and society as a whole. They invite the reader to explore
collaborative approaches to individualized learning pathways, networked learning,
and a reimagined ecosystem of academia in the section ahead.
Part I opens with Richard Milter’s insightful perspective on the need for educational
institutions to become more entrepreneurial and the value in doing so. Notably, he
highlights the way such entrepreneurial institutions challenge students to develop
the knowledge and skills to confront complexities in the world of technology-
mediated collaboration, and the ways in which they embrace innovation to meet the
future ahead. Building upon Milter’s idea of the entrepreneurial university, in Chap.
3, B. Jean Mandernach, Hank Radda, Scott Greenberger and Krista Forrest explain
a proprietary model for educational entrepreneurship which can assist colleges and
universities in meeting the expanding needs of lifelong learners by opening access
to a broader community of students. They explore strategies to create efficient, prof-
itable, and student-centric learning that has filled a growing gap in higher education
in recent years. In an effort to provide an example of an entrepreneurial university
14 I Higher Education Redefined and Broadened

aimed at innovating for the non-traditional learner, Katerina Bohle-Carbonell and

Amber Dailey-Hebert describe a multifaceted bottom-up project structure which
afforded lower-level faculty members the autonomy, money and time to experiment
and explore unorthodox methods. They discuss the capacities necessary to promote
and infuse innovation at the individual, group, and organizational levels. Finally, as
the focus shifts from organization to learner, with emphasis on the impact of emerg-
ing technologies, in Chap. 5 the strategies and philosophical approach to the needs
of lifelong learners is addressed by Lisa Marie Blaschke and Stewart Hase. They
showcase heutagogy, a framework for self-determined learning that can be deployed
using the latest technological developments and implemented in pedagogically
meaningful ways to serve the 21st century learner.
Chapter 2
The Impetus for Change:
Why Entrepreneurial Universities
Will Transform the Future (While Others
Will Cease to Exist)

Richard G. Milter

As leaders and innovators in educational institutions attempt to meet future learning

needs, it is paramount that they reconsider both the structure and processes that have
become legacy models in their academic infrastructure. One key challenge for
higher education leadership (and those within the institution seeking to innovate for
the future) is to incorporate the spirit and drive exhibited by entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurial spirit has driven much development in the economic annals and is
key to future societal expansion. Universities can play a vital role in such expansion
but only if they align internal structures and manage risk and ambiguity to support
mechanisms for learner-centered approaches and leverage technology in the learn-
ing process. University leaders must challenge the status quo and address the
urgency to balance forces involved in the creation of knowledge and processes for
the dissemination of knowledge. Therefore, this chapter focuses on entrepreneurial
leadership, organizing structures for reward and risk management, tolerance for
ambiguity, leading change efforts that include adjusting to more learner-centered
approaches, and leveraging technology to transform higher education.

2.1 What Is an Entrepreneur?

An entrepreneur is someone who has strong passion for a particular activity that
has the potential to create value for others. Successful entrepreneurs are able to
sell that value proposition to others and reap benefits by doing so. The term,

R.G. Milter (*)

The Johns Hopkins Carey Business School, Johns Hopkins University,
Baltimore, MD, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 15

A. Dailey-Hebert, K.S. Dennis (eds.), Transformative Perspectives
and Processes in Higher Education, Advances in Business
Education and Training 6, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-09247-8_2
16 R.G. Milter

initially used in academic circles in the early 18th century by Irish-French econo-
mist Richard Cantillon, was introduced in the early 13th century using the French
word “entreprendre” which means “to undertake” or “do something.” Cantillon
used it to connote an individual who puts their personal fortune at risk for the
benefit of the enterprise (Tarascio 1985). The risk to which he referred pertained
to both finances and career, as these persons put their future reputation on the line.
Entrepreneurs appear to have thick skin, or as psychologists proffer, “high inter-
nal locus of control,” such that what others think about them is rather insignificant
and where risk of failure is accepted and sometimes even cherished. The point is
that if entrepreneurs are not stretching beyond their known limits or the limits pro-
claimed by others, they are not doing enough or learning enough. Entrepreneurship
has been more recently described as the process whereby one or more persons use
concerted efforts and means to pursue opportunities to create value, and grow by
fulfilling wants and needs through innovation and uniqueness, no matter what
resources are currently controlled (Coulter 2001).
People who tend to exhibit these behaviors on repeated occasions are known as
serial entrepreneurs. They possess high tolerance for ambiguity, adapt easily, and
display an ability to take risks, putting everything on the line in order to pursue their
goals. Probably the most important element is that they sustain a genuine passion
for their mission that appears to grow as obstacles present themselves. Perhaps the
simplest and most salient expression of the value of an entrepreneur was provided
by Peter Drucker (1985) when he exerted that “entrepreneurs innovate.”
Although they are not typecast in one personality or set of skills, entrepreneurs
do tend to exhibit a common set of attributes. They are continuous, lifelong learners;
unafraid of failure; willing to venture outside their comfort zone and to take risks in
highly unpredictable environments; comfortable with ambiguity; and skillful impro-
visers. The fact that there is no right answer is reassuring to them (Thorp and
Goldstein 2010).
Drucker also claims that entrepreneurship is neither an art nor a science but a
practice. This concept of practice is perhaps the driver of much of what we see today
as new business start-ups evolve into fully appreciated engines of social value and/
or wealth creation. Research suggests that entrepreneurial leadership has become a
requirement for success (Oosthuizen 2009). Many of the policy-making formula-
tions around the globe today call for evidence-based accountability. Combining the
wisdom of entrepreneurs with evidence-based knowledge, Baron (2012) advocates
this orientation toward the use of metrics to provide success criteria for future use.
A plethora of examples demonstrates the value of an entrepreneurial orientation for
businesses and other organizations.
Entrepreneurs know the difference between leading and managing. They also
know that both skills are necessary to build and sustain a successful organization.
Most entrepreneurs find themselves often uncomfortably positioned in leadership
roles as they begin to craft their organizational pathways toward the realization of
their dream. They soon discover that leadership alone is not sufficient and seek
managers who can help to connect the dots between their dreams and the practice of
2 The Impetus for Change: Why Entrepreneurial Universities… 17

the organizational operations. It has been proposed that “entrepreneurs don’t usually
have an MBA, but they hire as many of them as they can” (Krogue 2013, n.p.).
Leaders and managers differ in their orientation. Leaders spend much time in the
recruitment and nurturing of other leaders to help them in realizing their mission.
Similarly, entrepreneurs attempt to build a cadre of individuals (often in a team)
who can help to further expand their thinking on the vision. Managers, on the other
hand, focus on getting the details right and making sure tasks are accomplished in
the attainment of mission-related goals and objectives.
Although the root meaning of the word connects enterprise with action, common
opinion places entrepreneurs outside corporate structures and labels their counter-
parts within corporations as intrapreneurs. Corporate leaders held in high esteem for
their entrepreneurial ability include Richard Branson and Jack Welch, both of whom
have demonstrated success in charting innovative terrain for their corporations.
These men also exhibited high capabilities in leadership, management, and team
building – all considered key abilities for entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurial activity is thus characterized by actions that demonstrate indi-
viduals, or groups of individuals, who take risks to achieve something that they
value. Leadership, management ability, and teamwork enhance such activity. Other
qualities associated with entrepreneurial leadership include: (1) dissatisfaction with
the present, (2) recognizing and taking advantage of unfair advantages, (3) vision,
(4) ability to get people on board and expand the vision, (5) flexibility and adapt-
ability, (6) receptivity to feedback; (7) willingness and ability to learn, and (8) per-
sistence and execution (Warren 2012, n.p.). The successful entrepreneurial leader is
one who either possesses these attributes or recruits others who have them.
Acknowledging the value of each quality to the success of the venture is what ini-
tially separates entrepreneurs and managers.

2.2 Why Should Universities Be Entrepreneurial?

The missions of most universities lay claim to discovery, knowledge creation and
dissemination, teaching, and service to the greater community. Briefly, the main
mission is to seek and promote change. Such change behavior aligns with the key
characteristics of entrepreneurs. Most universities today contain entrepreneurship in
their curriculum, typically in engineering or business schools. Listening to univer-
sity presidents, one hears proclamations of their schools’ attempts to lead into the
future, typically with selective targets as their key differentiators.
But those platitudes appear more often as words and less frequently as actions.
Most university leaders continue to “toe the line” or “follow the leader” than assume
a genuine leadership stance moving toward an uncertain future. It has recently been
suggested that academic leadership become more entrepreneurial and responsive by
advancing to an evidence-based approach or developing an “accountability culture”
that reinforces actions to truly educate students rather than “preparing them to look
good on a resume” (Buller 2013, p. 30). A similar sentiment was expressed as a