Building an Innovative and Entrepreneurial Dimension in an Institution of Higher Education

Abstract

Institutions of higher education in the twenty-first century are undergoing a transformation locally and globally from traditional pillars of learning to being more entrepreneurial in their core business. There is increasing pressure on universities to becoming more flexible and adaptable as organizations and in the graduate attributes, they imbed in their students. There is a need to build deeper links with business, to both maximize innovation and promote growth, to ensure students are equipped to excel in the workforce. This change is having a disruptive effect on the role of universities, from classical research institutions to entrepreneurial universities mimicking more of the modern workplace working environment, requiring autonomy in their decision-making and in the way new research is developed, implemented and transferred in the relationships formed within their respective regions.

This article outlines work in progress on the University of South Australia’s attempts to rebrand itself as a University of Innovation and Enterprise (Australia’s University of Enterprise) in both its end-user inspired research outcomes and industry-informed teaching and learning.

Keywords

Innovation enterprise creativity entrepreneurship transformation

Background

Following the release of two major forward planning reviews, ‘Crossing the horizon: Our strategic action plan 2013–2018’ and ‘Enterprise25: Our strategic Plan 2018–2025’, the University of South Australia (UniSA) has identified that it should benchmark itself against not only the best in higher education but also the best industries ensuring a constant source of inspiration for innovation and new achievement.

In a twenty-first-century workplace, employers are increasingly seeking workers capable of contributing to original thought through interaction and collaboration as jobs change and diverge. As a result, the university curricula must be intentionally formed to reflect collaboration and creativity working in consort (Kok et al., 2010; Nunn et. al, 2007; Pink, 2005; Watermeyer, 2012). UniSA’s mission is reflecting significant studies such as the Enterprise in Higher Education UK Initiative (1988), Higher Education Funding Council for England (2011), National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (NCGE, 2006) and Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA, 2012) believing this restructuring can produce more enterprising models of teaching and learning developing knowledge that can contribute significantly to innovation in our economy and the transfer of knowledge to industry (Mueller, 2006). UniSA believes it is responding to the many strategic imperatives aimed at building new economic models to meet future disruptions to past and outdated systems reflecting well-documented current Australian government policies (Department of Industry Innovation, Science, Energy and Resources, 2015; DIISR, 2011; Foundation for Young Australians, 2016).

Internationally there is much-documented debate as to whether the current emphasis on skills and measurable outcomes in higher education is really developing students in ways that will enable them to engage fully with this complex ever-changing world. Barnett and Coat (2005) and Robinson (2019) argue for an education system focussing on knowledge and subjects that has an emphasis on disciplines and competencies such as teamwork, communication, resilience and creativity not present in the formality of present models (NCGE, 2006). UniSA accepts that it needs to prepare students for lifelong learning as a means of dealing with frequent changes in occupational, job and contract status, changes in global mobility, cultural adaptation and working in a world of fluid organizational structures (European Commission, 2016; Ghoshal & Gratton, 2002; Westwood, 2000, p. 64; Worrell et al., 2000).

As such educators at UniSA are being challenged to build into students the capacity to co-create the curriculum and direct their own learning in ways that reflect the decision-making demands that a future workforce will impose on them. Equally, it is being challenged to create an understanding of creativity across the many disciplinary fields (Gibb, 2005) that students engage in and to provide the structures and support for the model of learning needed to develop students’ creativity. Jackson (2006) argues that a university must harness students imagination and creativity enabling them to work with, adapt to and exploit the complexity and change in which we are continually immersed.

Creativity becomes exemplified and enhanced for every student by new levels of investigation, cooperation, connection, integration and synthesis driven by a problem-solving pedagogy (Gibb, 2005; Hannon, 2018; Livingston, 2010). This is a learning environment that is process driven rather than content laden and exclusively teacher controlled enabling students to self-direct and build resourcefulness in motivated, self-organized decision-making environments.

However, the problem is that creativity is not part of the daily academic educational discourse of universities and that the transformational power of creativity poses a clear challenge to organizational systems and institutional frameworks, as well as approaches to learning and teaching reliant on compliance and constraint (Kleiman, 2008). As a result, the task of bringing higher education creativity and entrepreneurship to greater prominence with a capacity to empower and transform within the institution remains a major hurdle (Morris & Kuratko, 2014).

According to Maclaren (2012), there is no shortage of rhetoric in championing creativity and innovation in higher education but structural and management systems often run counter to the conditions under which creativity flourishes. Continuing with an ‘audit’ culture in our institutions dominated by prescriptive outcomes, according to Jackson (2014), will continue a mismatch between the requirements of a routine practice system and innovative aspirations. Entrepreneurial and creative thinking needs to be seen as not just another series of subjects or disciplines but as a practice and a way of thinking. An entrepreneurial mindset that maximizes impact by responding to problem-based innovation and focusing resources across a variety of disciplines (Thorpe & Goldstein, 2010).

At UniSA, the focus is on end-user inspired research and industry-informed teaching and learning, building a culture of innovation, anchored around global and national links to academic, research and industry/government partners, a ‘triple helix’ of university–industry–government relations (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1999). The institution is moving towards the provision of tailored education on demand which is decoupled from the confines of strict disciplinary shackles. An education where the assumed truths of information are constantly challenged. UniSA is working on ways to admit, teach and to assess so that new knowledge is created from many inputs and in partnership with others beyond the discipline or subject area, an institution where relevance and the provision of value to wider society is clearly demonstrated as it prepares students for the careers of modern times

Drivers for Innovation

In order to achieve this, a suit of core employee and student behavioural attributes are to be adopted so as to reshape the institute’s culture and build the workforce required to develop as a genuine university of enterprise. This will necessitate understandings of new principles and how pedagogy will need to become relevant, structured and scalable to sustain innovative practice across the entire institution.

Work is currently in progress for a model on how these attributes might be expressed and promulgated. How the creative and innovative traits that will need to be developed combining ideas of development and problem solving with expression, communication and practical action can be achieved. Enterprise skills that include taking the initiative, intuitive decision-making, making things happen, networking, identifying opportunities, creative problem solving, strategic thinking and personal effectiveness.

The argument has been made at government level over many years, in both Australia and internationally, for the introduction of creativity across multiple sectors of society to foster innovation as the catalyst to bring ideas into being. Innovation, when implemented at an institutional level, can play a key role in implementing this transformation towards new ideas to create new value (Gibb, 2005). Like many regions, South Australia is facing a crisis as the economy is changing from manufacturing towards other emerging economic drivers.

The challenge is how to turn aspirations for transformational innovation into something tangible and sustainable. This university sees itself as a significant driver in this initiative. However, recent history is littered with grand plans for creatively re-branding Australia such as the creation of ‘The Clever Country’, 1990, ‘The Knowledge Nation’, 2001 and the National Innovation Agenda, 2016, that have not integrated into the university–industry culture. The state government of South Australia has recently initiated several moves to reinvent its economic sectors to face rising global competition. Traditional manufacturing is being lost to sectors with cheaper labour and economies of scale. The renewable and sustainable practices around creativity and innovation are believed to be the key drivers that will work across existing sectors as well as create new industries.

Stiglitz (2007) contends that there needs to be a recalibrating of economic policy to support shared growth and sustainability. The inflexion points for change might be located in the current industries but the drivers are located externally, at the social and political levels. Successful and sustained growth requires a learning society, with diverse ecologies of ideas. To sustain this ambition, it is expected that there needs to be systematic interventions by the government to facilitate the creation of an accelerated learning economy. The increasing parallelism between universities and private companies as learning organizations (as in the recent neologism ‘business intelligence’) points to the significance of educational and knowledge-based transformations involving capabilities that are to do with the problem-solving knowledge embodied in organizations.

Pink (2005) argues that ‘we are moving from an “information age” (value on knowledge workers) to a ‘conceptual age’ (value on conceptual workers or creative human capital). Florida (2002) describes this move from an industrial to a creative economy as a choice not a natural progression, and he also contends that creative capacities are important vocational attributes in all globally competitive enterprises requiring skills in adaption, flexibility, combinatory processes and tolerance for ambiguity, experimentation and risk taking.

These attributes, selectively present in individuals but often latent in organizations, frequently appear as the most common indicators of the changing value systems following this massive change of economies. Although the over-arching agreement in the need to transform economies points to knowledge and creativity drivers as possible best practices, the terms of advancement are still contested or fragmented. In the case of Australia, the Australian Department of Education Science and Training (2005) highlights a global knowledge-based economy with creative capacity as a key economic driver.

In considering the shifting role of the university within these economic, cultural and value transformations, a range of opportunities are possible; indeed, this questioning is one direct way of reaching across sectors, dialogically. UniSA accepts that this embodied potential transformative power is often constrained by habit and other social codes, defining normative practices. It is only in this way that future and increasingly complex grand challenges and the associated problems they generate can be tackled effectively by different ways of thinking and collaborating (Gardner, 2010; Jackson, 2014).

It is argued that higher education is doing a poor job of preparing graduates with the skills and competencies needed in a business world (Krislov, 2014; Rainie & Anderson, 2017) and needs to emphasize amongst other things the capacity to think critically, solve complex problems, take responsibility and innovate. This is a paradigm shift from the cliché of universities simply as job training centres still practicing siloed, single-discipline programmes, to universities as value-incubators or value-creators. Future education needs to anticipate a changing world that can only be understood and interacted with confidence by people who have flexible thinking skills. This includes the conceptual agility in their thinking and ways of working and ability to imagine scenarios and solve problems—including future scenario setting—many of which will have had no precedent (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2012).

Williamson (2010) states that ‘creativity’ and ‘innovation’ are some of the fundamental elements that help define twenty-first-century learning and that education for the future, should predominantly be based on innovation and creativity interacting with new technologies. This robust model emphasizes new thinking processes, new learning environments and original understandings of knowledge creation (Craft, 2005; Craft & Jeffrey, 2013; Jackson, 2014; Sawyer, 2006).

UniSA has recognized that derived ‘silos’ of expertise in the current structure need to be deconstructed and that time for the flexibility, fluency and elaboration of thought need to be encouraged in a more cross disciplinary, inquisitive and collaborative space for future innovation. An entrepreneurial model of a university and a way of working that creates entrepreneurial opportunity as recognized by higher-level government authorities such as the National Academy of Sciences (2005) and the Department of Industry Innovation, Science, Energy and Resources (2015). A university actively pursuing inter-disciplinarily approaches in establishing its relevance in an environment created by a wealth of multidisciplinary centres and programmes.

Responding to the Challenge

UniSA is acknowledging that the setting of the classroom is under pressure to transform into learning labs, design studios and other learning environments that are process-rich rather than being overloaded with content. An emphasis on learning at a deeper level of understanding rather than mere acquisition and mastery of facts is seen as crucial to fostering an innovative economy (Bransford et al., 2000). A shift from a teacher-directed emphasis to one that facilitates collaborative models of teaching and learning encouraging self-directed, self-regulating and resourceful learners, where the academic mission moves from dissemination to the capitalization of knowledge (Etzkowitz et al., 2000). A ‘genuine’ learning, according to Meyer and Land (2003), embraces deeper intellectual challenges and engagement. This, in turn, builds flexibility, adaptability and self-management and an enterprising disposition as graduate attributes that can be applied in the workforce (du Gay, 1996; du Gay & Pryke, 2002; Garrick & Usher, 2000) inventing and leading new hybrid professions, new cross-disciplinary industries and new forms of creative economies across the range of transitioning industries.

UniSA recognizes the immense benefits of competitively creating a significant point of difference in attracting students if it can harness the creative potential of its graduates and staff as a demonstrable attribute through the introduction of a creative dimension to not only teaching and learning experiences in all its programmes but the organization as a whole.

UniSA also recognizes the importance of the creative and cultural economy as part of a growing global economy as well as education. It sees itself as playing a pivotal role in this enterprise needing to bridge with industry by introducing methodologies that model real-world scenarios such as collaborative multidisciplinary approaches. This, it is anticipated, will build employment opportunities for its students who can demonstrate the ability to trade with creativity and knowledge where human creativity is the ultimate economic resource (Florida, 2002).

UniSA is achieving these outcomes through a number of design-based innovation hubs. Match Studio 2014-2020 is an innovative model based on problem-based learning as a means of building creative and innovative capacity into the curriculum. This experiential learning becomes embedded as a lifelong personal attribute. Through the utilization of parallel forms of design thinking staff and students from different disciplines draw upon an array of knowledge, ideas and methods converging upon real life, multi-faceted problems with outside partners and institutions in ways that provide the foundations for practice in their professional lives.

The Innovation and Collaboration Centre (ICC, 2019) is a strategic partnership between UniSA, the South Australian Government and DXC Technology (2019) supporting technology-based incubation and business growth. By leveraging world-class technology through DXC and UniSA’s expertise in business growth, creative thinking, commercialization and technology, the ICC supports the lifecycle from idea generation to growth and expansion for students, businesses and industry. The centre provides a multidisciplinary environment where SMEs, students and entrepreneurs can access a wide range of expertise to help them develop their products and grow their business.

ICC also provides a unique environment that offers services and expertise in business growth (Centre for Business Growth), business management, strategy and marketing (UniSA Business School) and commercialization through ‘UniSA Ventures’ and ‘ITEK Ventures Pty Ltd’, its technology commercialization company, delivering and supporting an enterprise-wide business development and industry engagement strategy for the university.

As well a number of interdisciplinary cross-school teaching and learning collaborative projects are being piloted in the university to give staff and students the opportunity to work outside their fields of expertise. These teaching and learning initiatives aim to bring together academics from across the university’s divisions in order to build a community of practice and expertise in the pedagogies of inquiry-based learning (IBL) and ‘design thinking’ and to undertake interdisciplinary, collaborative ‘teaching and learning’ projects. Projects undertaken aim to introduce a creative, design thinking foundation that can be instructive for how to encourage creativity within its operation and provide a model for implementation in other programmes.

This follows the models of design thinking such as the d.school at Stanford University (United States), Design Factory Aalto University (Finland) and many others where a rethinking of traditional pedagogy is developing the sets of skills related to innovation to create deeper learning and broader understandings. Avvisati et al. (2013) saw this way of working as essential in increasing the innovative capacity of a future workforce, a workforce equipped to design and rethink reflexively, on their feet, in situ.

Richard Lester (2005) has concluded that as communities worldwide worry about their economic survival in a rapidly changing and increasingly open world economy, their attention naturally turns to local universities, sources of the two most valuable assets; skilled people and new ‘ideas’. UniSA’s ‘Crossing the horizon: Our strategic action plan 2013–2018’ and ‘Enterprise25: Our strategic Plan 2018–2025’ state that ‘The University of South Australia will contribute to society, to industry and to its students as a creative enterprise. The ambition is to differentiate the University of South Australia as a true 21st Century University of Enterprise’. One key element of this strategy is to develop industry and end-user informed research thus supporting industry-relevant curriculum, not as a singular criterion but as a process or dialogue. Research is to not only be organized around ‘grand challenges’ (involving wicked problems; Buchannan, 1992), spanning the university and creating cohorts of critical mass, anchored in an entrepreneurial environment but also simultaneously directing efforts to address local and global socio-economic needs.

The university is actively forming partnerships with the broader community (where these grand challenges reside) to solve problems and identify opportunities in collaborative environments where it can be demonstrated that one of the institution’s key assets is its ability to harness a ‘collective wisdom’. The challenge is for academics to now be seen as ‘change agents’ with the ability to break down the ‘silos’ in directing their research and knowledge away from exclusively their discipline to one that has a greater community connection. Building and growing a culture of creativity and innovation in the institution is seen as critical in order to stimulate and influence these possible future scenarios of academic–industry reciprocity.

To this aim, UniSA has established research themes to address local and global socio-economic needs and includes:

An Age-friendly World

Unlocking human potential across the community through intergenerational approaches.

Transforming Industries

Building industries and economies for the future.

Cancer Prevention and Management

Taking on one of the world’s greatest health challenges with the aim of improving prevention, diagnosis, treatment and patient care.

Society and Global Transformations

Transforming societies through global citizenship.

Healthy Futures

Understanding, treatment and prevention of, chronic diseases.

Scarce Resources

Developing safe and sustainable practices for managing the world’s finite resources making more with less.

Building a Culture of Innovation and Enterprise

In building a university of innovation and enterprise, UniSA is conscious that a culture that will create the environment for this transformation to occur needs to evolve. The importance of a socializing process (Martins & Terblanche, 2003) where individuals learn what behaviour is acceptable and the assumptions that are made about whether creative and innovative behaviour form part of the way the organization operates (Tesluk et al., 1997). It is envisaged that the process will encourage behaviour and activity leading to structures and policy practices that are determined through a set of basic values, assumptions and beliefs. These are supported through resources devoted to the development and communication of new ideas and innovative ways to represent problems and find solutions; an environment where creativity is regarded as desirable and even normal and innovative individuals are seen as role models (Lock & Kikpatrick, 1995) and where the organization sees itself as an open system operating in an interactive way (Martins & Martins 2002).

As this culture is being developed, there is recognition that there is much more to the experience of creativity in learning and teaching than simply ‘being creative’ but rather the emphasis is on the centrality of creativity as transformation and the importance of creativity in relation to personal and/or professional fulfilment (Kleiman, 2008). There is a belief that the essence of an innovative entrepreneurship culture resides in creating and exploiting opportunities and developing innovation through practice rather than curriculum ‘add-ons’. A culture that subsequently encourages and enables its people to transfer their intellectual property outputs into practical application and encouraging entrepreneurial behaviour that pervades across and is an integral part of the institution, understood, felt and owned within the organization (Schein, 2010).

Strategy is thus built on a converging vision of creativity and innovation that is future orientated (Covey, 1993), expanded through new models, encouraging a certain amount of personal freedom and discretion in goal setting within a structure. This implies organization-wide support, valuing intrinsic motivation, recognized as a powerful indicator or creative commitment (Hennesy & Amabile, 2010) supported by effective feedback and setting goals for innovation. This, in turn, is achieved by emphasizing values that influence creativity such as flexibility, freedom, empowerment, permission to fail, time to reflect, responsibility, cross-functional teams, adaptability and negotiated shared values.

The university understands that the patterns of interaction required to foster a culture supportive of creativity and innovation are complex and can only flourish under these supportive structures, with and through innovative empowered thinkers and teams. The university is particularly sensitive in recognizing the significant change that might need to occur in any complex and established institution to build this attribute into various programmes and courses. The origins of significant innovation in history often involves collaboration and complex strategy (Sawyer, 2006) encouraging participation to build knowledge at multi levels of an organization, and this has become a major strategy in the Enterprise25 (2019) initiative. Part of the mission involves facilitating how the diversity of its people can be encouraged to work together by consolidating into precincts, teaching, research and practice closely integrated and aligned to industry. Work is underway to break down in radical ways traditional ‘divisions and school’ structures defining the various disciplines and to focus on how the programmes run and how these might be reconfigured to allow easy collaboration and connection across sectors previously ‘blocked’ by discipline silos. In future, instead of identifying that one works in one of the traditional ‘divisions and schools’, such as education, law, engineering and visual arts, academics will now identify themselves by the term ‘UniSA X’, where X will be the terms such as UniSA health and wellbeing, UniSA sustainable practice, UniSA creative practice and UniSA society and justice. This will facilitate disciplines ‘naturally’ coming together to better collaborate and exploit the common principles within traditional disciplines, strengthening interdisciplinary collaboration, enhancing teaching quality and the student experience and accelerating programme innovation.

This will be supported by the creation of precincts encouraging partners, businesses and industry groups to locate on our campuses clustering research and academic communities, bringing together learning, research and enterprise. These connections it is envisaged will inform ideas and solutions shaping research and knowledge for the benefit of end users.

The challenge to overcome, however, is the perceived poor performance of universities in the development of creative abilities reliant on social and behavioural skills such as collaboration, communication and leadership as highlighted by Reflex and Hegesco (2010) surveys. Added to this was the need to break down common perceptions of creativity and innovative behaviour being perceived as an innate ability and being the domain of the talented few, and the need to move creativity from the margins of formal education to its centre (Mc William and Dawson, 2008) from the specialist arts/design domain to a wide range of other disciplines where an expectation of a creative outcome might be expected but is currently not realized (Corso & Gluth, 2009).

Within this process, UniSA is trying to avoid its approaches being disruptive to the many established systems people are working within—like galleons that must constantly repair and rebuild themselves while circumnavigating the world, the university as an institution needs coherent processes, shared values and clear direction. The level of uncertainty that innovative thinking demands must be introduced in small steps and non-threatening ways. A process to facilitate a gradual releasing of the traditional practices based on certainty and leveraging into more flexible exploratory and speculative ways of working. In turn, encouraging ways of thinking, involving imagination, questioning, speculation, ingenuity, intuition and insight; leading to new and novel responses and outcomes moving beyond the traditional creative disciplines and into all human, social and scientific disciplines.

Consideration will be given to approaches that encourage within professions and disciplines ways of factoring in holistic opportunities and scenarios in the way problems are diagnosed. A comfortableness with the ambiguity of the end result and the need to not necessarily be right at every stage of the process and to see many alternative and sometimes non-conventional experimental approaches that can lead to new possibilities. Within the overall institution, it is seen as paramount that the refinement of the diverse range of specific specializations and approaches enhance and build the university’s mission and philosophy. leading to new processes and new solutions in creating a university of genuine ‘innovation and enterprise’.

Conclusion

Knowledge and knowledge transmission are no longer the exclusive realms of the university. There is a shift from predominantly knowledge acquisition models of learning to broader experiences involving entrepreneurial thinking that maximizes career opportunities for graduates in a world where the scale of change is increasingly more complex, unpredictable and uncertain. UniSA is responding to the reality that universities are increasingly being seen as more than just career preparers but needing to provide the experiences and skill relevant to and emphasizing creativity, innovation and collaboration. This has been achieved through a wider range of interdisciplinary activity and creation of degrees and centres based on future social, career and lifelong learning experiences embedded in and across faculties, owned by key staff and integrated into the curriculum.

Traditional government funding for universities is diminishing at a time when more value to the economy and society is being demanded and these funding shortages are contributing to pushing universities in an entrepreneurial direction, ironically in increasingly depressed economic conditions impacted upon by globalization, international trade and competition (Etzkowitz et al., 2000). As well, there is a growing private-sector competition to deliver education that state-funded institutions have never had to contend within the past.

The combination of these factors necessitates UniSA becoming a more flexible, adaptable and resilient institution. An institution with strong leadership encouraging entrepreneurial behaviour and actions focussing on innovation, application research, experiential knowledge, entrepreneurial leadership, local to global focus and a pedagogy reflecting creativity and entrepreneurship.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Author’s bio-sketch

Ron Corso is currently a Programme Director for Graphic Design and Product Innovation at the University of South Australia. He has an involvement in design education for over 30 years having initially trained as an industrial designer, then moving into teaching, administration and consulting roles across sectors from elementary, open education schools to higher and further education. He has conducted research into the teaching of creativity, convened conferences as well as publishing and presenting at numerous conferences, seminars and colloquiums. A number of workshops he has facilitated relating to creativity across disciplines locally, nationally and internationally have influenced significant curriculum change to reflect practice and the building of creative capacity in students. He has been the recipient of national (Australia) OLT and university grants, teaching and learning, research citations and awards in recognition of his work in the field. Current work is focused on developing a vision for a University of Innovation at the University of South Australia where he is playing a leading role in establishing the frameworks and strategies for building this capacity across all sectors and disciplines of the institution.

References

Australian Department of Education Science and Training. (2005). Imagine Australia: The role of creativity in the innovation economy .

Avvisati

Jacotin

Vincent-Lancrin

(2013). Educating higher education students for innovative economies: What international data tell us. Tuning Journal of Higher Education , 1, 223–240.

Banerjee

Gibbs

(2016). Aching the Innovation Methodology at the Stanford school. Creating Innovation Leaders (pp. 163–174). Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-20520-5_9

Barnett

Coat

(2005). Engaging the curriculum in higher education . Buckingham Open University Press, McGraw Hill Education.

Bransford

J. D.

Brown

A. L.

Cocking

R. R.

(2000). How people learn . National Academy Press.

Buchannan

(1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues , 8(2), 5–21.

Chronicle of Higher Education. (2012). The role of higher education in career development: Employer perceptions . National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER).

Clever Country. (1990). Australian Labor party campaign for the 1990 Australian election.

Corso

Gluth

(2009). The application of creative thinking methodologies to post graduate entrepreneurship education [Paper presentation]. 6th Annual AGSE International Entrepreneurship and Innovation Research Exchange, Adelaide.

10.

Covey

S. R.

(1993). Innovation at four levels. Executive Excellence , 10(9), 3–5.

11.

Craft

(2005). Creativity in schools: Tensions and dilemmas . Routledge.

12.

Department of Industry Innovation, Science, Energy and Resources. (2015). National innovation and science agenda report . Australian Government.

13.

Design Factory Aalto University, Finland. https://www.google.com/search?q=Design+Factory+Aalto+University,+Finland&spell=1&sa=X&ei=QKr1U8-qH46OuASjk4HwAw&ved=0CBsQvwUoAA

14.

DIISR. (2011, September). Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (DIISR) . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Australia”AustralianGovernment

15.

DXC Technology. (2019, September 19). DXC technology launches global digital transformation centre in South Australia . https://www.dxc.technology/newsroom/press_releases/147402-dxc_technology_launches_global_digital_transformation_centre_in_south_australia

16.

Enterprise 25. (2019). University of South Australia’s Strategic Plan 2018–25 .

17.

Enterprise in Higher Education. (1988). Gordon Clark , 75(2), 141–144.

18.

Etzkowitz

Leydesdorff

(1999). The future location of research and technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer , 24, 111–123.

19.

Etzkowitz

Webster

Gebhardt

Terra

B. R. C.

(2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm (Research policy 29 [2000]; pp. 313–330). Elsevier.

20.

Factory+Aalto+University,+Finland&spell=1&sa=X&ei=QKr1U8-qH46OuA

21.

Florida

(2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life . Basic Books.

22.

Foundation for Young Australians (FYA). (2016).

23.

Gardener

(2010). Five minds for the future . Harvard Business Review Press.

24.

Garrick

Usher

(2000). Flexible learning, contemporary work and enterprising selves. Electronic Journal of Sociology . https://www.sociology.org/content/vol005.001/garrick-usher.html

25.

Gay

P. du

. (1996). Consumption and identity at work . SAGE Publications.

26.

Gay

P. du.

Pryke

(2002). Cultural economy: Cultural analysis and commercial life . SAGE Publications.

27.

Ghoshal

Gratton

(2002). Integrating the intrapreneurial enterprise. MIT Sloan Review , 44(1), 31–39.

28.

Gibb

A. A.

(2005). Towards the entrepreneurial university: Entrepreneurship education as a lever for change (NCGE Policy paper series). National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship.

29.

Hannon

(2018). On becoming and being an entrepreneurship educator: A personal reflection. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development , 30(7–8), 698–721.

30.

Hennesy

B. A.

Amabile

T. M.

(2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61 , 569–598.

31.

Higher Education Funding Council for England. (2011). Research accountability . Coopers & Lybrand.

32.

Jackson

(2014). Developing students’ creativity through a higher education. In Xie Lei

(Eds.), International symposium on ‘The cultivation of creativity in university students’ (pp. 8–28). Macao Polytechnic Institute.

33.

Jackson

Oliver

Shaw

Wisdom

(Eds.). (2006). Developing creativity in higher education: An imaginative curriculum . Routledge.

34.

Kleiman

(2008). Towards transformation: Conceptions of creativity in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International , 45(3), 209–217.

35.

Knowledge Nation. Labor Party election policy, launched just before the 2001 Federal Election by then ALP leader Kim Beazley.

36.

Kok

S.-K.

Douglas

McClelland

Bryde

(2010). The move towards managerialism: Perceptions of staff in ‘traditional’ and ‘new’ UK universities. Tertiary Education and Management , 16(2), 99–113.

37.

Krislov

Volk

S. S.

(2014). College is still for creating citizens . The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/College-Is-Still-for-Creating/145759

38.

Lester

R. K.

(2005). Universities, innovation and the competitiveness of local economies. A summary report from the local Innovative Systems Project—Phase 1 . Industrial Performance Centre, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

39.

Livingston

(2010). Teaching creativity in higher education. Arts Education Policy Review , 111(2). 59–62.

40.

Lock

E. A.

Kikpatrick

S. A.

(1995). Promoting creativity in organisations. In Ford

C. M.

Gioia

D. A.

(Eds.), Creative action in organisations: Ivory tower visions & real world voices (pp. 115–120). SAGE Publications.

41.

MacLaren

(2012, July). The contradictions of policy and practice: Creativity in higher education. London Review of Education , 10(2), 159–172.

42.

Martins

E. C.

Terblanche

(2003). Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management , 6(1), 64–74.

43.

Martins

(2002, January). An organisational culture model to promote creativity and innovation. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology , 28(4), 58–65.

44.

Match Studio. (2014). Interdisciplinary research and professional practice studio. School of Art Architecture and Design . University of South Australia.

45.

McWilliam

Dawson

(2008). Teaching for creativity: Towards sustainable and replicable pedagogical practice. Higher Education , 56(6), 633–643.

46.

Meyer

Land

(2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to new ways of thinking and practising within disciplines (Occasional Reports 4). ETL Project. https://www.colorado.edu/ftep/sites/default/files/attached-files/meyer_and_land_-_threshold_concepts.pdf

47.

Morris

Kuratko

(2014). Building university 21st century entrepreneurship programs that empower and transform: Innovative pathways for university entrepreneurship. The Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth , 24, 124.

48.

Mueller

(2006). Exploring the knowledge filter: How entrepreneurship and university–industry relationships drive economic growth. Research Policy , 35(10), 1499–1508.

49.

National Academy of Sciences. (2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary research . National Academies Press.

50.

National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (NCGE). (2006). The Entrepreneurship Foundation: Annex. 4 . NCGE, Royal Society of Arts, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.

51.

National Innovation and Science Agenda report. (2016). Department of Industry Innovation and Science. Australian Government .

52.

Nunn

Johnson

Monro

Bickerstaffe

Kelsey

(2007). Factors influencing social mobility (Research Report No. 450). Department for Work and Pensions.

53.

Pink

D. H.

(2005). A whole new mind. Moving from the information age to the conceptual age . Penguin.

54.

QAA. (2012). Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education . The UK’s quality body for higher education.

55.

Rainie

Anderson

(2017, May 3). The future of jobs and jobs training and skills. Pew research Center . https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/05/03/the-future-of-jobs-and-jobs-training/

56.

Reflex and Hegesco. (2010). Educational research and innovation measuring innovation in education: A new perspective . OECD Publishing.

57.

Robinson

(2019). EduTECH conference Sydney 2019 . https://blogs.flinders.edu.au/cilt/2018/11/30/edutech-2019-sydney-nsw-6-7-june-2019/

58.

Sawyer

R. K.

(2006). Educating for innovation. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 1(1), 41–48.

59.

Schein

E. H.

(2010). Organizational culture and leadership . Jossey Bass Publishers.

60.

Stiglitz

J. E.

(2007). Making globalization work . WW Norton & Company.

61.

Tesluk

P. E.

Farr

J. L.

Klien

S. R.

(1997). Influences of organisational culture and climate on individual creativity. The Journal of Creative Behaviour , 31(1), 27–41.

62.

The Innovation and Collaboration Centre (ICC). (2019). University of South Australia .

63.

Thorpe and Goldstein. (2010). Engines of innovation second edition . The University of Southern Carolina Press.

64.

Watermeyer

(2012). From engagement to impact? Articulating the public value of academic research. Tertiary Education and Management , 18(2), 115–130.

65.

Westwood

(2000). Winners and losers in the world of work . Employment Policy Institute and Academy of Enterprise.

66.

Williamson

(2010). Educating for innovative and creative thinking. https://docs.google.com/document/d/.../edit?pli=1

67.

Worrell

Kempbell

F. K.

Cooper

G. C.

(2000). The new reality for UK managers. Perpetual change and employment instability. Work, Employment and Society , 14(2), 647–669.