Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Academics’ start-up intentions and knowledge filters: an individual perspective of the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Previous studies suggest that entrepreneurial activity tends to be greater in contexts where investment in new knowledge is relatively high (e.g., entrepreneurial universities). However, in this specific knowledge context, only a few academics recognize opportunities and act on them through entrepreneurial activities (e.g., spin-offs). A plausible explanation could be the existence of several filters that limit the total conversion of knowledge into economically useful knowledge. The vehicle to knowledge transfer is entrepreneurship. Therefore, the main actor is the academic entrepreneur, but no empirical study has highlighted the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship at the individual level. The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of academics’ start-up intentions and knowledge filters on the knowledge transfer process within entrepreneurial university. Adopting the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship and the planned behavior theory, a proposed model was tested with a sample of 207 academics enrolled in entrepreneurial universities in Spain using structural equation modeling. Our findings could provide insights for policy-makers to design policies that bring further benefits to society and educational organizations as well as significant contributions to the literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This study is focused on entrepreneurial universities that are predominantly supported by public funds (i.e., European, national, regional governments).

  2. The respondents were asked to rate each item on a 10-point Likert scale (1 = low, 10 = high). Marketing studies recommend that, in behavioral analysis, a 7- to 10-point Likert scale should be adopted in order to avoid bias that represents a greater problem in 5-point scales (Felício et al. 2013). Also, it is more numerical, as a 5-point scale is usually worded.

  3. Based on the universities’ directories and websites, we identified 3,438 e-mails of academics involved in their business and engineering departments. The population estimate based on those e-mails coincides with the official statistics of those universities in the previous academic period published by the Spanish Institute of Statistics (INE). Therefore, the sample was not stratified or distributed; the criterion was to send the questionnaire to all those e-mails. We did three reminders.

  4. UPC (Technical University of Catalonia), UPV (Technical University of Valencia), UB (University of Barcelona), UAB (Autonomous University of Barcelona), USE (University of Seville), UAM (Autonomous University of Madrid), UMH (Miguel Hernandez University), USC (University of Santiago de Compostela), UCA (University of Cadiz University). These universities were selected according to the criteria used to identify entrepreneurial universities (Clark 1998; Di Gregorio and Shane 2003; Shane 2004; Audretsch and Lehmann 2005; O’Shea et al. 2005, 2007; Rothaermel et al. 2007; Wright et al. 2007; Guerrero and Urbano 2012): (1) promoting an entrepreneurial culture by strategic actions that allow for adaptation to environmental changes; (2) making self-instituting efforts to change its general character by developing entrepreneurial initiatives; and (3) being located in regions characterized by higher levels of entrepreneurship measured by the number of new enterprises.

  5. The response rate was integrated as follows: UPC (15 %), UPV (10 %), UB (15 %), UAB (13 %), USE (13 %), UAM (16 %), UMH (6 %), USC (12 %) and UCA (8 %). Unfortunately, based on this lower response rate, the main limitation of our results is that our data are not statistically representative at the university level. However, the aim of this paper is to explore the role of academics’ start-up intentions in the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship; therefore, the unit of analysis is the academic enrolled in the business and engineering departments of those universities (characterized by implementing several mechanisms or policies that promote entrepreneurship, innovation, and knowledge transfer). Thus, this sample is not generalizable at the university level but will help us to explore our research question. A possible bias will be observed in the positive effect, instead of the negative effect, of the motivational factors on the academics’ start-up intentions. Nevertheless, the distribution of the sample by the control groups (i.e., type of university, gender or percent of time involved in research activities) could help to shape or understand the results.

  6. Previous studies showed that obtaining data on academics’ start-ups is not an easy task (Audretsch and Lehmann 2005; Audretsch et al. 2008; Douglas 2012; Heblich and Slavtchev 2013). In our case, we have 207 observations that help us to develop a SEM for a small sample that at least needs 50 observations (Loehlin 1992; Shook et al. 2004).

  7. Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measures the sampling adequacy that indicates the proportion of variance in the variables that might be caused by underlying factors. High values (close to 1.0) generally indicate that a factor analysis may be useful. If the value is less than 0.50, the results of the factor analysis probably will not be very useful (Greene 2003).

  8. This measure assumes that items on a scale are positively correlated with each other because all are tapping into the same construct. Therefore, a high alpha (0.70 and higher) represents that all scale items are measuring the same construct (Greene 2003).

  9. A good measure is more than 0.50 and close to 1 (Greene 2003).

  10. In technological universities focused on applied research that tries to solve practical problems that have immediate commercial objectives versus broad-based universities oriented to basic research that is associated to theoretical works to acquire new knowledge.

  11. Using AMOS, the estimations of mediation were developed using the option of analysis properties (output: the direct, indirect and total effects; and bootstraps: perform bootstraps standard errors and bias-corrected confidential intervals).

  12. Shook et al. (2004) argue that a good fit is showed when: the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is close or less than 0.05; the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Goodness of fit index (GFI) are at least 0.80 or higher; and the X 2 normalized is low as 2 indicates a reasonable fit.

  13. Total effect (c) = direct effect (c′) + indirect effect (ab). Regarding university policies, total effect is 1.69 (1.087 + 0.603). A related measure of mediation is the proportion of the effect that is mediated, or the indirect effect divided by the total effect (ab/c) (Sobel 1982).

References

  • Acs, Z. J., Audrestch, D. B., Braunerhjelm, P., & Carlsson, B. (2004). The missing link: The knowledge filter and entrepreneurship in endogenous growth, CEPR Discussion paper 4783, CEPR, London.

  • Acs, Z., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32, 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z. J., & Plummer, L. (2005). Penetrating the knowledge filter in regional economics. Annals of Regional Science, 39(8), 911–927.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, R., Audretsch, D., & Sarkar, M. B. (2007). The process of creative construction: Knowledge spillovers, entrepreneurship, and economic growth. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(3–4), 263–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. (2004). Sustaining innovation and growth: Public policy support for entrepreneurship. Industry and Innovation, 11(3), 167–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. (2012). From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society. Journal of Technology Transfer,. doi:10.1007/s10961-012-9288-1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D., Bönte, W., & Keilbach, M. (2008). Entrepreneurship capital and its impact on knowledge diffusion and economic performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 23, 687–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2007). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies, 44(7), 1242–1254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D., & Keilbach, M. (2009). Resolving the knowledge paradox: Knowledge-spillover entrepreneurship and economic growth. Research Policy, 37(10), 1697–1705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D., Keilbach, M., & Lehmann, E. (2005a). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship and technological diffusion. In G. D. Libecap (Ed.), University entrepreneurship and technology transfer (Advances in the study of entrepreneurship, innovation & economic growth, vol. 16) (pp. 69–91). New York: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D., & Lehmann, E. (2005). Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for regions? Research Policy, i, 1191–1202.

  • Audretsch, D., Lehmann, E., & Warning, S. (2005b). University spillovers and new firm location. Research Policy, 34(7), 1113–1122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Autio, E., Keeley, R. H., Klofsten, M. G., Parker, G. C., & Hay, M. (2001). Entrepreneurial intent among students in Scandinavia and in the USA. Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies, 2(2), 145–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernasconi, A. (2005). University entrepreneurship in a developing country: The case of the P. Universidad Catolica de Chile, 1985–2000. Higher Education, 50(2), 247–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of Management Review, 13, 442–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird, B., & Schjoedt, L. (2009). Entrepreneurial behavior: Its nature, scope, recent research, and agenda for future research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(5), 327–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, J. H., Thurik, R., & Zhou, H. (2012). What turns knowledge into innovative products? The role of entrepreneurship and knowledge spillovers. Journal of Evolutionary Economics , 10(4), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braunerhjelm, P., Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2010). The missing link: Knowledge diffusion and entrepreneurship in endogenous growth. Small Business Economics, 34(2), 105–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brettel, M., Mauer, R., & Walter, T. (2013). High-profile employees at universities and their intentions of commercializing research results. Journal of Business Economics, 84(4), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullough, A., Renko, M., & Myatt, T. (2013). Danger zone entrepreneurs: The importance of resilience and self-efficacy for entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,. doi:10.1111/etap.12006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, B., Acs, Z., Audretsch, D., & Braunerhjelm, P. (2007). The knowledge filter, entrepreneurship, and economic growth. Jena Economic Research Paper, (2007-057), 2010–12.

  • Chrisman, J., Hynes, T., & Fraser, S. (1995). Faculty entrepreneurship and economic development: The case of the University of Calgary. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 267–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1988a). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1988b). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corrolleur, C. D. F., Carrere, M., & Mangematin, V. (2004). Turning scientific and technological human capital into economic capital: The experience of biotech start-ups in France. Research Policy, 33, 631–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, P., & David, P. (1994). A new economics of science. Research Policy, 23(5), 487–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Degroof, J., & Roberts, E. (2004). Overcoming weak entrepreneurial infrastructures for academic spin-off ventures. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 1573–7047.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32, 209–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, E. J. (2012). Reconstructing entrepreneurial intentions to identify predisposition for growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(5), 633–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felício, A., Martins, H., & Conceição, V. (2013). Social value and organizational performance in non-profit social organizations: Social entrepreneurship, leadership, and socioeconomic context effects. Journal of Business Research. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.040.

  • Fox, J. (1980). Effects analysis in structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 9, 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gnyawali, D. R., & Fogel, D. S. (1994). Environments for entrepreneurship development: Key dimensions and research implications. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(4), 43–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, W. H. (2003). Econometric analysis. New York: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2012). The development of an entrepreneurial university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1), 43–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heblich, S., & Slavtchev, V. (2013). Parent universities and the location of academic startups. Small Business Economics,. doi:10.1007/s11187-013-9470-3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., Camp, S. M., & Sexton, D. L. (2002). Strategic entrepreneurship: Integrating entrepreneurial and strategic management perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Holcombe, R. (2003). The origins of entrepreneurial opportunities. The Review of Austrian Economics, 16(1), 25–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keast, D. (1995). Entrepreneurship in universities: Definitions, practices and implications. Higher Education Quarterly, 49(3), 248–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, D. A. (2005). Creating entrepreneurial universities in the UK: Applying entrepreneurship theory to practice. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(5), 599–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, D. A., Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2011). The theoretical and empirical side of entrepreneurial universities: An institutional approach. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 28, 302–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolvereid, L. (1996). Prediction of employment status choice intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21(1), 47–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, N. F. (2000). The cognitive infrastructure of opportunity emergence. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, Spring , 24(3), 5–23.

  • Krueger, N. F. (2007). What lies beneath? The experiential essence of entrepreneurial thinking. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(1), 123–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, N. F., & Brazeal, D. V. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19(3), 91–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, N., & Carsrud, A. (1993). Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the planned behavior. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 5(4), 315–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, N., Reilly, M., & Carsrud, A. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5/6), 411–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laukkanen, M. (2000). Exploring alternative approaches in high-level entrepreneurship education: Creating micro-mechanisms for endogenous regional growth. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 12, 25–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S. H., & Wong, P. K. (2004). An exploratory study of technopreneurial intentions: A career anchor perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 7–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liñán, F., & Chen, Y. W. (2009). Development and cross-cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 33(3), 593–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liñán, F., & Santos, F. (2007). Does social capital affect entrepreneurial intentions? International Advances in Economic Research, 13(4), 443–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liñán, F., Urbano, D., & Guerrero, M. (2011). Regional variations in entrepreneurial cognitions: Start-up intentions of university students in Spain. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(3–4), 187–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A., & Scott, J. (2005). Opening the ivory tower’s door: An analysis of the determinants of the formation of US university spin-off companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1106–1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34, 1043–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path and structural analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louis, K. S., Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M. E., & Stoto, M. A. (1989). Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviours among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(1), 110–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, R, Jr. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22(1), 3–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, C., & Harvey, C. (2012). Entrepreneurship: Contexts, opportunities and processes. Business History, 55(1), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, C. H., & Moser, S. B. (1996). A longitudinal investigation of the impact of family background and gender on interest in small firm ownership. Journal of Small Business Management, 34(2), 29–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 132–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2003). Academic entrepreneur or entrepreneurial academics? Research based ventures and public support mechanism. R & D Management, 33(2), 107–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mian, S. (1996). The university business incubator: A strategy for development new research/technology-based firms. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 7(2), 191–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L. W., Bird, B., Gaglio, C. M., McMullen, J. S., & Morse, E. A. (2007). The central question in entrepreneurial cognition research 2007. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(1), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, P. (2007). Exploiting entrepreneurial opportunities: The impact of entrepreneurship on growth. Small Business Economics, 28(4), 355–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niosi, J. (2006). Success factors in Canadian academic spin-offs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4), 451–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Shea, R., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spin-off performance of US universities. Research Policy, 34, 994–1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Morse, K. P., O’Gorman, C., & Roche, F. (2007). Delineating the anatomy of an entrepreneurial university: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology experience. R & D Management, 37(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orser, B., Spence, M., Riding, A., & Carrington, C. (2010). Gender y export propensity. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 34(5), 933–958.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmberg, C. (2008). The transfer and commercialization of nanotechnology: A comparative analysis of university and company researchers. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 631–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qian, H., & Acs, Z. J. (2013). An absorptive capacity theory of knowledge spillover entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 40(2), 185–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romer, P. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. The Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1002–1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: Taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salter, A. J., & Martin, B. R. (2001). The economic benefits of publically funded basic research: A critical review. Research Policy, 30, 509–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, R. F., Brodzinsky, J. D., & Wiebe, F. A. (1991). Examining the relationship between personality and entrepreneurial career preference. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 3, 195–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulte, P. (2004). The entrepreneurial university: A strategy for institutional development. Higher Education in Europe, 29(2), 187–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Massachusetts, USA: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shook, C., Ketchen, D., Hult, T., & Kacmar, M. (2004). An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 397–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, M. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solow, R. (1956). A contribution to the economic growth theory. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subotzky, G. (1999). Alternatives to the entrepreneurial university: New modes of knowledge production in community service programs. Higher Education, 38(4), 401–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, F. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.

  • Thursby, J., & Thursby, M. C. (2005). Gender patterns of research and licensing activity of science and engineering faculty. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30, 343–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urbano, D., & Guerrero, M. (2012). Entrepreneurial universities: Socio-economic impacts of academic entrepreneurship in a European region. Economic Development Quarterly, 27(1), 40–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veciana, J. M., Aponte, M., & Urbano, D. (2005). University attitudes to entrepreneurship: A two countries comparison. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Management, 1(2), 165–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vohora, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy, 33, 147–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, M. (2009). Does one size fit all? The multiple organizational forms leading to successful academic entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 33(4), 929–947. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00306.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Mustar, P., & Lockett, A. (2007). Academic entrepreneurship in Europe. Massachusetts, USA: Edward Elgar Publhing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

A previous version of this paper was presented at the 2012 Workshop on Academic Policy and the Knowledge Theory of Entrepreneurship that took place at the University of Augsburg on August 20-21 in Augsburg, Germany (Bavaria). Special thanks go to Erik Lehmann, David Audretsch, and Zoltan Acs for their invaluable suggestions and support. The authors are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments. Maribel Guerrero recognizes the support of Mexico’s National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT). David Urbano acknowledges financial support from Projects ECO2010-16760 (Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation) and 2005SGR00858 (Catalan Government Department for Universities, Research and Information Society).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orkestra-Basque Institute of Competitiveness and Deusto Business School, Mundaiz 50, 20012, Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain

    Maribel Guerrero

  2. Business Economics Department, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Bellaterra, Building B, 08193, Barcelona, Spain

    David Urbano

Authors
  1. Maribel Guerrero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Urbano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maribel Guerrero.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 2, 3 and 4.

Table 2 Estimations of direct and indirect effects on academics’ start-up intentions by type of university (Model Ia)
Full size table
Table 3 Estimations of direct and indirect effects on academics’ start-up intentions by groups of control variables (Model Ib)
Full size table
Table 4 Estimations of direct and indirect effects on academics’ start-up intentions by each motivational factor (Model II)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Guerrero, M., Urbano, D. Academics’ start-up intentions and knowledge filters: an individual perspective of the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Bus Econ 43, 57–74 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9526-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9526-4

Keywords

JEL classifications

Search

Navigation