In this work we focus on the changes of academics work in a contemporary European context knowing that nowadays, governance and management logics transform organizations and relationships within European universities and, as a result, the “ivory tower”, in which university academics were accused to operate within (which was far from reality) is challenged. Our hypothesis is that these dynamics produce a transformation of the academic missions which is proved by what we call “restructured roles” as: working with private sector, expertise and consultancy development; think tanks and similar institutions’ involvement and global networks structure.

Up to the beginning of the 21^st century there was a clear division between the academic and the entrepreneur (Bennis 1955). These two very different features and contexts of work were based on a shared conception of research serving the public interest. Over the last fifteen years, the European Higher Education scenario has performed deep changes in terms of actors, governance, organisational structure, research and teaching practices. Experts affirm that these Systems are influenced by isomorphic processes of managerialization that push them to different forms of organisational, economic and pedagogical ways of autonomy (Martens and WolfKlaus 2009). Due to these changes, we now assist to the development of new roles and responsibilities within those strictly academic, such as direct interaction with local institutions, business and market sectors, and civil society.

How these transformations in the European higher education area have influenced the emergence of these new types of interaction? Is it possible to analyse the movement that de-constructs the division between research and teaching and promote academic new roles? Is this a reality or a fiction imposed by the vision of policy-makers and International Organizations? Is it possible to conceptualize a new vision of the academic entrepreneur that exceeds usual categories?

Economic, Management and Sociological literature have produced different kind of “entrepreneur” and formulated several typologies of academic entrepreneurs. Schumpeterian theory of entrepreneur describes it as the holder of innovations (Schumpeter 1911). In our case, the academic entrepreneur is engaged in new ways to produce knowledge and to interact with people. Some other studies focused on the concept of entrepreneurship have pursued a wide range of purposes and objectives, involving different units of analysis, theoretical perspectives and methodologies. Low and MacMillan (1988) define entrepreneurship as a characteristic of the multifaceted tasks achieved by academics that pierces many disciplinary boundaries.

In this communication, we refer the “innovator entrepreneur” described by Latour (1984) and Callon (1986) and the “entrepreneur trouble-maker of social order” defined by Greenwood and Suddaby (2006). We also consider the “entrepreneur as a translator and entrepreneur as a “passeur” (Latour 2006) as Granovetter (2003) and Stark (at all 2009) representation of entrepreneurs as “collective actors”.

We analyse as well, the relationship between the development of the academic-entrepreneur and networking (Granovetter 1973) in two dimensions. First, this process produces greater mobility in academics´ professional paths, in terms of wider disciplinary, geographical and economic possibilities. Second, the way this academic-entrepreneur encounters professional barriers due to academic asymmetries in mobility (Normand 2015, Boltanski, Chiapello, 1999). The subject of mobility is the key element that allows us develop a conception of the academic entrepreneur who builds his professional career within a multidisciplinary and cross-border knowledge European scenario.

Bergeron H., at all (2013) “Éléments pour une sociologie de l'entrepreneur-frontière”, Revue Française de Sociologie, vol 54, n°2, Presse de Science PO, Paris. Boltanski L, Chiapello E, (1999) Le nouvel esprit du Capitalisme, Gallimard, Paris. Boltanski, L., Thévenot, L. (1999), “The sociology of critical capacity”, European Journal of Social Theory, 2(3), special issue Contemporary French Social Theory: 359-378. Callon M., (1986), “Éléments pour une sociologie de la traduction. La domestication des coquilles Saint-Jacques et des marins-pêcheurs dans la baie de Saint-Brieuc”, L’Année sociologique, 36, p. 169-208. Granovetter M. (1973),“The Strength of Weak ties, in American Journal of Sociologie, vol 78, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Granovetter M. (2003), La Sociologie économique des entreprise et des entrepreneurs, dans Terrain et travaux, 2003, 4, 167-206. Greenwood R., Suddaby R., (2006), “Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields : the big five accounting firms”, The Academy of management journal, 49, 1, p. 27-48. Johnson B.R., Onwuegbuzie A.J., Turner L. A. (2007) “ Toward a Definition of Mixed Method Research”, in Journal of Mixed Method Research Latour B., (1994), “Une sociologie sans objet ? Remarques sur l’interobjectivité”, Sociologie du travail, 36, 4, p. 587-607. Latour B., (2006), Changer de société, refaire de la sociologie, Paris, La Découverte. Martens, K. and Wolf, K.D. (2009), “Boomerangs and Trojan Horses – The Unintended Consequences of Internationalizing Education Policy through the EU and the OECD” in A. Amaral, G. Neave, C.Musselin and P. Massen, European Integration and the Governance of Higher Education and Research – The Challenge and Complexities of an Emerging Multi-level Governance System, Berlin, Springer: 81-107. Normand R. (2015)“The challenges of the French Homo Academicus: Modernization, Identities and the Sense of Justice” in Linda Evans & Jon Nixon (Eds) Academic identities and the Changing European Landscape, Continuum. Schumpeter J. A., (1911) 1983, The theory of economic development. An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle, New Brunswick ( NJ ), Transaction Books. Stark D. ; Beunza D., Girard M., Lukacs J. (coll.), (2009), The sense of dissonance. Accounts of worth in economic life, Princeton ( NJ ), Princeton University Press.