樱桃导航

• Tensions and trust-related issues often exist between academics and entrepreneurs-in-residence (EiRs) because there are many differences between practitioners and academics.
• In addition, both entrepreneurs and administrators lack clarity on the roles EiRs should play. When EiRs and institutions are slow to collaborate, EiRs feel disconnected from the university system.
• To make entrepreneurs-in-residence programs more effective, universities should develop clear policies, involve practitioners in their institutional decision-making, and provide them with the right mix of freedom and oversight.
• Universities also should appreciate the differences between academics and professionals, urging them all to set aside egos so they can work toward the common good.

 
Entrepreneurs-in-residence (EiRs) have become increasingly popular additions to academic institutions worldwide. In fields as wide-ranging as medicine, engineering, and the arts, schools adopt “in residence” initiatives to integrate practitioners into their programs to exchange knowledge and enhance understanding of a particular industry.

Business schools commonly choose EiRs who are experienced entrepreneurs with plenty of insights to offer on entrepreneurship education (EE). However, business school administrators sometimes fail to fully capitalize on practitioners’ potential for promoting entrepreneurship on their campuses. Therefore, in management education, we have limited understanding of how EiRs can add value to our programs.

Because it is so important for academic institutions to foster entrepreneurship, the four of us recently EiR initiatives within the U.K. higher education sector. For our , we employed Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA), which considers how individuals interpret their human experiences as a source of knowledge. The aim was to understand the role of EiRs, the challenges they face, and the ways they facilitate EE in academia.

While our research focused on the U.K., the insights we uncovered could apply to EiR programs anywhere in the world. Here, we draw on the findings of that study, as well as our own experiences working with EiRs, to determine how universities are using these practitioners—and what universities could do better.

The Existing Challenges…

Our research shows us that the following four factors can inhibit how well EiRs are integrated into the business school curriculum:

Lack of clarity about responsibilities. It’s difficult to track exactly how EiRs should fit into the business school, because their roles are so diverse. Both the responsibilities of and expectations for EiRs vary depending on who initiates the program—lecturers, professors, deans, research centers, enterprise teams, or the business school itself. The EiR’s role is even more undefined because some practitioners initiate different activities on their own.

As a result, neither EiRs nor university administrators and faculty members seem to understand the exact role the practitioners should play. EiRs don’t always see how their presence fits within institutional strategies. Universities often don’t have clear-cut expectations of EiRs, even when they claim that the goal is to support EE and other entrepreneurial activities.

However, our study shows that, when the activities of the EiRs are strategically aligned with the school’s goals, the EiRs perform at a higher level and contribute more to the research, teaching, employability, and entrepreneurship strategies of their institutions.

The industry-academia divide. One EiR we interviewed commented that businesses and business schools have two different agendas and philosophical positions. That gap leads to misunderstandings and disconnections between academics and visiting practitioners. The problem is exacerbated because EiRs tend to be limited in their understanding of the academic mission, the student experience, and higher education in general. These tensions between practitioners and academics can hinder the performance of EiRs, lessen their satisfaction, and lower their intrinsic motivation to facilitate entrepreneurship activities on campus.

At the same time, entrepreneurs are frequently frustrated by the bureaucracy within higher education. The slow pace of making decisions and taking action makes it difficult to get projects approved and implemented. One EiR we interviewed noted that it could take three months to get a nondisclosure policy in place—a process that might take only a day and a half in the corporate world. “We are asked to go through all this convoluted Apollonian structure in the university before we can get anywhere,” this respondent said.

Entrepreneurs-in-residence don’t always see how their presence fits within institutional strategies, and universities often don’t have clear-cut expectations of entrepreneurs.

Unequal relationships. EiRs feel that they are on the “giving” end of the relationship, while universities are mostly on the “taking” end. One person we interviewed called it “quite a transactional relationship in favor of the university” and one that does not consider how to provide value for the entrepreneurs.

This perspective is a bit surprising given that all the EiRs we interviewed strongly emphasized that they are there to give back and inspire the next generation. Yet we conclude that EiRs would be even more motivated and effective if universities could ensure the relationships were more balanced.

For example, EiRs relish the added recognition that comes with taking on a role within the university. In fact, one person we interviewed noted that an EiR position enables an entrepreneur to stand out more at work. Even so, many practitioners would welcome monetary compensation. Several EiRs mentioned that they are volunteering their time, but they would feel more committed and accountable if the positions were paid—and this would lead to enriched outcomes.

Underutilization of EiRs. Similarly, many EiRs would like a chance to be more deeply involved in university activities. Many are willing to engage with the academic work of research and teaching, and they would enjoy opportunities to use university facilities and resources more actively. They also would like to be included in the university’s decision-making process.

…And How to Fix Them

Our study suggests that, if universities address some of the challenges that these practitioners face, EiR initiatives would become far more effective. We believe administrators could take eight steps that would improve relations between institutions and EiRs:

Appreciate the differences between groups. Instead of highlighting the gaps and tensions between academia and practice, embrace the synergies by acknowledging the contributions that each party can make in producing, disseminating, and implementing knowledge.

Provide clarity for EiRs. Ensure that all stakeholders understand the strategic importance of EiRs, their roles within the university, and the expectations they should meet. Consider developing specific policies about practitioner engagement so everyone understands these roles and expectations. Provide leadership support that will ensure a strategic fit between the university’s needs and the EiR’s responsibilities.

Our study suggests that EiRs will perform better when they have greater authority, understand their strategic roles, and possess strong relationships with institutional leaders. They could actively contribute to organizational strategy by commercializing research, bidding for external funding, and developing partnerships that enhance the school’s entrepreneurial activities.

Strategically integrate EiRs into university systems. Involve them in research, teaching, knowledge dissemination, and entrepreneurial development. Encourage EiRs to become trust ladders that help schools develop relationships among many stakeholders. For example, a participant stated that EiRs serve as commercial interfaces that facilitate comfortable interactions with the universities. The presence of EiRs also makes universities more approachable for companies, leading to a networked approach that significantly improves EE and entrepreneurial activities within the institutions.

Challenge current institutional practices, processes, and policies. Question whether existing policies are adequate for effective practitioner integration. Reflect on and seek to change the school’s structural and authoritarian practices that delay entrepreneurial activities.

Entrepreneurs-in-residence will perform better when they have greater authority, understand their strategic roles, and possess strong relationships with institutional leaders.

Strive to create a win-win situation for EiRs, institutions, and stakeholders. Critically explore various potential models for these programs, including voluntary or paid, full-time or part-time, remote or face-to-face. Consider how each model affects the relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability of the initiative.

In a win-win relationship, EiRs will have a clear sense of their roles, which align with their abilities and the university’s goals. They might get paid for their services, seek support for their businesses through consultancy opportunities, and recruit students to work for their organizations. At the same time, they might undergo training that allows them to better understand the academic context and the nuances of learning and teaching.

In turn, universities will from having highly motivated, engaged, and capable EiRs who contribute to the school’s entrepreneurial activities. As institutions experience the tangible and intangible benefits of successful EiR integration, they might find it easier to secure funding for EiR initiatives in the future.

Ensure the right balance of flexibility and formality. When EiRs have some degree of freedom in their roles, they will be more innovative and creative as they initiate and execute projects. However, when they are subject to a certain amount of guidance and supervision, they are likely to feel more motivated and connected to the school; they also are likely to be more effective and feel a higher sense of achievement.

Encourage all parties to recognize the value of others. It is not constructive if well-published research professors or wealthy entrepreneurs act as if they are superior to others. Urge all participants to set aside their egos and work toward the common purpose of enhancing entrepreneurial activity and co-creating .

Familiarize EiRs with the academic context. EiRs tend to be results-oriented individuals who don’t always understand the challenges faced by students who have not yet been exposed to the world of work. If practitioners run their EiR practices the way they run their businesses, their approach could have a negative impact on student well-being and progression. Therefore, universities should train EiRs in pastoral care, student mentoring, and coaching practices.

Future of EIR Initiatives

While initiatives involving practitioners are increasingly popular in academia, we have found that they are relatively novel in entrepreneurship education as compared to other initiatives revolving around practitioner integration and in-residence programs. This provides many opportunities for business schools to research and implement practices that can result in more positive practitioner engagement.

We propose that schools take a more collaborative approach to their EiR initiatives by involving a wider array of stakeholders—executives, businesses, educators, administrators, and the surrounding community. This diversity will help educators overcome the challenges related to their ontological and epistemological positions and ensure that EiR programs are more informed and relevant.

Business schools can improve their programs by using EiRs as trust ladders; enhancing the coaching and mentoring skills of EiRs; monitoring the power dynamics among the program participants; and encouraging academics and EiRs to collaborate fully. These practices will ensure that EiR initiatives are effective for both the academic institutions and their stakeholders.

When scholars, practitioners, institutions, and communities reflect on current practices, we can crystalize the benefits of EiR initiatives and seek to improve them for the benefit of all.