Evaluating the Criteria of TUBITAK Entrepreneurial and Innovative University Index in Terms of the Prominent Operations of the Entrepreneurial University

USLU B., Calikoglu A., SEGGİE F. N., Seggie S. H.

YUKSEKOGRETIM DERGISI, vol.10, no.1, pp.1-11, 2020 (ESCI) identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 10 Issue: 1
  • Publication Date: 2020
  • Doi Number: 10.2399/yod.19.011
  • Journal Indexes: Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), TR DİZİN (ULAKBİM)
  • Page Numbers: pp.1-11
  • Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University Affiliated: Yes


The purpose of this study is to theoretically examine the criteria of the TUBITAK Entrepreneurial and Innovative University Index (TUBITAK-EIUI) in terms of the prominent operational areas of the entrepreneurial university as reported by the relevant articles in higher education journals. For this purpose, a literature-based theoretical comparison was carried out. Firstly, the details related to the criteria of the TUBITAK-EIUI were gathered and visualised. The results of a meta-synthesis study, which analyzes articles from top higher education journals, on the operational areas of the entrepreneurial university were then visualised. In the analysis stage, drawing on this visualization, the criteria in TUBITAK-EIUI and the operational areas of the entrepreneurial university were compared by cross-tabulation. The results of this comparison revealed that five categories in the TUBITAK-EIUI included more content than the prominent operational areas of the entrepreneurial university. Although many criteria in the TUBITAK-EIUI (e.g. knowledge/technology production, collaboration with external actors, obtaining research funds, and acquiring intellectual property rights) directly matched with universities' prominent entrepreneurial operations outlined in the meta-synthesis study, the contribution of other criteria to the entrepreneurial university structure was difficult to observe at first sight. Moreover, some of the criteria in the TUBITAK-EIUI fell into more than one operational area of the entrepreneurial university, while linking two of them, the number of entrepreneurship and innovation courses in a university and the number of staff and students in mobility, to the entrepreneurial university operations was somewhat difficult. Another key point is that the indicator set of the TUBITAK-EIUI could be enhanced by adding the amount of income from activities which diversify fund and resource pools in universities. To sum up, having experts and decision-makers evaluate the criteria of the TUBITAK-EIUI with reference to the higher education literature, and identifying the appropriate categories for these criteria would be beneficial. Further studies examining the TUBITAK-EIUI through different theoretical entrepreneurial university frameworks can contribute to the efforts toward measuring the content validity of the TUBITAK-EIUI.