illustrate the authors' points is accomplished by examining two case histories (e.g., Spain and Croatia) as explores) as exemplars.
2.) Useful and/or Original Contribution to the Field? The idea of being more entrepreneurial in a not-for-profit context is not new in-and-of-itself, the extent that the present authors are attempting to take the concept is unique. I think there are good points that are presented by the authors that would make their viewpoint unique and/or different that the past attempts at challenging the traditional means of 'running' a university.
3.) Engage Recent Scholarship: The book has incorporated the depth/breath of the existing literature. Professor Gonzales-Loureiro is building a reputation on using the latest harvesting methodologies to compile the foundations of a particular body of knowledge and it serves him well in this research effort. I think it would be difficult to come-up with substantive addition to the materials already identified by the authors.
4.) Strengths/Weaknesses of the Manuscript? There should be no confusion as to what is the strength of the book....challenging administrators/faculty to think of academic environment as being too static for today's rapidly globalization trend. Therefore, academics need to integrate entrepreneurial wave of change into academic institutions.
Weakness of the book is that I do not think the two environments selected (e.g., Spain, Croatia) are representing of all/some institutions that are being more entrepreneurial therefore limiting the application of the concept (e.g., entrepreneurialism) which I do not think should be the way to sell the concept to academics. I would do little vignettes to better illustrate how this approach as already been successful in other institutions.
5.) Authors Suitably Qualified? I know two of the authors' publications and feel that have a background broad/deep enough to write this book. I did not come across any areas in the book that I thought were poorly done (having a good English editor craft the book would improve its acceptance.
6.) Aware of Inclusion: Do know have any knowledge.
7.) Interdisciplinary Appeal: Not aware of any such thing.
8.) Compare with Existing Books: Not familiar with other books in the field. Endorsement after some revisions.
Given the work that has already been expended on the project I would think this would be a good additional to a collection or related issues.
