Building both technology-intensive and technology-limited clusters by emerging research universities: The Toledo example

Evolving missions and university entrepreneurship: academic spin-offs and graduate start-ups in the entrepreneurial society

“…For instance, Abreu et al (2016) analyses the entrepreneurial practices by academic staff and show that teaching-led universities engage better at the local level and in less formal types of ventures, while research-led HEIs perform better internationally and in more traditional commercialisation activities. It is also suggested that teaching-led universities exert a capacity to promote academic entrepreneurship and technology clusters (Calzonetti et al 2012;Braunerhjelm and Helgesson 2006) due to their proactive leadership in regional capacity building and networking, rather than on ''pushing'' innovations via the formal knowledge-commercialization routes (Abreu et al 2016). Greene and Saridakis (2008) showed that in the UK pre-1992 universities (generally research focussed) are more likely to be positively associated with initial self-employment of their graduates.…”

Entrepreneurial practices in research-intensive and teaching-led universities

“…Following this argument and responding to the calls for a better understanding of the multitude of institutional forms in entrepreneurial universities (Van Looy et al 2011), we argue that the phenomenon of the entrepreneurial university is a heterogeneous concept and can no longer be limited to the context of research-intensive institutions only. This is also supported by the growing case study evidence on the less research-intensive universities becoming increasingly important and proactive facilitators of innovation and entrepreneurship, especially at a regional level (Calzonetti et al 2012;Braunerhjelm and Helgesson 2006). In the first two columns, the reference group (Group 1) is teaching-led universities.…”

“…Historically, these institutions tend to be more business facing, providing teaching, consulting, training and testing facilities in response to the demands of local industries and firms (Tiffin and Kunc 2011). Some of these institutions position themselves as pro-active technology cluster anchors, moving from incentivising formal commercialisation activities to promoting social and entrepreneurial capital (Calzonetti et al 2012;Braunerhjelm and Helgesson 2006). Therefore, the emergence and evolution of the notion of the entrepreneurial university can no longer be considered in isolation from the evidence on increasingly important entrepreneurial activities undertaken by the less research-intensive universities.…”

“…Nevertheless, there is a small but growing literature indicating that the less research-intensive universities (henceforth referred to as ''teaching-led'', which indicates those universities with a primary focus on education and student experience rather than research) may play an important role in promoting technology clusters (Calzonetti et al 2012;Braunerhjelm and Helgesson 2006). This is mainly due to their proactive leadership in regional capacity building and networking, rather than on ''pushing'' innovations via the formal knowledge-commercialisation routes.…”

Innovative Development of Building Materials Industry of the Region Based on the Cluster Approach

“…A significant influence on the development of the theory of clusters had M. Porter [8], C. Ketels [6] O. Solvell [7], Solène Goy, Donal Finn [9] Frank J. Kaltsonetti, Diane M. Miller, Neil Reed [10], Fundeanu Daniela Doina, Cosmin Sandu Badele [11] M. Khairullina [12]. An important role in the development of a building complex and building materials industries LN Asaul [13], AV Voronin [14], IM Greenberg, [15] M. Casas [16] S. Kolyada [17] and etc.…”