Skip to main content

The development of an entrepreneurial university

Abstract

An entrepreneurial society refers to places where knowledge-based entrepreneurship has emerged as a driving force for economic growth, employment creation and competitiveness. In this context, entrepreneurial universities play an important role as both knowledge-producer and a disseminating institution. In the literature, several studies contributed with relevant findings. Most of these studies reveal a tendency to use case studies to explain this phenomenon justified by the embryonic nature of the topic field, and with the lack of a robust theoretical framework to understand it. No empirical study, however, has highlighted the interrelations among environmental and internal factors that conditioned the development of entrepreneurial universities with the teaching, research and entrepreneurial missions that they need to achieve. This paper aims to contribute to a better understanding of these interrelations identifying the most critical factors that conditioned these missions and to this end brings a proposal model to measure this phenomenon empirically in the light of the Institutional Economics and the Resource-Based View. The methodology adopted is integrated by the Spanish Entrepreneurial University Scoreboard to identify this phenomenon and Structural Equation Modeling to analyze the relationships among independent and dependent variables that integrate the proposal model of entrepreneurial university. This research could cover invaluable strategies to bring further benefits to society (in terms of the creation of new business and employment) and, in particular, to educational institutions.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. Term used to describe universities that have improved different mechanisms to contribute to regional development and increase their incomes. Additionally, other terms used have been: University Technological Transfer (Dill 1995), Innovative Universities (Clark 1998; Van Vught 1999) and Market Universities (Slaughter and Leslie 1997).

  2. A set of 16 principles of quality, good practice and heterogeneity to refine methodologies used to conduct Higher Education rankings. Concretely, these principles define the purposes and goals of rankings; the design and weighting of indicators; the collection and processing of data; and presentation of ranking results.

  3. Source: Ministry of Spanish Education and Science (MEC).

  4. The indicators identified in the literature and that characterize an entrepreneurial university based on Table 6.

  5. UPC (Technical University of Catalonia), UPV (Technical University of Valencia), 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).

References

  • Aidis, R., Estrin, S., & Mickiewicz, T. (2008). Institutions and entrepreneurship development in Russia: A comparative perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(6), 656–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amit, R., & Schoemaker, D. C. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. (2001). Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and cross-cultural validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 495–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. (2007). The entrepreneurial society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E., & Warning, S. (2005). University spillovers and new firm location. Research Policy, 34(7), 113–1122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D., & Lehrmann, E. (2005). Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for regions? Research Policy, 34(8), 1191–1202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2006). Institutional changes and the commercialization of academic knowledge: A study of Italian universities’ patenting activities between 1965 and 2002. Research Policy, 35(4), 518–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnkrant, R. E., & Page, T. J. (1982). An examination of the convergent, discriminant and predictive validity of Fishbein’s behavioral intention model. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 526–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bygrave, W. D., & Hofer, C. W. (1991). Theorizing about entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 16(2), 13–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, G. N., & Lyon, D. W. (2001). Issues of research design and construct measurement in entrepreneurship research: The past decade. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 101–113.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dearlove, J. (2002). A continuing role of academics: The governance of UK universities in the post-Dearing era. Higher Education Quarterly, 53(3), 257–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debackere, K., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy, 34(3), 321–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32(2), 209–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dill, D. (1995). University-industry entrepreneurship: The organization and management of American university technology transfer units. Higher Education, 29(4), 369–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, C. (2002). The use of university rankings in the United Kingdom. Higher Education in Europe, XXVII(4), 423–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International Journal of Technology and Globalization, 1(1), 64–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eun, J., Lee, K., & Wu, G. (2005). Explaining the university-run enterprises in China: A theoretical framework for university–industry relationship in developing countries and its application to China. Research Policy, 35(9), 1329–1346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2005). European innovation scoreboard 2005. http://www.trendchart.org/scoreboards/scoreboard2005/index.cfm. Accessed 25 June 2006.

  • European Commission. (2008). European innovation scoreboard 2007. http://www.proinno-europe.eu/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.display&topicID=275&parentID=51#. Accessed 25 September 2008.

  • Ewalt, D. M. (2004). America’s most entrepreneurial campuses: Methodology. New York: Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2004/10/21/cx_de_1021_04conncampentrepremeth.html. Accessed 28 June 2006.

  • Federkeil, G. (2002). Some aspects of ranking methodology. The Che-ranking of German universities. Higher Education in Europe, XXVII(4), 389–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M., & Desrochers, P. (2003). Research universities and local economic development: Lessons from the history of the Johns Hopkins University. Industry and Innovation, 10(1), 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiet, J. (2000). The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(2), 101–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiet, J. (2001). The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(2), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finlay, I. (2004). Living in an entrepreneurial university. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 9(3), 421–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florida, R., & Kenney, M. (1988). Venture capital financed innovation and technological change in the United States. Research Policy, 17(3), 119–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, M. (2000). The emergence of entrepreneurial public universities in Australia. In Paper Presented at the IMHE General Conference of the OECD Paris, September 2000.

  • Gartner, W., & Birley, S. (2002). Introduction to the special issue on qualitative methods in entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(5), 387–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GEM. (2006). Global entrepreneurship monitor—Spanish database. Wellesley MA: London Business School and Babson College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grupo SCImago. (2007). La productividad ISI de las universidades españolas (2000–2004). El profesional de la información, 16(4), 354–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, M. (2008). The creation and development of entrepreneurial universities in Spain: An institutional approach, PhD dissertation. Barcelona: Autonomous University of Barcelona.

  • Guerrero, M., Rialp, J., & Urbano, D. (2008). The impact of desirability and feasibility on entrepreneurial intentions: A structural equation model. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4, 35–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., & Kirby, D. (2006). A literature review on entrepreneurial universities: An institutional approach. Working Paper Series, 06/8. Business Economics Department. Autonomous University of Barcelona.

  • Hay, D. B., Butt, F., & Kirby, D. A. (2002). Academics as entrepreneurs in a UK university. In G. Williams (Ed.), The enterprising university: Reform, excellence and equity. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, D. H., Roberts, E. B., & Eesley, C. E. (2007). Entrepreneurs from technology-based universities: Evidence from MIT. Research Policy, 36(5), 768–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • INE. (2008). Estadística de la enseñanza universitaria en España. Curso 2006–2007. Instituto Nacional de Estadística de España. http://www.ine.es/jaxi/menu.do?type=pcaxis&path=/t13/p405&file=inebase. Accessed 28 September 2008.

  • Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2006). Berlin principles on ranking of higher education institutions. UNESCO. http://www.ihep.org/Publications/publications-detail.cfm?id=3. Accessed 28 September 2007.

  • Inzelt, A. (2004). The evolution of university–industry–government relationships during transition. Research Policy, 33(6–7), 975–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPYME. (2006). Iniciativas Emprendedoras en la universidad Española. Dirección General de Política de la Pequeña y Mediana Empresa. Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio, Spain. http://www.ipyme.org/IPYME/es-ES/IniciativaEmprendedora/Promocion/AmbitoEducativo/. Accessed 27 September 2008.

  • Jacob, M., Lundqvist, M., & Hellsmark, H. (2003). Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish university system: The case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research Policy, 32(9), 1555–1569.

    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. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: Can business schools meet the challenge? Education and Training, 46(8/9), 510–519.

    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 

  • Klofsten, M., & Jones-Evans, D. (2000). Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe—the case of Sweden and Ireland. Small Business Economics, 14(4), 299–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    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 

  • Lazzeretti, L., & Tavoletti, E. (2005). Higher education excellence and local economic development: The case of the entrepreneurial university of Twente. European Planning Studies, 13(3), 475–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2003). Triple helix indicators of knowledge-based innovation systems. Scientometrics, 58(2), 191–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mian, S. (1997). Assessing and managing the university technology business incubator: An integrative framework. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(4), 251–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Middlehurst, R. (2004). Changing internal governance: A discussion of leadership roles and management structures in UK universities. Higher Education Quarterly, 58(4), 258–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2006). Bibliometric rankings of world universities. Leiden University, Netherlands: Centre for Science and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • North, D. C. (2005). Understanding the process of economic change. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.

    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(7), 994–1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Shea, R., Chugh, H., & Allen, T. J. (2008). Determinants and consequences of university spin-off activity: A conceptual framework. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(6), 653–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page, S. (1996). Rankings of Canadian universities, 1995: More problems in interpretation. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, XXVI(2), 47–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • PM, O. E. (2007). Solicitudes de patentes nacionales presentadas por universidades en el año 1997 y durante el período 2000–2007. Madrid, Spain: Unidad de Apoyo Dirección General Servicio de Estudios.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powers, J., & McDougall, P. (2005). University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: A resource based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(3), 291–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranga, L. M., Debackere, K., & Von-Tunzelmann, N. (2003). Entrepreneurial universities and the dynamics of academic knowledge production: A case study of basic vs. applied research in Belgium. Scientometrics, 58(2), 301–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Röpke, J. (1998). The entrepreneurial university, innovation, academic knowledge creation and regional development in a globalized economy. Working Paper No.3, Department of Economics, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Germany.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz, J., Parellada, F. S., & Vecina, J. M. (2004). Creación de empresas y universidad. Cadiz: Fundación Universidad Empresa de la Provincia de Cádiz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryu, M. (1998). A muted voice in academe: The Korean version of entrepreneurial scholarship. Higher Education, 35(1), 9–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Cited in 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(7), 994–1009.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shattock, M. (2005). European universities for entrepreneurship: Their role in the Europe of knowledge: The theoretical context. Higher Education Management and Policy, 17(3), 13–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shook, C., Ketchen, D., Hult, T., & Kacmar, M. (2004). An assessment of the use of structural equation modelling in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal, 25(4), 397–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003). Assessing the impact of science parks on the research productivity of firms: Exploratory evidence from the United Kingdom. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1217–1225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. London: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smilor, R., O’Donnell, N., Stein, G., & Welborn, R. S., III (2007). The research university and the development of high-technology centers in the United States. Economic Development Quarterly, 21(3), 203–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sporn, B. (2001). Building adaptive universities: Emerging organisational forms based on experiences of European and US universities. Tertiary Education and Management, 7(2), 121–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephen, F., Urbano, D., & van Hemmen, S. (2009). The responsiveness of entrepreneurs to working time regulations. Small Business Economics, 32, 259–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Tijssen, R. (2006). Universities and industrially relevant science: Towards measurement models and indicators of entrepreneurial orientation. Research Policy, 35(10), 1569–1585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNIVERSIA. (2006). Empresas de base tecnológica en las universidades. http://investigacion.universia.es/spin-off/empresas/unis/index.htm. Accessed 28 September 2008.

  • Urbano, D. (2006). New business creation in Catalonia: Support measures and attitudes towards entrepreneurship. Barcelona, Spain: Generalitat de Catalunya, CIDEM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Usher, A., & Savino, M. (2006). Estudio global de los rankings universitarios. Calidad de Educación, 25, 33–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Vught, F. (1999). Innovative universities. Tertiary Education and Management, 5(4), 347–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkataraman, S. (2004). Regional transformation through technological entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 153–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vesper, K. H., & Gartner, W. B. (1997). Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(5), 403–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webometrics. (2005). Methodology of ranking: Web de las Universidades en el Mundo. http://www.webometrics.info/methodology_es.html. Accessed 28 September 2008.

  • Welter, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial behavior in differing environments. In D. B. Audretsch, H. Grimm & C. W. Wessner (Eds.), Local heroes in the global village globalization and the new entrepreneurship policies (93–112). International Studies in Entrepreneurship. New York: Springer.

  • Witte, J. (2004). The introduction of two-tiered study structures in the context of the Bologna process: A theoretical framework for an international comparative study of change in higher education systems. Higher Education Policy, 17, 405–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, P.-K., Ho, Y.-P., & Singh, A. (2007). Towards an ‘entrepreneurial university’ model to support knowledge-based economic development: The case of the national university of Singapore. World Development, 35(6), 941–958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yokoyama, K. (2006). Entrepreneurialism in Japanese and UK Universities: Governance, management, leadership and funding. Higher Education, 52(3), 523–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yonezawa, A., Nakatsui, I., & Kobayashi, T. (2002). University rankings in Japan. Higher Education in Europe, 27(4), 373–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, F. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: Case study of Australian universities. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 5(2), 91–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

A previous version of this paper was presented at the 2009 Technology Transfer Society Annual Conference (Greensboro, North Carolina, October, 2). We are most grateful to several participants for their comments and suggestions, which have contributed to the improvement of this study. In particular, we highly appreciate comments from Professor Albert N. Link and Professor Sarfraz Mian. We are also grateful to comments and suggestions by two anonymous reviewers, which have decisively contributed to improve this final version of the manuscript. Finally, Maribel Guerrero has received financial support from the Autonomous University of Tamaulipas (Mexico). David Urbano has received financial resources from SEJ2007-60995 (Spanish Ministry of Education and Science) and 2005SGR00858 (Catalan Government’s Department for Universities, Research and Information Society).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maribel Guerrero.

 

 

Appendix 1 Selected empirical studies of entrepreneurial universities
Appendix 2 Spanish entrepreneurial university scoreboard
Appendix 3 Reliability and convergent analysis of entrepreneurial universities’ constructs
Appendix 4 Convergent analysis of environmental and internal factors of entrepreneurial universities
Appendix 5 Factors of entrepreneurial universities (global sample)
Appendix 6 Factors of entrepreneurial universities by type of university (subsamples general & technological)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Guerrero, M., Urbano, D. The development of an entrepreneurial university. J Technol Transf 37, 43–74 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9171-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9171-x

Keywords

  • Entrepreneurial universities
  • Institutional economics
  • Resource-based view
  • Higher education
  • Knowledge transfer
  • Technology transfer

JEL Classification

  • M13 (New Firms; Startups)
  • L26 (Entrepreneurship)
  • I23 (Higher Education Research Institutions)
  • I28 (Education Government Policy)