The DOI matches its Crossref record; 99 of the 99 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The changing university business model: a stakeholder perspective
Abstract
Universities are in a current state of transition, whereby they are expected to develop a wide range of relationships with stakeholders in order to enhance regional innovation systems. However, despite external environmental pressures commonly regarded as one of the main drivers of business model evolution, there is a lack of studies that explore business model innovation as a result of multiple stakeholder influences. Accordingly, the aim of this paper is to examine the changing university business model within a region of the U nited K ingdom, using a stakeholder perspective that will aid theoretical development and refinement in both the business model and stakeholder fields. This examination is aided by consideration of the university business model as an activity system. Repeat interviews, combined with stakeholder theory, have been used to show how the changing university business model–stakeholder relationship has progressed through different stakeholder stages with resultant changes in content, structure and governance. Furthermore, conflicting objectives between each of the stakeholder groups (i.e. academics, industry liaison staff, technology transfer office staff and government support agency representatives) have led to the university business model evolving not as a process of co‐creation but rather in a series of transitions whereby multiple stakeholders are continually shaping the university business model through strategies that are dependent upon their salience. Finally, this paper contributes to the development and refinement of business model innovation research, in that the use of stakeholder constructs can illustrate the impact of multiple stakeholders' power and influence on business model innovation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(1984) · Cited by 81,983
Case Study Research: Design and Methods
Chaiklin, H. (1991) · The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · doi:10.1097/00005053-199102000-00025 · Cited by 39,535
Handbook of Qualitative Research
Crozier, G., Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3121684 · Cited by 26,666
(2001) · Cited by 25,534
(1990) · Cited by 24,217
(2010) · Cited by 24,023
Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches
Suchman, M. C. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258788 · Cited by 19,903
Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
Caldas, M. P. (2003) · Revista de Administração Contemporânea · doi:10.1590/s1415-65552003000100015 · Cited by 18,745
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455
Research Methods for Business Students
Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. R. (2003) · Cited by 17,205
Cited by
Miller, K., McAdam, R., & McAdam, M. (2018) · R&D Management · doi:10.1111/radm.12228 · Cited by 355
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Miller, K., McAdam, M., & McAdam, R.
- Venue
- R&D Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-05-20
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 265-287
- ISSN
- 0033-6807 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9310
- OpenAlex
- W1960816055
- Cited by
- 253
- References
- 99
- FWCI
- 35.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The changing university business model: a stakeholder perspective. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/radm.12064
- The paper
- Miller, K., McAdam, M., & McAdam, R. (2014). The changing university business model: a stakeholder perspective. R&D Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12064
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.