Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences

Revue canadienne des sciences de ladministration

28: 302316 (2011)
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/CJAS.220

Making Universities More Entrepreneurial:

Development of a Model
David A. Kirby

David Urbano*

The British University in Egypt

Autonomous University of Barcelona

Maribel Guerrero
Autonomous University of Barcelona
Abstract
Entrepreneurial universities where multifaceted efforts are
made to ensure their contribution to regional economic
development have been the focus of many case studies. Using
institutional economics as the theoretical framework, we
conducted two empirical investigations to advance the
literature concerning entrepreneurial universities. First,
experts in the eld evaluated the appropriateness of several
competing denitions of the entrepreneurial university. They
also rated facilitators and barriers to universities becoming
more entrepreneurial and suggested criteria for evaluating the
success of such efforts. Second, the facilitators and barriers
previously identied were examined for their relationship to
the entrepreneurial success criteria using ratings from the
faculty at the Autonomous University of Barcelona (Spain).
Although the facilitating factors were positively associated
with success indices of the entrepreneurial university, the
expected negative relationship between the barriers and
success criteria was not observed. Copyright 2011 ASAC.
Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Rsum
Les universits entrepreneuriales dans lesquelles de multiples
efforts sont dploys pour contribuer au dveloppement de
lconomie rgionale ont fait lobjet de plusieurs tudes de
cas. Dans cet article, nous nous servons de lconomie
institutionnelle comme cadre thorique pour mener deux
investigations empiriques et contribuer lavancement de la
recherche sur les universits entrepreneuriales. Dans un
premier temps, les experts du domaine ont valu la pertinence
de plusieurs dnitions contradictoires de luniversit
entrepreneuriale. Ils ont galement valu les facilitateurs et
les barrires qui empchent les universits dtre plus
entrepreneuriales et ont propos des critres pour lvaluation
du succs. Dans un second temps, nous avons examin les
relations entre les facilitateurs et les barrires prcdemment
identis et le critre du succs entrepreneurial en nous
appuyant sur les valuations du corps professoral de
Autonomous University de Barcelone (Espagne). Les rsultats
indiquent que les facteurs facilitants sont positivement relis
aux indices de succs de luniversit entrepreneuriale. Par
contre, la relation ngative anticipe entre les barrires et le
critre de succs ntait pas observe. Copyright 2011
ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

JEL Classifications: M130, I280

Keywords: entrepreneurial universities, entrepreneurship,

entrepreneurism, higher education, institutional economics,
Spain

Mots-cls : universits entrepreneuriales, entrepreneuriat,

entrepreneurisme, enseignement suprieur, conomie
institutionnelle, Espagne

Maribel Guerrero acknowledges the nancial support from the Autonomous

University of Tamaulipas (Mexico) during her doctoral studies. David
Urbano acknowledges the nancial support from projects ECO201016760 (Spanish Ministry of Science Innovation), 2005SGR00858 (Catalan
Government Department for Universities, Research Information Society).
Also, he acknowledges the support from University of Surrey (United
Kingdom) during his research stay (20052006).
*Please address correspondence to: David Urbano, Business Economics
Department, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Bellaterra, Building B,
08193, Barcelona (Spain). Email: david.urbano@uab.es

Universities play a key role in the development of

knowledge-based economies because they generate, apply,
and disseminate knowledge (Laukkanen, 2000). Though
universities differ substantially in size and in their primary
goals, some governments encourage these organizations to be
more entrepreneurial (Kirby, 2002). An entrepreneurial
university is one where, among other things, multiple policies
and programs are put in place to ensure that the knowledge
generated contributes to regional economic development
(Bygrave & Minniti, 2000; Etzkowitz, 1983). Similar notions

Copyright 2011 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

302

Can J Adm Sci

28(3), 302316 (2011)

MAKING UNIVERSITIES MORE ENTREPRENEURIAL: A MODEL

KIRBY ET AL.

Table 1
Principle Definitions of Entrepreneurial Universities

are implied by university technological transfer (Dill, 1995),

innovative universities (Clark, 1998; Van Vught, 1999), and
market universities (Slaughter & Leslie, 1997).
Universities that strive to be more entrepreneurial
transform their organizational structures to better respond and
adapt to the external environment (Sporn, 2001) and seek
to encourage collective entrepreneurial action at all levels
(Clark, 1998; Guerrero, Urbano, & Kirby, 2006; OShea, Allen,
Morse, OGorman, & Roche, 2007; Rothaermel, Agung, &
Jiang, 2007; Williams, 2003; Guerrero & Urbano, 2011) by
using various mechanisms to promote entrepreneurial culture
(Birley, 2002; Doutriaux, 1991; Gibb, 2005; Smilor, Gibson, &
Dietrich, 1990). Relative to traditional academic environments,
a shift toward entrepreneurism requires the development of
missions and functions inside universities with respect to
teaching and research as well as the development of entrepreneurial activities (Guerrero, 2008). Intrapreneurship, where
new ventures and other innovative activities develop within
an organization (Antonic & Hisrich, 2001; Pinchot 1985), is
typical within entrepreneurial universities (Kirby, 2002).
To date, the research literature on entrepreneurial universities has consisted basically of case studies (Bernasconi, 2005; De
Zilwa, 2005; Jacob, Lundqvist, & Hellsmark, 2003; Klofsten &
Jones-Evans, 2000; Lazzeretti & Tavoletti, 2005; OShea et al.,
2007; Ranga, Debackere, & Von-Tunzelmann, 2003; Tijssen,
2007; Yokoyama, 2006; Zhao, 2004). The theoretical framing of
the dening characteristics of an entrepreneurial university is
lacking as is any systematic examination of the facilitators and
barriers to universities becoming more entrepreneurial (Guerrero
et al., 2006; Rothaermel et al., 2007).
To advance the empirical literature concerning entrepreneurial universities, this study was conducted in two
phases. In phase one, an open-ended questionnaire was
developed and administered to experts in the eld to
examine the degree to which there is consensus concerning
the dening characteristics of an entrepreneurial university.
They were also asked to rank factors thought to facilitate
and hinder the development of such educational organizations, and to suggest indices that could be used to evaluate
their success. Then, in phase two, faculty at a widely
recognized entrepreneurial university were surveyed to
determine the extent to which the facilitators and barriers
identied in the previous phase were systematically
related to measures of success. As described below,
institutional economics were used (North, 1990, 2005) as
the theoretical framework to examine the formal and
informal factors that facilitate or hinder the development
of entrepreneurial universities.

Author

Etzkowitz (1983): Universities that are considering new sources

of funds like patents, research under contracts and entry into a
partnership with a private enterprise. (p. 198)
Chrisman et al. (1995): The entrepreneurial university involves
the creation of new business ventures by university professors,
technicians, or students. (p. 268)
Dill (1995): University technology transfer is dened as formal
efforts to capitalize upon university research by bringing research
outcomes to fruition as commercial ventures. Formal efforts are in
turn dened as organizational units with explicit responsibility for
promoting technology transfer. (p. 370)
Clark (1998): An Entrepreneurial University, on its own, seeks to
innovate in how it goes to business. It seeks to work out a
substantial shift in organizational character so as to arrive at a more
promising posture for the future. Entrepreneurial Universities seek
to become stand-up universities that are signicant actors in their
own terms. (p. 7)
Rpke (1998): An entrepreneurial university can mean three
things: the university itself, as an organization, becomes
entrepreneurial; the members of the universityfaculty, students,
employees -- are turning themselves somehow into entrepreneurs;
and the interaction of the university with the environment, the
structural coupling between university and region, follows
entrepreneurial pattern. (p. 2)
Subotzky (1999): The entrepreneurial university is characterized
by closer university-business partnerships, by greater faculty
responsibility for accessing external sources of funding, and
by a managerial ethos in governance, leadership and planning.
(p. 402)
Kirby (2002): As at the heart of any entrepreneurial culture,
Entrepreneurial Universities have the ability to innovate, recognize
and create opportunities, work in teams, take risks and respond to
challenges. (p. 2)
Etzkowitz (2003): Just as the university trains individual students
and sends them out into the world, the Entrepreneurial University
is a natural incubator, providing support structures for teachers and
students to initiate new ventures: intellectual, commercial and
conjoint. (p. 112)
Jacob et al. (2003): An Entrepreneurial University is based
on both commercialization (customs made education courses,
consultancy services and extension activities) and commoditization
(patents, licensing or student owned start-ups). (p. 1555)

Entrepreneurial Universities and Institutional

Economics

Williams (2003): Is nothing more than a seller of services in the

knowledge industry. (p.14)

As Table 1 shows, there are numerous denitions of the

entrepreneurial university in the literature.

Copyright 2011 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Denition

303

Can J Adm Sci

28(3), 302316 (2011)

MAKING UNIVERSITIES MORE ENTREPRENEURIAL: A MODEL

KIRBY ET AL.

Entrepreneurial universities are oriented toward innovation and the development of an entrepreneurial culture (Clark,
1998; Kirby, 2002) and have a new managerial ethos in
governance, leadership, and planning (Subotzky, 1999), which
includes greater faculty responsibility for accessing external
sources of funding (Etzkowitz, 1983; Yokoyama, 2006). Thus,
for example, such organizations seek to become incubators
that provide support (Etzkowitz, 2003) for the creation and
spin-off of new businesses (Chrisman, Hynes, & Fraser, 1995;
Rpke, 1998) and seek to aid academics in the commercialization of their research (Dill, 1995; Jacob et al., 2003;
Williams, 2003).
These efforts have been regarded as revolutionary
(Etzkowitz, 2004) in that such organizations, in addition to
their traditional missions of teaching and research, add the
generation of social and economic value to society at large
(Guerrero, 2008). Further, the goals of an entrepreneurial
university focus on producing graduates who are not only job
seekers but also job creators (Schulte, 2004). Even though a
single denition of an entrepreneurial university is lacking,
several criteria for assessing such an organization (e.g.,
involvement in large-scale science projects, contracted
research, consulting, patenting/licensing, generation of business spin-offs, external teaching, collaboration, as well as new
product development and distribution) have been adopted
(Bernasconi, 2005; Del Palacio, Sol, & Montiel, 2006; Jacob
et al., 2003; Klofsten & Jones-Evans, 2000; Zhao, 2004).
Institutional economics (North, 1990, 2005) seek to
explain how institutions and the institutional context affect
economic and social development. Institution is dened very
broadly as the rules of the game in a society, or more formally,
institutions are the constraints that shape human interaction
(North, 1990, p. 3). Institutions include any form of
constraint formal (e.g., political rules, economic rules and
contracts) or informal (e.g., codes of conduct, attitudes, values,
norms and conventions, societal culture) devised to shape
human interaction. Institutional economics have been used to
examine the inuence of environmental factors on entrepreneurship (Aidis, Estrin, & Mickiewicz, 2008; Stephen,
Urbano, & van Hemmen, 2009; Thornton, Ribeiro-Soriano,
& Urbano, 2011; Veciana & Urbano, 2008; Welter 2005), the
changes in tertiary educational systems (Hanson, 2001; Witte,
2004), and the impact of regional innovation systems
(Braczyk, Cooke, & Heidenreich, 1998; Cooke, 2002) inside
knowledge economies (Cumbers, Leibovitz, & MacKinnon,
2007; Doloreux, Dionne, & Lapointe, 2007).

Formal factors. The development and implementation

of entrepreneurial courses for students, university support
for technology transfer and start-ups, exible organizational
structures, and ties to industry all can contribute to a university
becoming more entrepreneurial.
The educational structure associated with formal
entrepreneurial coursework at all levels (Carsrud, 1991;
Finkle & Deeds, 2001; Katz, 2003; Kirby, 1992; Robinson
& Haynes, 1991; Vesper & Gartner, 1997) has the potential
to contribute to both the regulatory and cultural dimensions,
linking governance, diversity, curriculum, the labourmarket, and nance (Witte, 2004). Thus curricular reform
and efforts to recruit graduate students internationally are
common responses to calls to enhance entrepreneurism in
universities (Mok, 2005) wherein willingness to change and
multidisciplinary training are emphasized (Van Vught,
1999). Entrepreneurship education typically addresses the
creation of new ventures (Bygrave, 1994; Timmons & Spinelli,
2004) and the development of entrepreneurial skill sets (Ray,
1997) including opportunity recognition (Kirby, 2003).
In knowledge-based economies, universities typically
engage in formal efforts to support technology transfer and
promote start-ups (Grandi & Grimaldi, 2005; Zaharia, 2002).
Small business centers, research facilities, research groups or
quasi rms, liaison ofces, technology transfer ofces, and
incubators are all examples (Link & Scott, 2005; Mian, 1996).
Ferguson and Olofsson (2004) found a higher survival rate of
rms supported by universities and/or located at science parks.
Nonetheless, growth of these enterprises can be hindered by
numerous university barriers related to funding and lack of
incentives and entrepreneurial expertise, among other issues
(Zhao, 2004). Further, an effective policy concerning
intellectual property is needed to promote technology transfer
(Degroof & Roberts, 2004).
For a university to become more entrepreneurial and
hence more of a contributor to regional development, the
effective interaction of university, industry, and government
is crucial (Etzkowitz & Klofsten, 2005). Thus, exible
organizational and governance structures (Clark, 1998;
Lazzeretti & Tavoletti, 2005) are required where all
stakeholders are represented (Sporn, 2001). These structures
must work together to develop a shared vision (Dearlove,
2002) and as such, full-time leadership positions occupied
by professionals may be needed (Dill, 1995; Sotirakou,
2004; Sporn, 2001). To limit hierarchy and bureaucracy
(McNay, 1995), horizontal coordination is advocated as the
means to promote the sharing of intellectual, nancial, and
physical resources (Van Vught, 1989). Moreover, university
leaders should be skilled at identifying business opportunities that arise from the dynamic interaction of the
organization and its stakeholders (Darling, Gabrielsson, &
Serista, 2007). Thus, effective structure and governance has
the potential to move the relationship between university
and industry through various stages (Etzkowitz, 2004)
including from the application of science, to the generation

Institutional Factors Associated with Entrepreneurial

Universities
Using the contributions of institutional economics to
entrepreneurship research (North, 1990, 2005), we now
consider the formal and informal factors that potentially
facilitate and hinder the development of entrepreneurial
universities.

Copyright 2011 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

304

Can J Adm Sci

28(3), 302316 (2011)

MAKING UNIVERSITIES MORE ENTREPRENEURIAL: A MODEL

KIRBY ET AL.

of products, and nally to the creation of new business

(Tijssen, 2007).
Informal factors. Favourable attitudes of students
and faculty toward entrepreneurship, the presence of entrepreneurial role models, and strategically aligned rewards can
also contribute to a university becoming more entrepreneurial.
Favourable student attitudes could be developed by
exposing students to projects with a variety of aims such as
the creation of a new business (Krueger & Brazeal, 1994), the
enhancement of opportunity recognition capabilities (Bygrave
& Hofer, 1991), and/or an understanding of entrepreneurial
culture (Jack & Anderson, 1999). As reected in the various
models of entrepreneurial potential (Guerrero, Rialp, &
Urbano, 2008; Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000; Veciana,
Aponte, & Urbano, 2005; Lin & Chen, 2009; Lin,
Urbano, & Guerrero, 2011), some students will feel more at
home in an entrepreneurial university than others.
Given that they are a major stakeholder, the attitudes of
faculty toward entrepreneurship are likely to be another
important informal factor. Few studies have examined the
entrepreneurial intentions of faculty members, though
Louis, Blumenthal, Gluck, and Stoto (1989) found faculty
characteristics and attitudes to be the most important predictors
of academic entrepreneurship. Further, some studies have
examined how the careers of research scientists and engineers
can be inuenced by entrepreneurial intention (Lee & Wong,
2004). Hay, Butt, and Kirby (2002) argued that the major
difference between academics and entrepreneurs concerns
their attitude toward risk. Still, there is risk in academic jobs in
that they involve high-level effort in relation to work that
typically is not readily observable (Carmichael, 1988).
Forums and meetings often occur in university settings
and these provide opportunities for entrepreneurial role models
to exert informal inuence (Venkataraman, 2004) that can
positively inuence entrepreneurial intentions (Carsrud, 1991;
Veciana et al., 2005). As such, these informal factors may
contribute to entrepreneurship in the university context.
Surprisingly, university administrators are sometimes
unaware of the need to provide incentives for nurturing
entrepreneurship among their faculty members (Franklin,
Wright, & Lockett, 2001). Yet, as with most change
efforts, both monetary (e.g., bonuses, use of corporate resources,
prot-sharing) and nonmonetary (e.g., organizational recognition programs) reward systems should be strategically aligned
with efforts to become more entrepreneurial (Bernasconi, 2005;
Kirby, 2006). Furthermore, these systems should target both
individuals and teams (Miclea, 2004).

Entrepreneurship Education (INTENT), and the European

Council for Small Business (ECSB). Attendees at these
conferences tend to be active researchers associated with
universities. We received 221 responses (116 from RENT and
INTENT and 105 from ECSB), which represents a margin of
error of 4.57% at 95% condence level (z=1.96; p=q=0.5).
Questionnaire. Based on the literature, a survey was
designed to determine the degree to which there was
consensus concerning a variety of issues surrounding the
concept of an entrepreneurial university. The questionnaire
required participants to: (a) indicate which of six denitions
was most appropriate to the concept (see Tables 1 and 2);
(b) rank order (1 most to 15 least) the factors that make
universities more entrepreneurial (see Table 3); (c) rank
order (1 most to 12 least) the barriers to making
universities entrepreneurial (see Table 4); and (d) list up to
ve criteria reective of a successful entrepreneurial
university (see Table 5). Respondents also provided up to
three examples of entrepreneurial universities in Europe and
listed up to three examples from within their own country
(see Appendix 1).
Analysis. SPSS 14.0 was used to obtain the descriptive statistics associated with the phase one questionnaire.
Phase Two
Sample. The second questionnaire explored whether
faculty perceived that the factors uncovered in phase one
were in fact associated with entrepreneurial outcomes at the
Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB) in Spain. UAB
was chosen as the sample location based on the following
criteria: (a) it seeks to promote an entrepreneurial culture

Table 2
Which of the Following Definitions Best Describes Your
View of an Entrepreneurial University?
Denition
Total

ECSB

Number % Number % Number %

(a) Williams (2003)
(b) Clark (1998)
(c) Chrisman et al.(1995)
(d) Etzkowitz (2003)
(e) Clark (1998)
(f) Kirby (2002)

Method

5
17
20
58
44
77
221

2.3
7.9
9.3
27.0
20.5
35.8

2
10
13
30
20
41
116

1.7
8.6
11.2
25.9
17.2
35.3

3
7
7
28
24
36
105

2.9
6.7
6.7
26.7
22.9
34.3

Note: The numbers reect the number and/or percentage of survey

participants who regarded each of the six denitions as most
closely representing their denition of an entrepreneurial university
and who produces prominent and high volume Research on
Entrepreneurship [RENT], Internationalizing Entrepreneurship
Education [INTENT], and the European Council for Small
Business [ECSB].

Phase One
Sample. The questionnaire described below was distributed online to 424 experts who were attendees at one of the
three leading European-based entrepreneurship conferences:
Research into Entrepreneurship (RENT), Internationalizing

Copyright 2011 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

RENT+
INTENT

305

Can J Adm Sci

28(3), 302316 (2011)

MAKING UNIVERSITIES MORE ENTREPRENEURIAL: A MODEL

KIRBY ET AL.

Table 5
Criteria on which to Evaluate an Entrepreneurial
University

Table 3
What, in Your View, is Required to Make Universities
More Entrepreneurial?
Facilitators
I
F
F
F
F
F
I
I
F
F
F
F
F
F

Favourable staff attitudes toward entrepreneurship

Links with industry
Flexible organizational structure
Entrepreneurship courses for students
Support for technology transfer
Support measures for start-ups
Favourable student attitudes toward entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship role models
Appropriate reward system
Incubators
Clear rules on intellectual property ownership
Minimal regulation for new venture creation
Seed funding
Science parks

Criteria to measure entrepreneurial success

Rank
E
E

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

E
R
R
R
R
EA
EA
EA

Note. Rankings provided by the 221 Phase one respondents (Rank

1=most required). Entrepreneurship course offerings for staff were
not ranked by the respondents and are excluded from the table. I=
Informal Factor; F=Formal Factor.

EA

F
F
F
F
F
I
I
I
F
F
F
F

Organizational structure and university governance

Not a primary function of universities
Inadequate links with the industry
Not in concordance with research objectives
Lack of experience
Inadequate cultural values
Traditional ways of teaching
Inappropriate reward system
Clash with teaching objectives
Lack of funding
Lack of physical resources
State funding / dependency on the state

E
E
R
R
R
EA
EA
EA
EA

one of the universities identied as being entrepreneurial by

the experts in phase one.
The phase two questionnaire was distributed online to a
sample of 810 faculty stratied by discipline, from a
population of 2,990 faculty at UAB. Respondents were
given the option of completing the questionnaire either in
English or Catalan (common to the region). We obtained
180 responses with a sample error of 7.0 at the 95%
condence level (Z=1.96, p=q=0.5). The breakdown in
terms of discipline was: technological and experimental
studies (23.9%), health (21.1%), humanities (20%), social
sciences (19.4%), and economics (15.6%). The majority of
the sample was male (66%) and the average age
was 45, with 15 years tenure at the university. Most (42%)
were associate professors while 33.5% were full professors.
Questionnaire. The content of the phase two questionnaire (see Table 6) was based on our phase one ndings.
The three major items on the questionnaire required
respondents to rate (on 7-point Likert-type scales; 1=low,
7=high; similar to that used by Lin & Chen, 2009) the
degree to which: (a) each of seven entrepreneurship-related
success criteria were achieved at the university; (b) each of
14 factors thought to be important to promoting entrepreneurship were present at the university, and (c) each of nine
factors thought to be obstacles to entrepreneurship were
present at the university.
Analysis. On an exploratory basis a structural equation
model (Shook, Ketchen, Hult, & Kacmar, 2004) was tested

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Note. Rankings provided by the 221 Phase one respondents (Rank

1=most signicant barrier). F=Formal Factor, I=Informal Factor.

that allows for quick adaptation to change (Clark, 1998;

Sporn, 2001); (b) since the 1980s it has purposely
undertaken a variety of entrepreneurial initiatives such as
science parks and incubators, entrepreneurship curriculum,
and interdisciplinary centers and cooperation networks
(Ruiz, Parellada, & Veciana, 2004); (d) it is located in
Catalonia, a region characterized by high levels of
entrepreneurial activity associated with higher education
(Coduras, Urbano, Rojas, & Martnez, 2008); and (d) it was

Copyright 2011 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

E
E

Note: The 221 Phase one respondents were asked to provide up to

ve criteria they would use to judge the success of an
entrepreneurial university. They were subsequently reclassied in
terms of the Entrepreneurial University missions. E=Education, R
=Research, EA=Entrepreneurial Activities.

Table 4
What, in Your View, are the Barriers to Universities
being Entrepreneurial?
Barriers

Number of students in entrepreneurial programs

Number of courses, programs, and activities
of entrepreneurship
Encouraging student attitudes and values
concerning entrepreneurship
Course offerings in entrepreneurship and
research methodology
Number of start-ups created, and employment
and income generated
Links or funding from private sector and industry
Technology, innovation, and knowledge transfer
University structure and university governance
Dissemination of entrepreneurial activities
Range of university community participation
in funding efforts
Funding

Type

306

Can J Adm Sci

28(3), 302316 (2011)

MAKING UNIVERSITIES MORE ENTREPRENEURIAL: A MODEL

KIRBY ET AL.

Table 6
Reliability and Convergent Validity of the Proposed Entrepreneurial University Constructs
Factor

Items

Factorial
analysis

Reliability analysis
Cronbach lpha

Item to total correlation

0.898

0.632
0.850
0.641
0.860
0.855
0.850
0.805

Success criteria for entrepreneurial universities

FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF

M_JS
M_Entre
M_SP
M_PI
M_KT
M_EC
M_SRD

FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
IF
IF
IF
IF
FF

R_RIP
R_RNV
R_STT
R_SNV
R_NES
R_SP
R_ECS
R_ECP
R_ETM
R_FAS
R_FAP
R_AIE
R_ERM
R_FOS

FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
IF
IF

B_ENF
B_SF
B_OGS
B_NRP
B_NRO
B_CTO
B_ILI
B_ICV
B_TWT

Generate job seekers

Generate entrepreneurs
Publishing scientific papers
Publishing papers with practical implications
Knowledge transfer (patents, licenses)
Promote an entrepreneurial culture
Social and regional development
Facilitators of entrepreneurial universities
Clear rules for intellectual property
Minimal regulations for new venture
Supports for technology transfer
Supports for start-ups
Not economical support for business creation
Science park
Entrepreneurship courses for students
Entrepreneurship courses for academics
Entrepreneurial teaching methodologies
Favourable student attitudes toward entrepreneurship
Favourable staff attitudes toward entrepreneurship
Appropriate reward systems
Entrepreneurship role models
Flexible organizational structure
Barriers to entrepreneurial universities
Entrepreneurship not primary function
State funding & dependence on the state
Organizational and university governance
Not efficient university rules and policies
Not concordance with research objectives
Clash with teaching objectives
Inadequate links with the industry
Inadequate cultural values
Traditional ways of teaching

KMO 0.845
2 802.861
Sig. 0.000

KMO 0.827
2 1069.519
Sig. 0.000

KMO 0.794
2 619.992
Sig. 0.000

0.884

0.831

0.591
0.558
0.587
0.621
0.661
0.627
0.584
0.726
0.546
0.685
0.727
0.754
0.592
0.579
0.654
0.716
0.710
0.716
0.649
0.647
0.618
0.503
0.667

Note:
(1) Data obtained from the 180 academics working inside an entrepreneurial university (UAB)
(2) Following the Institutional Economics adopted in this paper, these criteria were classied into formal factors (FF) and informal factors (IF)
(3) KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) tests the appropriateness of using factor analysis on data
(4) All item to total correlations were signicant at p<.01

to examine the relationship of the facilitating factors and the

barriers to the indicators of entrepreneurial success. AMOS
6.0 was used to conduct this analysis.

approximately 75% of the participants chose one of the

following three views: (a) approximately 35% of the
respondents chose Kirbys (2002) perspective of an entrepreneurial university as one that has the ability to innovate,
recognize, and create opportunities, work in teams, take risks,
and respond to challenges; (b) approximately 27% elected the
Etzkowitz (2003) perspective that an entrepreneurial university is a natural incubator that provides support structures for
teachers and students to initiate new ventures; (c) adopted by
approximately 20% of respondents was Clarks (1998) view
that an entrepreneurial university seeks to innovate in how it

Results
Phase One
Dening the entrepreneurial university. Table 2
shows that a strong consensus is lacking with regard to the
denition of an entrepreneurial university Nonetheless,

Copyright 2011 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

307

Can J Adm Sci

28(3), 302316 (2011)

MAKING UNIVERSITIES MORE ENTREPRENEURIAL: A MODEL

KIRBY ET AL.

goes about business and to work out a substantial shift in

organizational character. In all, these results imply that a
comprehensive denition of entrepreneurial university should
entail both formal and informal elements as reected by Kirby
(2002), Clark (1998), and Etzkowitz (2003).
Factors that make universities more entrepreneurial. The rank ordering of the facilitators found in
the literature as contributing to making universities
entrepreneurial (OShea et al., 2007) are presented in
Table 3. Phase one participants ranked a favourable staff
attitude toward entrepreneurship as the most important
facilitator. This is interesting since few studies have
addressed the importance of favourable attitudes (Hay
et al., 2002; Lee & Wong, 2004; Louis et al., 1989).
Other highly ranked conditions included links with
industry, exible organizational structure, entrepreneurship courses for students, and support for technology
transfer. Of lesser perceived importance were clear rules
for intellectual property ownership, minimal regulation of
new venture creation, seed funding, and science parks
(see Table 3).
Barriers to becoming more entrepreneurial. The
rank ordering of the 12 factors seen as being barriers to
making universities more entrepreneurial is presented in
Table 4. Phase one respondents ranked organizational
structure and university governance as the single biggest
barrier. Indeed, without such entrepreneurial policies as
clearly stated missions, realistic goals, and achievable
objectives (Drucker, 1985), coordinated action would be
impossible (Middlehurst, 2004; Sporn, 2001). In line with
previous studies, perceptions that entrepreneurship is not a
primary function of the university, that it inadequately links
with industry, conicts with research objectives, and that
there is a lack of entrepreneurial or management experience
were other important barriers. Less important barriers
included such factors as lack of funding and physical
resources as well as dependency on the state for funding.
This differs from previous literature suggesting that two of
the most important elements for becoming an entrepreneurial university are exibility and autonomy from the state
along with the reduction of public funding (Clark, 1998;
Sporn, 2001).
Measuring success of the entrepreneurial university. Phase one participants were asked to list up to ve
criteria that they would use to judge the success of an
entrepreneurial university. As shown in Table 5, 11 clusters
were identied and classied with respect to teaching,
research, and entrepreneurial activitiesthe three key missions of an entrepreneurial university (Guerrero, 2008). Most
research has measured entrepreneurial universities in terms of
the number of spin-off and/or start-up businesses created
(Gmez, Galiana, Mira, Verd, & Sancho, 2008) as well as
patents and licenses obtained by faculty, students, or staff.
Income generation, job creation, students and/or academic
mobility, as well as infrastructure indices could also be used.

Copyright 2011 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Since the concept of an entrepreneurial university is broad,

these multiple success criteria seem appropriate.

Phase Two
The item content from the phase two questionnaire was
subjected to a factor analysis to ensure that the three
intended constructs (criteria for success, the facilitators and
barriers to entrepreneurial universities) were reected as
intended (Shook et al., 2004). As Table 6 shows, all items
loaded signicantly on their intended factors. Cronbach
alpha for each of the three scales was .83 or higher.
Correlations, means, and standard deviations for all
variables included in the structural equation modelling are
reported in Table 7, and the results of the structural equation
model relating the facilitators and barriers to the success
criteria are shown in Figure 1.
A variety of t indices associated with our model are
shown in Figure 1. Though all of the observed variables
load on their respective latent factors (p<.05 or better) as
expected, the overall t of the model does not reach
common benchmarks. For example, GFI is .79 (.90 is
desirable) and the RMSEA is .07 (rather than .05 or lower).
In-line with cautions raised by Shook et al. (2004), we
elected not to engage in major model respecication efforts,
especially given the exploratory nature of the study. Instead,
we examined what can be learned from the ndings
associated with the hypothesized model.
First, the presence of a combination of facilitators are
positively related (.25, p. < .01, see Figure 1) to the
likelihood that a university will be seen as successful from
an entrepreneurial perspective. On the other hand, the
formal and informal barriers to entrepreneurship were not
related to perceptions of success ( .02, ns.). These results
are reected in Figure 2, which emphasizes the role of
facilitating factors in the formation of entrepreneurial
universities but does not include barriers.

Discussion
Summary
Two studies were conducted to advance the empirical
literature concerning entrepreneurial universities. In phase
one, participants evaluated the appropriateness of several
competing denitions of the concept. Further, they ranked
the importance of several facilitators and barriers to
universities becoming more entrepreneurial, and suggested
criteria for evaluating the success of such efforts. In phase
two, the faculty at UAB was surveyed to examine whether
the facilitators and barriers identied in phase one were
related to the success criteria. Although the facilitating

308

Can J Adm Sci

28(3), 302316 (2011)

Correlations

Copyright 2011 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2.554

2.194

2.296

2.558

2.526

2.312

2.292

6.59

R_ERM 6.97

R_FOS 7.42

B_ENF 6.61

6.38

R_AIE

B_SF

B_OGS 6.85

B_NPR 6.46

2.343

R_ECP 6.88

2.273

2.120

R_ECS 6.90

R_FAP 7.08

2.128

7.22

R_SP

1.964

1.970

R_NES 7.71

R_FAS 7.18

2.458

R_SNV 6.83

2.224

1.712

R_STT 7.74

R_ETM 7.42

2.312
2.226

R_RIP 6.69
R_RNV 6.92

1
.546
.000
.445
.000
.301
.000
.362
.000
.294
.000
.231
.002
.306
.000
.260
.000
.299
.000
.298
.000
.378
.000
.201
.007
.310
.000
.056
.458
.075
.317
.103
.169
.049
.513

.440
.000
.449
.000
.330
.000
.339
.000
.149
.046
.203
.006
.178
.017
.323
.000
.205
.006
.328
.000
.235
.001
.226
.002
-.005
.942
.084
.263
.119
.111
.127
.088

.345
.000
.372
.000
.365
.000
.216
.004
.264
.000
.244
.001
.419
.000
.295
.000
.399
.000
.255
.001
.294
.000
.089
.237
.121
.104
.178
.017
.200
.007

.467
.000
.387
.000
.186
.012
.391
.000
.227
.002
.259
.000
.375
.000
.509
.000
.231
.002
.276
.000
.105
.162
.166
.026
.246
.001
.239
.001

.561 1
.000
.360 .275 1
.000 .000
.525 .417 .629
.000 .000 .000
.235 .358 .296
.001 .000 .000
.262 .282 .462
.000 .000 .000
.379 .343 .366
.000 .000 .000
.430 .398 .311
.000 .000 .000
.309 .224 .439
.000 .002 .000
.297 .329 .282
.000 .000 .000
.206 .152 .271
.006 .041 .000
.188 .241 .267
.011 .001 .000
.241 .317 .224
.001 .000 .003
.223 .290 .124
.003 .000 .096

.333
.000
.383
.000
.612
.000
.560
.000
.413
.000
.325
.000
.197
.008
.197
.008
.264
.000
.155
.038

309

.372
.000
.363
.000
.316
.000
.247
.001
.390
.000
.130
.082
.322
.000
.284
.000
.302
.000

.686
.000
.494
.000
.608
.000
.268
.000
.215
.004
.340
.000
.176
.018
.246
.001

.635
.000
.455
.000
.373
.000
.271
.000
.277
.000
.342
.000
.260
.000

.370
.000
.430
.000
.176
.018
.212
.004
.252
.001
.215
.004

.277
.000
.224
.003
.372
.000
.273
.000
.292
.000

.294
.000
.203
.006
.535
.000
.310
.000

.512 1
.000
.405 .508 1
.000 .000
.262 .500 .643
.000 .000 .000

(Continues)

Std.
R_ R_ R_ R_ R_ R_ R_ R_ R_ R_ R_ R_ R_ R_ B_ B_ B_ B_ B_ B_ B_ B_ B_ M_ M_ M_ M_ M_ M_ M_
Variable Mean Deviation RIP RNV STT SNV NES SP ECS ECP ETM FAS FAP AIE ERM FOS ENF SF OGS NPR NRO CTO ILI ICV TWT JS Entr SP PI KT EC SRD

Descriptive statistics

Table 7
Correlation Matrix

MAKING UNIVERSITIES MORE ENTREPRENEURIAL: A MODEL

KIRBY ET AL.

Can J Adm Sci

28(3), 302316 (2011)

Correlations

Copyright 2011 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2.710

2.279

2.515

2.546

1.969

B_CTO 5.92

6.94

6.02

B_ILI

B_ICV

B_TWT 5.96

M_JS

310

1.895

2.464

2.260

8.02

7.41

6.29

5.74

M_SP

M_PI

M_KT

M_EC

M_SRD 6.88

2.447

2.052

2.476

M_Entre 6.68

7.62

2.750

B_NRO 6.00

.294
.136
.068
.141

.006
.192
.010
.108

.367
.024
.747
.058
.443
.126
.093
.133

.125 .075
.334 .125
.000 .094
.182 -.051

.753
.314
.000
.043
.568
.201
.007
.115

.140
.161
.031
.206
.005
.292
.000
.111

.546
.097
.194
.216
.004
.539
.000
.224

.025 .622 .137 .136 .003

.208 .219 .096 .101 .162
.005 .003 .199 .175 .030
.055 .060-.002-.080 -.073

.016 .024 .034

.126 .294 .278
.092 .000 .000
.139 .194 .174
.063 .009 .019
.150 .248 .332
.044 .001 .000
.168 .037 .111

.456
.227
.002
.162
.029
.079

.001
.357
.000
.373
.000
.191

.622
.043
.568
.070
.350
.033

.725 .187 .182 .031

.174 .224 .043 .047
.019 .003 .563 .531
.142 .209 .039 .080
.057 .005 .605 .287
.024 .098-.032-.090

.284
.129
.084
.153
.040
.070

.137 .441 .286 .846

.178 .052 .103 .079
.017 .488 .169 .290
.119 -.021 - .071
.077
.111 .779 .304 .341
.072 -.092 - -.017
.036
.336 .220 .629 .822
.289 .087 .088 .171
.000 .244 .238 .021
.260 .095 .159 .170
.000 .203 .033 .023
.066 -.067 .008 -.058

.105 .290 .010 .664 .752 .190 .674 .229 .352 .376 .373 .914 .437

.087
.156
.037
.122
.103
.121

.148 .060 .014 .497 .462 .423 .975 .285 .329

.128 .056 .235 -.037 .026 .099-.100-.161 .080

.467
.167
.025
.020
.787
.134
.074
.079

.752
.109
.145
.056
.455
.149
.046
.206

.590 .247 .517 .295 .007 .024 .063 .242 .609

.024 .055 -.024 .068 .179 .169 .158 .110 .045

- .094
.077
.945 .694 .303 .207
-.017-.011 - .036
.022
.817 .886 .774 .630
.314 .183 .059 .328
.000 .014 .428 .000
.325 .304 .204 .288
.000 .000 .006 .000
.398 .306 .229 .334
.000 .000 .002 .000
.111 .058 .080 -.015

.040 .087 -.049 .078 .202 .168 .139 .088 .038 -.005 .029

.000 .001 .000

.238 .265 .242
.001 .000 .001
.349 .452 .332
.000 .000 .000
.144 .248 .228
.053 .001 .002
.039 - -.008
.044
.097 .603 .560 .919
.158 .103 .055 .067
.034 .170 .461 .373
.030 .017 - -.101
.049
.685 .816 .512 .176
.021 -.069 - -.055
.052
.781 .354 .491 .460
.084 .063 .076 .042
.260 .399 .313 .572
.151 .014 .082 .040
.044 .855 .276 .593
.017 -.097 - -.112
.132
.821 .196 .077 .133

.023
.079
.291
.108
.150
.230
.002
.124
.159 1
.033
.267 .355 1
.000 .000
.051 .321 .346
.500 .000 .000
.037 - -.033
.112
.500 .618 .135 .658
-.046 .073 .122 .005
.540 .331 .104 .950
-.054 -.062 .048-.090

.000
.217
.003
.355
.000
.053
.476
-.051

.134
.155
.038
.123
.100
.137

.000 .000 .000

.375 .668 .468.718 1
.000 .000 .000.000
.328 .650 .426.689 .797 1
.000 .000 .000.000 .000
.407 .577 .420.693 .610 .702

.421 .000 .000

.112 .427 .638 .586 1

.032
.152 .687 1
.041 .000
.060 .315 .423 1

.160 1

.599 .022 .286 .698 .256 .067 .000 .000 .000.000 .000 .000

.910 .475 .410 .522 .228

.085 -.143 -.103 - -.032
.017
.255 .056 .170 .824 .669
.184 -.061 -.010 .154-.028
.013 .413 .894 .039 .706
.190 -.148 -.055 .114-.025
.011 .047 .464 .128 .737
.039 -.171 -.080 .029-.085

.322
.225
.002
.009

.031
.306
.000
.404
.000
.347
.000
.074

.156 .000 .000 .000 .170

.170 .275 .244 .293 .161 .769

.106 .372 .289 .266 .103

Std.
R_ R_ R_ R_ R_ R_ R_ R_ R_ R_ R_ R_ R_ R_ B_ B_ B_ B_ B_ B_ B_ B_ B_ M_ M_ M_ M_ M_ M_ M_
Variable Mean Deviation RIP RNV STT SNV NES SP ECS ECP ETM FAS FAP AIE ERM FOS ENF SF OGS NPR NRO CTO ILI ICV TWT JS Entr SP PI KT EC SRD

Descriptive statistics

Table 7
(Continued)

MAKING UNIVERSITIES MORE ENTREPRENEURIAL: A MODEL

KIRBY ET AL.

Can J Adm Sci

28(3), 302316 (2011)

MAKING UNIVERSITIES MORE ENTREPRENEURIAL: A MODEL

KIRBY ET AL.

Figure 1.
Structural equation model and main parameters of entrepreneurial university constructs

m9
m10
m11
m12
m13
m14
m15
m16
m17
m18
m19
m20
m21
m22

m23
m24
m25
m26
m27
m28
m29
m30
m31

R_RIP
1.000

R_RNV
0.825

R_STT
0.797

R_SNV
1.216

R_NES
1.019

R_SP
0.990

1
1
1

R_ECS
0.788

Facilitators

R_ECP
1.312
R_ETM
0.822

1
1
1
1

0.254

R_FAS
0.950
R_FAP
1.244
R_ERM
0.894
R_AIE
1.617

Success
Criteria

R_FOS
0.971

B_ENF
1.000

B_SF
1.254

B_OGS
0.953

B_NRP
0.670

1
1
1

M_Entre
2.134

M_SP
1.108

M_PI
1.827

M_EC
2.311

M_JS
1.000

M_SRD
1.792

-0.023

m3
m4
m5
m6

m7

m8

Informal Factors

Barriers

B_NRO
0.904

Formal Factors

B_CTO
0.643
B_ILI
0.599
B_ICV
0.972

B_TWT
0.556

Relationships
Facilitators

<-->

Success Criteria

<-->

Absolute Measures

Estimate

S .E .

C .R .

Success Criteria

.254

.109

2.334

**

Barriers

-.023

.122

-.188

.851

Incremental Measures

Parsimony

736,503(378)

AGFI

0.740

PGFI

0.641

NCP

358.503

NFI

0.760

X2 /gl
AIC

1.948
1120.690

GFI

0.789

IFI

0.867

RMR

0.674

RFI

0.724

CFI

0.864

RMSEA
0.073
Note: ***p < 0,001; ** p < 0,005; * p < 0,010

factors were positively associated with indices of the

entrepreneurial university, the overall model was not a
good t, at least in part because the expected negative
relationship between the barriers and the success criteria was
not observed.

Copyright 2011 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Contributions to Scholarship
The development of a consensus concerning the
denition of entrepreneurship must precede and guide
meaningful empirical studies. Phase one contributes to the

311

Can J Adm Sci

28(3), 302316 (2011)

MAKING UNIVERSITIES MORE ENTREPRENEURIAL: A MODEL

KIRBY ET AL.

Figure 2.
Proposed conceptual framework of entrepreneurial universities

Entrepreneurship courses for

students and academics

Entrepreneurial University

Formal Factors

Support for technology transfer

Teaching
Generation of job seekers
Generation of entrepreneurs

Support measures for start-ups

Links with industry
Incubators & Science Park

Outcomes

Research
Publishing scientific papers
Knowledge transfer (patents,
licenses, contracts)

Flexible organizational and

governance structure

Informal Factors

Favourable student attitudes

Entrepreneurial activities
Promotion of entrepreneurial
culture (spin-offs and measure
of the effect of entrepreneurial
electives on student attitudes)
Contribution to regional
development (jobs created,
funding)

Favourable academic attitudes

Entrepreneurship role models
Adequate cultural values
Appropriate reward system
Ways of teaching

literature by examining the degree to which each of six

perspectives contributes to the meaning of an entrepreneurial university. The diversity of ideas concerning the concept
was reected in the nding that even the most frequently
endorsed perspective (from Kirby, 2002) was chosen by
only 35% of the respondents, followed closely by 27% for
the Etzkowitz (2003) view, and 20% for Clark (1998).
Consistent with institutional economics (North 1990), both
formal and informal factors were seen as likely contributors
to the development of an entrepreneurial university (see
Figure 2). Finally, given that the concept of the entrepreneurial university is broad, it is no surprise that phase one
participants suggested a wide range of criteria that could be
used to evaluate entrepreneurial success outcomes (see
Table 5). In all, the major implication of these ndings is
that researchers must make clear which facets of entrepreneurial university they are examining, and against which
success criteria.
Phase two applied the ndings of the rst study by
empirically examining the extent to which the facilitators
and barriers to entrepreneurial universities were linked to

Copyright 2011 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

perceived success at UAB. Although the facilitators of

entrepreneurial universities were signicantly related to
indices of success, the overall model was not a good t at
least partly because the barriers did not have a signicant
negative relationship to success. A possible reason for this
unexpected outcome is that UAB is already widely
recognized as a successful entrepreneurial university. As
such, barriers to university entrepreneurship might be
minimal at UAB, thus presenting a range restriction issue.

Applied Implications
The ndings from phase one have especially important
implications for universities who are considering becoming
more entrepreneurial. First, the administrators, faculty,
government, and industry stakeholders involved must be
clear on what being entrepreneurial means to them. An
examination of the denitions in Table 1 reveals a wide
range of possibilities (e.g., emphasizing the generation of
licensing agreements vs. initiating start-ups, or both) and

312

Can J Adm Sci

28(3), 302316 (2011)

MAKING UNIVERSITIES MORE ENTREPRENEURIAL: A MODEL

KIRBY ET AL.

roles for various stakeholders (students, faculty, outside

business people). Further, after considering the range of
challenges involved, some universities may elect not to
emphasize entrepreneurism. Generating consensus regarding
the ultimate goals is likely difcult enough in most organizations, but as our model implies (see Figure 2), multiple
resources must then be acquired to support those aims.
Our ndings also have important implications for
policy makers, especially in North America where the
concept of an entrepreneurial university is less widely
known and less formalized. In an era of tight budgets at both
the local and national levels, elected ofcials in Canada and
the US could well consider the possibility of asking
universities to more formally and more directly make
contributions to the development of new products and
services as well as job creation in return for a given level of
funding. No doubt Canadian and American universities
would face many of the same challenges as those in Europe.
For example, even within business schools in North
America it has often been difcult for academics and those
with corporate backgrounds to work together successfully
(e.g., McFarland & Waldie, 2010) due to, among other
things, disagreements concerning goals and priorities.

References
Aidis, R., Estrin, S., & Mickiewicz, T.. (2008). Institutions and
entrepreneurship development in Russia: a comparative
perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(6), 656672.
Antonic, B., & Hisrich, R.D. (2001). Intrapreneurship: construct
renement and cross cultural validation. Journal of Business
Venturing, 10(1), 49552.
Bernasconi, A.. (2005). University Entrepreneurship in a Developing
Country: The Case of the P. Universidad Catlica de Chile,
19852000. Higher Education, 50(2), 247274.
Birley, S. (2002). Universities, Academics, and Spinout Companies:
Lessons from the Imperial. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1(1), 13353.
Braczyk, H.-J., Cooke, P., & Heidenreich, M. (1998). Regional
Innovation Systems. UCL Press Limited.
Bygrave, W., & Minniti, M. (2000). The social dynamics of
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice,
24(3), 2536.
Bygrave, W.D. (1994). The Portable MBA in Entrepreneurship:
Complete coverage of what leading business schools teach
about entrepreneurship. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Bygrave, W.D., & Hofer, C.W. (1991). Theorizing about
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
16(2), 1322.
Carmichael, H.L. (1988). Incentives in Academics: Why is There
Tenure?. The Journal of Political Economy, 96(3), 453472.
Carsrud, A.L. (1991). Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Formation:
A Brief Perspective on the Infrastructure in Europe.
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 15(3), 6975.
Chrisman, J., Hynes, T., & Fraser, S. (1995). Faculty Entrepreneurship and Economic development: The Case of the
University of Calgary. Journal of Business Venturing, 10,
26781.
Clark, B.R. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Coduras, A., Urbano, D., Rojas, A., & Martnez, S. (2008). The
relationship between university support to entrepreneurship
with entrepreneurial activity in Spain: A GEM Data Based
Analysis. International Advances in Economic Research, 14,
395406.
Cooke, P. (2002). Regional Innovation Systems: General Findings
and Some New Evidence from Biotechnology Clusters. The
Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(1), 133145.
Cumbers, A., Leibovitz, J., & MacKinnon, D. (2007). Institutional
features, path dependencies and regional industrial change:
comparing mature and embryonic clusters in an old industrial
region. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Innovation Management, 7, 424444.
Darling, J., Gabrielsson, M., & Serista, H. (2007). Enhancing
contemporary entrepreneurship. A focus on management
leadership. European Business Review, 19(1), 422.
De Zilwa, D. (2005). Using Entrepreneurial Activities as a means
of survival: Investigating the processes used by Australian
Universities to diversify their revenue streams. Higher
Education, 50(3), 387411.
Dearlove, J. (2002). A Continuing Role of Academics: The
Governance of UK Universities in the Post-Dearing Era.
Higher Education Quarterly, 53(3), 257275.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study is limited in that all data were based on
subjective perceptions. Obviously it would be of interest to
use more relatively objective measures, especially with
regard to outcomes (e.g., counts of start-ups, licensing
agreements, and job creation). Some of the facilitators in our
model of entrepreneurial universities (Figure 2) are
potentially amenable to objective measurement as well
(e.g., credit hours of entrepreneurship course offerings,
incubator budgets).
In terms of generalization, the data for the second study
were collected at a single well-known large entrepreneurial
university. Thus, the ndings could be different at other
universities and even within UAB itself. For example,
faculty in technological and experimental studies could be
subject to different facilitators and barriers than those
faculties in economics. Furthermore, and as noted earlier,
the role of our hypothesized barriers may well emerge in a
sample of universities where entrepreneurism has not
already been well-established. Finally, all data were
collected in Spain, leaving the possibility that unique
cultural, social, and political (e.g., government policy)
factors may have inuenced our ndings. The generalization
of our results across cultures and regional and national
boundaries needs to be assessed. As far as we know, our
study is the rst to identify and empirically examine
facilitators and barriers to the success of entrepreneurial
universities. As such, we expect the ndings to generate
debate and perhaps further renement of the concept.

Copyright 2011 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

313

Can J Adm Sci

28(3), 302316 (2011)

MAKING UNIVERSITIES MORE ENTREPRENEURIAL: A MODEL

KIRBY ET AL.

structural equation model. International Entrepreneurship

and Management Journal, 4(1), 3550.
Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2011). The development of an
entrepreneurial university. The Journal of Technology
Transfer. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/
s10961-010-9171-x
Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., & Kirby, D. (2006). A literature review
on entrepreneurial universities: an institutional approach.
Working paper n 6/8. Working Papers Series (Autonomous
University of Barcelona. Business Economics Department).
Hanson, M. (2001). Institutional Theory and Educational Change.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 637661.
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
(pp. 132141). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Jack, S., & Anderson, A. (1999). Entrepreneurship education
within the enterprise culture. Producing reective practitioners. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour
and Research, 5(3), 110125.
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),
15551569.
Katz, J. (2003). The Chronology and Intellectual Trajectory of
American Entrepreneurship Education: 18761999. Journal
of Business Venturing, 18(2), 283300.
Kirby, D.A. (1992). Developing Graduate Entrepreneurs: the UK
Graduate Enterprise Programme. Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Change, 1(2), 165177.
Kirby, D.A. (2002). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: A
Consideration. School of Management. Working Paper,
University of Surrey.
Kirby, D.A. (2003). Entrepreneurship. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.
Kirby, D.A. (2006). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities in the
UK: Applying entrepreneurship theory to practice. The
Journal of Technology Transfer, 31,599603.
Klofsten, M., & Jones-Evans, D. (2000). Comparing Academic
Entrepreneurship in Europe-The Case of Sweden and Ireland.
Small Business Economics, 14(4), 299310.
Krueger, N.F., & Brazeal, D. (1994). Entrepreneurial Potential and
Potential Entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 18(3), 91104.
Krueger, N.F., Reilly, M.D., & Carsrud, A.L. (2000). Competing
models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business
Venturing, 15, 411432.
Laukkanen, M. (2000). Exploring Alternative Approaches in Highlevel Entrepreneurship Education: Creating Micro-mechanisms
for Endogenous Regional Growth. Entrepreneurship and
Regional Development, 12, 2547.
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) 475493.
Lee, S.H., & Wong, P.K. (2004). An Exploratory Study of
Technopreneurial Intentions: A career anchor perspective.
Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 728.
Lin, F., & Chen, Y.-W. (2009). Development and crosscultural application of a specic instrument to measure

Degroof, J., & Roberts, E. (2004). Overcoming Weak Entrepreneurial Infrastructures for Academic Spin-Off Ventures. The
Journal of Technology Transfer, 3/ 4 (8), 327352.
Del Palacio, I., Sol, F., & Montiel, H. (2006). University spin-off
programmes: How can they support the NTBF creation?
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
2(2), 157172.
Dill, D. (1995). University-industry entrepreneurship: the organization and management of American university technology
transfer units. Higher Education, 29, 369384.
Doloreux, D., Dionne, S., & Lapointe, D. (2007). Institutional
structure and modes of governance in non-metropolitan
innovation systems. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 7, 405423.
Doutriaux, J. (1991). University culture, spin-off strategy and
success of academic entrepreneurs at Canadian universities.
Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley: Babson
College.
Drucker, P.F. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New
York: Harper and Row.
Etzkowitz, H. (1983). Entrepreneurial Scientists and Entrepreneurial Universities in American Academic Science. Minerva, 21,
198233.
Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as quasi rms: the
invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy,
32, 10921.
Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The evolution of the Entrepreneurial
University. International Journal of Technology and Globalization, 1, 6477.
Etzkowitz, H., & Klofsten, M. (2005). The Innovating Region:
Toward a Theory of Knowledge-Based Regional Development. Research and Development Management, 35(3),
243255.
Ferguson, R., & Olofsson, C. (2004). Science Parks and the
Development of NTBFs Location, Survival and Growth.
The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 517.
Finkle, T., & Deeds, D. (2001). Trends in the Market for
Entrepreneurship Faculty 19891998. Journal of Business
Venturing, 16, 613630.
Franklin, S., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2001). Academic and
Surrogate Entrepreneurs in University Spin-out Companies.
The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 127141.
Gibb, A. (2005). Towards the Entrepreneurial University.
Entrepreneurship Education as a lever for change. England:
National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship.
Gmez, J.M., Galiana, D.R., Mira, I., Verd, A.J., & Sancho, J.
(2008). An empirical approach to the organisational
determinants of spin-off creation in European universities.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
4(2), 187198.
Grandi, A., & Grimaldi, R. (2005). Academics Organizational
Characteristics and the Generation of Successful Business
Ideas. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(6), 821845.
Guerrero, M. (2008). The Creation and Development of
Entrepreneurial Universities in Spain. An institutional
approach. PhD Thesis. Spain: Autonomous University of
Barcelona.
Guerrero, M., Rialp, J., & Urbano, D. (2008). The impact of
desirability and feasibility on entrepreneurial intentions: A

Copyright 2011 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

314

Can J Adm Sci

28(3), 302316 (2011)

MAKING UNIVERSITIES MORE ENTREPRENEURIAL: A MODEL

KIRBY ET AL.

globalized economy. Working Paper Department of Economics, Philipps- Universitt Marburg, Germany.
Rothaermel, F.T., Agung, S.D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University
Entrepreneurship: taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and
Corporate Change, 16(4), 691791.
Ruiz, J., Parellada, F.S., & Veciana, J.M. (2004): Creacin de
Empresas y Universidad. Spain: Fundacin Universidad
Empresa de la Provincia de Cdiz.
Schulte, P. (2004). The Entrepreneurial University: A Strategy
for Institutional Development. Higher Education in Europe,
29(2), 187191.
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, 397404.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L.L. (1997). Academic Capitalism:
Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University. London:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Smilor, R.W., Gibson, D.V., & Dietrich, G.B. (1990). University
spin-out companies: Technology start-ups from UT-Austin.
Journal of Business Venturing, 5(1), 6376.
Sotirakou, T. (2004). Coping with conict within the
entrepreneurial university: Treat or challenge for heads
of departments in the UK higher education context.
International Review of Administrative Sciences, 70(2),
345372.
Sporn, B. (2001). Building Adaptive Universities: Emerging
Organisational Forms Based on Experiences of European
and US Universities. Tertiary Education and Management,
7(2), 121134.
Stephen, F., Urbano, D., & van Hemmen, S. (2009). The
responsiveness of entrepreneurs to working time regulations.
Small Business Economics, 32, 259276.
Subotzky, G. (1999). Alternatives to the Entrepreneurial
University: New Modes of Knowledge Production in Community Service Programs. Higher Education, 38(4), 401440.
Thornton, P., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Urbano, D. (2011). Sociocultural factors and entrepreneurial activity: an overview.
International Small Business Journal, 29(2), 105118.
Tijssen, R. (2007). Universities and industrially relevant
science: Towards measurement models and indicators
of entrepreneurial orientation. Research Policy, 35,
15691585.
Timmons, J.A., & Spinelli, S. (2004). New Venture Creation:
Entrepreneurship for the 21st century. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Van Vught, F. (1989). A New Autonomy in European Higher
Education? An Exploration and Analysis of the Strategy of
Self-Regulation in Higher Education Governance. International Journal of Institutional Management in Higher
Education, 12(1), 1626.
Van Vught, F. (1999). Innovative Universities. Tertiary Education
and Management, 5(4), 347354.
Veciana, J.M., Aponte, M., & Urbano, D. (2005). University
attitudes to entrepreneurship: A two countries comparison.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
1(2), 165182.
Veciana, J.M., & Urbano, D. (2008). The institutional approach to
entrepreneurship research. An Introduction. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(4), 365379.

entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice,

33(3), 593617.
Lian, 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), 187215.
Link, A., & Scott, J. (2005). Opening the ivory towers door: An
analysis of the determinants of the formation of US university
spin-off companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 11061112.
Louis, K.S., Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M.E., & Stoto, M.A. (1989).
Entrepreneurs in Academe: An exploration of Behaviors
among Life Scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly,
34(1), 110131.
McFarland, J., & Waldie, P. (2010, December 17). McMaster
business school dean resigns. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved
from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/mcmasterbusiness-school-dean-resigns/article1843284/
McNay, I. (1995). From Collegial Academy to Corporate
Enterprise: The Changing Cultures of Universities. In
Schuller, T. (Ed.), The Changing University? (pp. 105115).
Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press.
Mian, S. (1996). The university business incubators: A strategy for
development of new research/technology-based rms. The
Journal of High Technology Management Research, 7(2),
191208.
Miclea, M. (2004). Learning to Do as a Pillar of Education and Its
Links to Entrepreneurial Studies in Higher Education:
European Contexts and Approaches. Higher Education in
Europe, 39(2), 221231.
Middlehurst, R. (2004). Changing Internal Governance: A
Discussion of Leadership Roles and Management Structures in UK Universities. Higher Education Quarterly,
58(4), 258279.
Mok, K. (2005). Fostering entrepreneurship: Changing role of
government and higher education governance in Hong Kong.
Research Policy, 34(4), 537554.
North, D.C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic
performance. Cambridge: University Press.
North, D.C. (2005). Understanding the process of economic
change. Princeton: University Press
OShea, R.P., Allen, T.J., Morse, K.P., OGorman, C., & Roche, F.
(2007). Delineating the anatomy of an entrepreneurial
university: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology experience. R & D Management, 37(1), 116.
Pinchot, G. (1985). Intrapreneuring: why you dont have to leave
the corporation to become an entrepreneur. New York:
Harper & Row
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), 301320.
Ray, D.M. (1997) Teaching Entrepreneurship in Asia: Impact of a
pedagogical innovation. Entrepreneurship, Innovation and
Change, 6(3), 193227.
Robinson, P., & Haynes, M. (1991). Entrepreneurship Education in
Americas Major Universities. Entrepreneurship: Theory and
Practice, 15(3), 4153.
Rpke, J. (1998). The Entrepreneurial University, Innovation,
academic knowledge creation and regional development in a

Copyright 2011 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

315

Can J Adm Sci

28(3), 302316 (2011)

MAKING UNIVERSITIES MORE ENTREPRENEURIAL: A MODEL

KIRBY ET AL.

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,
405425.
Yokoyama, K. (2006). Entrepreneurialism in Japanese and UK
Universities: Governance, management, leadership and funding.
Higher Education, 52, 523555.
Zaharia, S. (2002). A Comparative Overview of Some Fundamental
Aspects of University Management as Practiced in Several
European Countries. Higher Education in Europe, 37(3),
301311.
Zhao, F. (2004). Academic Entrepreneurship: Case study of
Australian Universities. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 5(2), 9197.

Venkataraman, S. (2004). Regional Transformation through

Technological Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing,
19, 153167.
Vesper, K.H., & Gartner, W.B. (1997). Measuring Progress in
Entrepreneurship Education. Journal of Business Venturing,
12(5), 403421.
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, International
Studies in Entrepreneurship (pp. 93112). New York:
Springer.
Williams, G. (2003). The Enterprising University: Reform,
Excellence and Equity. Buckingham: The Society for
Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Appendix: European Entrepreneurial Universities according to Entrepreneurship Experts

Entrepreneurial Universities
Technological Orientation
Austria
Belgium

Graz, Hagenberg

Denmark

Aalborg, IT University

Estonia
Finland

Tallinn Technical University

Helsinki University of Technology*, Tampere
University of Technology*, Oulu University*
Karlsruhe*
Dublin Institute of Technology, Dundalk
Institute of Technology
Kaunas University of Technology

Germany
Ireland
Lithuania
Netherlands
Russia
Scotland
Spain

Sweden

General Orientation
Vienna*, Klagenfurt, Innsbruck
Vlerick Leuven-gent School of Management*,
Catholic of Louvain, Catholic of Leuven
Umea School of Business and Economics*,
The Southern Danish, Jonkoping International Business School,
Aarhus School of Business, Copenhagen Business School*
Estonian Business School, University of Tartu
University of Jyvaskyla, University of Turku
Stuttgart*
University of Limerick, University of Ulster (Northern Ireland),
University College Dublin*
Vilnius University, ISM University of Management and
Economics
Erasmus Rotterdam
Moscow State Lomonossov University

Twente *
State Nicholas Baumann technical, Moscow
Physical-technical
Universidad Politcnica de Catalua,
Universidad Politcnica de Valencia,
Universidad Politcnica de Madrid
Chalmers University of Technology*, Karolinska
Institutet

Switzerland
United Kingdom

Strathclyde* The Robert Gordon University

Carlos III, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela,
Universidad Autnoma de Barcelona, Universidad
Autnoma de Madrid, Universidad Miguel
Hernndez de Elche, Deusto
Linkping University*, Vxj University, Lund University*,
Stockholm School of Economics in Riga*, Jnkping
International Business School
St. Gallen
Cambridge*, Manchester, London Business School,
Edinburgh*, Surrey*, Durham*, Warwick*, Southampton*

* Included in the top 100 European universities: www.webometrics.info/top500_europe.asp.htm and http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/

2004/top500list.htm.

Copyright 2011 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

316

Can J Adm Sci

28(3), 302316 (2011)