J Technol Transf (2014) 39:415–434

DOI 10.1007/s10961-012-9287-2

Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions:

a case study comparison

Maribel Guerrero • David Urbano • James Cunningham •

Damien Organ

Published online: 6 December 2012

Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Abstract An entrepreneurial university is a natural incubator that tries to provide a

supportive environment in which the university community can explore, evaluate and
exploit ideas that could be transformed into social and economic entrepreneurial initiatives.
Entrepreneurial universities are involved in partnerships, networks and other relationships
to generate an umbrella for interaction, collaboration and co-operation. Rapid develop-
ments in science, the multidisciplinary nature of frontier research, legislative changes such
as the Bayh–Dole Act and demands from business and society have shaped knowledge-
based entrepreneurship within universities. Despite sharing similar historical backgrounds,
economic conditions and cultural and social structures, entrepreneurial universities in most
countries remain distinct from one another by their institutional arrangements, traditions
and characteristics unique to each organization. Interestingly, no comparative research has
been conducted to understand the similarities and differences of the conditioning factors
and the outcomes/outputs of entrepreneurial universities in different regions that share
similar social, economic and political conditions. This paper addresses this research deficit,
adopting institutional economics and resource-based view. We compare entrepreneurial
universities in two European regions (Spain and Ireland) using an in-depth qualitative
A previous version of this paper was presented at the 2011 Technology Transfer Society Annual Conference
(Augsburg, Germany).

M. Guerrero (&)
Orkestra-Basque Institute of Competitiveness and Deusto Business School,
Donostia-San Sebastian, Spain
e-mail: maribel.guerrero@orkestra.deusto.es; maribel.guerrero@uab.cat

M. Guerrero
D. Urbano
Business Economics Department, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain
e-mail: david.urbano@uab.cat

J. Cunningham
D. Organ
J.E. Cairnes School of Business & Economics and the Whitaker Institute,
National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland
e-mail: james.cunningham@nuigalway.ie
D. Organ
e-mail: d.organ1@nuigalway.ie

123
416 M. Guerrero et al.

approach based on multiple case studies (two Spanish universities and two Irish univer-
sities) between 2006 and 2010. The findings provide organizational practices and
approaches relevant to the transformation process of other regional universities seeking to
become entrepreneurial.

Keywords Entrepreneurial universities
Institutional economics
Resource-based view

Europe

JEL Classification M13
L26
I23
I28

1 Introduction

In an entrepreneurial society, knowledge-based entrepreneurship has emerged as a driving

force for economic growth, employment creation and competitiveness in global markets
(Audretsch 2009). In the United States, the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980 epitomized this phe-
nomenon and has embodied a model for academic policies in many countries. Some member
countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), how-
ever, have reformed legislation related to academic entrepreneurship, but still there are
several research opportunities in terms of systems, university and individual levels (Grimaldi
et al. 2011). As argued by Argote and Ingram (2000), the necessary knowledge and tech-
nology transfer within an entrepreneurial society occurs when the experiences of actors in the
economy influence the behavior and activities of others. In this context, the entrepreneurial
university serves as both a knowledge producer and a disseminating organization to wider
society. An entrepreneurial university is a natural incubator that, by adopting a coordinated
strategy across critical activities (e.g., teaching, research and entrepreneurship), tries to
provide an adequate atmosphere in which the university community (e.g., academics, stu-
dents and staff) can explore, evaluate and exploit ideas that could be transformed into social
and economic entrepreneurial initiatives (Kirby et al. 2011). To this end, entrepreneurial
universities engage in a wide range of networks and relationships, with both private and
public organizations, which serve as umbrellas for collaboration and co-operation (Inzelt
2004). These interactions are both manifestations and key components of the university’s
strategic responses to the entrepreneurial imperative in order to be a reference of technology
transfer in a global economy. Entrepreneurial universities in most countries face similar
challenges: maintaining research capacity, combining elite with mass higher education,
offering lifelong education and providing society with a space for the development and
maintenance of critical knowledge, independent thinking, social identity and values. Despite
these similarities and comparable historical backgrounds, economic conditions and cultural
and social structures, entrepreneurial universities remain distinct from one another by their
arrangements, traditions and characteristics unique to each organization. The entrepreneurial
university phenomenon has gained the attention of academics, governments and policy-
makers around the world, who are supporting it with a variety of measures. Hence, the
existing literature and empirical studies on entrepreneurial universities provides insights
about the transformation process, the technology transfer and the outcomes of entrepreneurial
universities in developed countries (e.g., the United States by O’Shea et al. 2005, 2007; Link
and Scott 2005; and Europe by Clark 1998; Klofsten and Jones-Evans 2000; Kirby 2005;
Wright et al. 2007; Guerrero and Urbano 2012). However, no comparative research has been
conducted to understand: (1) the similarities and differences of the conditioning factors of
entrepreneurial universities in different regions that share similar social, economic and

123
Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions 417

political conditions; and (2) the similarities and differences of the outcomes/outputs of
entrepreneurial universities in different regions that share similar social, economic and
political conditions. Adopting institutional economics (IE) and resource-based view (RBV),
this paper addresses this research deficit using an in-depth qualitative approach based on
multiple case studies of entrepreneurial universities (two technical and two broad-based)
located in two comparable1 European regions (Spain and Ireland) (Roller and Sloat 2002;
Harzig et al. 2006). Comparing regions that have similar social, economic and political
conditions allows us to identify potential differences and offers us a real-world opportunity
for learning about entrepreneurial academics, policymakers, practitioners and citizens. After
this introduction the paper is organized as follow: Sect. 2 introduces the theoretical frame-
work adopted for the investigation; Sect. 3 describes the methodology designed; Sect. 4
outlines the empirical findings and discussions; and Sect. 5 provides some conclusions of the
study and implications for further research.

2 Entrepreneurial universities theoretical framework: conditioning factors, outcomes

and outputs

The majority of entrepreneurial universities’ theoretical models have adopted the RBV to
help explain the internal factors (resources and capabilities) of organizations that generate a
competitive advantage; that is, to understand the factors involved in the spinoff process within
entrepreneurial universities (Di Gregorio and Shane 2003; Shane 2004; O’Shea et al. 2005,
2007; Rothaermel et al. 2007; Wright et al. 2007). Adopting the institutional economics
approach, Veciana and Urbano (2008) and Thornton et al. (2011) identified some significant
factors involved in the context of a wider paradigmatic shift toward entrepreneurship; par-
ticularly, several environmental conditions that can be either formal (political rules, nor-
mative, contracts, etc.) or informal (codes of conduct, attitudes, values, norms of behavior,
etc.). Following these arguments, Guerrero and Urbano (2012) proposed an integrated model
to understand both environmental and internal conditioning factors that explain entrepre-
neurial universities in a specific region. However, this model does not consider the similarities
and differences of these factors in entrepreneurial universities in different regions nor how
those factors could be associated with the universities’ activities (outcomes) and the impact
on social and economic development (outputs). Based on that, Fig. 1 presents an adapted
model that helps us to analyze the conditioning factors (environmental factors drawn from
institutional economics and internal factors drawn from the resource-based view of the firm)
and the relationship with the entrepreneurial university outcomes (teaching, research and
entrepreneurship) and outputs (economic and social).

2.1 Conditioning factors

2.1.1 Environmental conditioning factors

The organization and governance structure of the university refers to its internal man-
agement structures, decision-making mechanisms and leadership functions. With respect to
the entrepreneurial university, Van Vught (1999) argues that horizontal coordination

1
According to Eurostat, in 2008 the percentage of population aged 25–34 years enrolled in higher edu-
cation was 42 % in Ireland and 38 % in Catalonia. Also in that year, the percentage of expenses of research
and development was 1.45 (Ireland) and 1.62 (Catalonia); and the gross domestic product (GDP) was
0.00348 (Ireland) and 0.00333 (Catalonia) (OECD).

123
418 M. Guerrero et al.

Conditioning Factors (F) Outcomes (O) Outputs (E)

EF1: Entrepreneurial organization and governance
Environmental

structure
EF2: Support measures for entrepreneurship
O1: Teaching
(E)

EF3: Entrepreneurship education programs

Activities E1:
EF4: Attitudes toward entrepreneurship
O2: Research Economical
EF5: Role models
Activities
EF6: Reward systems
O3: E2:
IF1: Human capital
Internal (I)

Entrepreneurial Social
IF2: Financial capital
Activities
IF3: Technological capital
IF4: Social capital
IF5: Status and prestige

Fig. 1 Entrepreneurial universities’ model. Source: adapted from Guerrero and Urbano (2012)

enabled by higher levels of autonomy lends itself more favorably to the integration of
intellectual, financial and physical resources than the traditional hierarchal and bureau-
cratic model. The governance structure of the university becomes integral to the nature of
its entrepreneurial mission (O’Shea et al. 2007). This influences the range of support
measures developed within the universities to support new firm creation, including small
university businesses, research facilities, research groups or quasi firms, liaison offices,
technology transfer offices and incubators (Link and Scott 2005; Grandi and Grimaldi
2005). These support measures attempt to reduce the conflict that may exist between the
roles of an academic and an entrepreneur (Lockett and Wright 2005), while also allowing
academic entrepreneurs to create links with external agents and markets (Vohora et al.
2004). Also, entrepreneurial universities have incorporated continuing entrepreneurship
education programs, exchange programs and collaboration strategies between university
and industry. These strategies allow students and/or academics to reinforce their entre-
preneurial skills and capabilities, as well as to spend several months interacting with an
enterprise or industrial organization in order to gain experience and information that
influences their professional experience and teaching (Lee and Win 2004). Primary actors
in the emergence of the entrepreneurial university are the university community (students,
faculty, administration), and a key factor in the fulfillment of the entrepreneurial univer-
sity’s mission is the nature of these members’ attitudes toward entrepreneurship. In the
university context, most entrepreneurial intentions models have been applied using
undergraduate university students from business, engineering, medical and others courses
(Guerrero et al. 2008), with only a small number of studies analyzing entrepreneurial
intention among faculty and administration. Louis et al. (1989) explore entrepreneurship in
research university units, finding that individual attitudes as well as characteristics are the
most important predictors of academic entrepreneurship in large-scale science, earning
supplement income, industry support, patenting, and research commercialization. Favor-
able attitudes toward entrepreneurship can be understood as a fundamental component of
the facilitation of key activities central to the entrepreneurial mission, such as the devel-
opment of the dynamic entrepreneurial teams that drive the spinoff process (Vanaelst et al.
2006). Also, knowing someone who has successfully undertaken an entrepreneurial ven-
ture renders the prospect of overcoming the challenges posed by the process much more
feasible from the perspective of other members of the relevant community. Venkataraman
(2004) argues that the combination of capital risk and novel ideas leads to the emergence
of entrepreneurs who become the new role models, creating possibility proof for their
peers. Entrepreneurial role models are an integral element of the overall university capacity

123
Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions 419

to generate spinoff companies or entrepreneurial initiatives in the future and key agents in
ensuring the presence of a strong influence on potential entrepreneurs (O’Shea et al. 2005).
Finally, Kirby (2005) and Bernasconi (2005) contend that another key factor in the pro-
motion of entrepreneurship in a university context is the nature of the reward systems in
place, both monetary (funds, scholarships, use of resources) and non-monetary (promotion,
recognition systems). Rewards help balance the costs that occur when academic entre-
preneurs undertake commercialization activities, as well as, research and teaching activi-
ties (Landry et al. 2006, Wright et al. 2007).

2.1.2 Internal conditioning factors

Several authors recognize the importance of human capital in the process of creating an
entrepreneurial university, central to which are the functions served by both university
leadership and university faculty. For example, entrepreneurial universities require leaders
with strong management capabilities, as well as leadership traits, serving in profession-
alized full-time posts in order to fulfill their missions. Similarly, academic entrepreneurs
are critical human resources in the entrepreneurial universities are also characterized by the
capacity to create multi-functional teams, as these are necessary for the spinoff organi-
zations that require many different types of human capital (Wright et al. 2007). Thus,
entrepreneurial universities try to demonstrate their autonomy from the state through their
own financial capital. Clark (1998) notes that a diversified funding base typically means
that universities have incremented their sources of income from traditional sources such as
government, research contracts, campus services, and student fees, among others. Entre-
preneurial initiatives within universities require the use of venture capital, loans and R&D
subsidies or grants such as financing mechanisms (Wright et al. 2007). Powers and
McDougall (2005) determine a positive and statistically significant relationship between
annual university-wide R&D expenditure and spinoff activity, while O’Shea et al. (2005)
reveal a positive and statistically significant relationship between the size of federal science
and engineering funding (with a particular orientation on life science, computer science
and chemistry disciplines) and the outcomes generated by entrepreneurial universities. An
entrepreneurial university’s technological capital can be understood as both its physical
resources and its delimitation of the old boundaries between universities and the external
world through the expansion of infrastructure designed to meet relevant social demands
(Clark 1998). According to O’Shea et al. (2005), the primary function of these infra-
structures is to develop the networks between potential entrepreneurs and venture capi-
talists, advisers and managers who provide the human and financial resources necessary to
start a company. Thus, the infrastructure developed enables potential entrepreneurs to gain
access to expertise in crucial areas such as market evaluation, business plan formulation,
venture capital sourcing and spinoff team assembly that underpin the success of any such
venture. Complementing the entrepreneurial university’s technological capital are the
trans-disciplinary and heterogeneous structures, hybridizing organisms or alliances with
industry and government that enable the university to exploit its social capital. In this
sense, social capital is the goodwill available to the entrepreneurial university community
(students, academics), and its source lies in the structure and context of the actor’s relations
(market, social or hierarchical); therefore, its effect flows from the information, influence
and solidarity it makes available to the actor (Adler and Kwon 2002:23). Finally, status
and prestige represent the uniqueness of historical conditions, whereby firms as intrinsi-
cally historical and social entities can be the basis for sustained competitive advantage
(Guerrero and Urbano 2012). In U.S., university’s status represent an important element

123
420 M. Guerrero et al.

used to attract investments, networks, and access to public funding (O’Shea et al. 2007). In
Europe, some research-based exemplars of status and prestige in universities are Warwick
(England), Twente (the Netherlands) and Chalmers (Sweden).

2.2 Outcomes and outputs

According to North (1990, 2005), the main function of institutions in a society is to reduce
uncertainty and establish a stable structure for human interaction. Institutional economics
not only serves as a mechanism for describing how institutional change affects economic
and social development but also for understanding the nature of economic challenges in the
context of wider cultural and economic systems. The nature of an entrepreneurial uni-
versity is such that graduates are perceived not only as future job-seekers but also as future
job-creators, and the organization and content of teaching activities reflects this concep-
tion. Therefore, the entrepreneurial orientation of students (Benneworth and Charles 2005)
and training skilled graduates (Salter and Martin 2001) becomes a key indicator of the
entrepreneurial university. At the faculty level, the university-industry relationships cul-
tivated are expected to produce education strategies focused on improving national and
international competitiveness in important economic sectors (Matkin 1997). From the
university perspective, this challenge requires a strong recognition of its role in supporting
economic development, re-evaluating organizational commitments to outreach and
developing a strategic response to economic challenges. As Martı́nez et al. (2007) suggest,
rate of employment of students after graduation, or level and type of engagement with
further education, may offer further indication of the university’s performance in this
sphere. Similarly, the entrepreneurial university seeks not only to produce research papers
but to actively apply that research to challenges in the economy and wider society, serving
as a source of innovations that may in turn be starting points for the development of new
companies. As such, key indicators of the entrepreneurial university in this context include
co-publication of scientific papers (Godin and Gingras 2000), the co-invention of patents
(Agrawal and Henderson 2002), the sourcing of private funding for scientific research
(Levy et al. 2009), increasing the stock of useful knowledge, forming networks and
increasing the capacity of scientifics (Salter and Martin 2001). In addition, the literature
tends to examine the impact of scientific entrepreneurship following the Bayh–Dole Act,
which among other things gave U.S. universities intellectual property control (patents and
licensing), but this data may not measure all (Aldridge and Audretsch 2011). With respect
to the challenge of regional economic development, the last 20 years has seen the emer-
gence of a general trend of universities adopting a stronger and more direct role in stim-
ulating entrepreneurship in the regional economy. This trend has seen the implementation
of a wide range of strategies (Palmberg 2008), which cultivate a more fertile entrepre-
neurial environment for its own members that could later be reflected in economic growth
and regional development (Di Gregorio and Shane 2003). The key indicators would be
outputs like number of new enterprises generated (Markman et al. 2005); the effect of
patenting (Shane 2004); and the rate of employment (Smilor et al. 2007).

3 Methodology

In studies of entrepreneurship, case study methodology has been employed as a suitable

approach to examining complex and under-explored topics (Yin 1984; Gartner and Birley

123
Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions 421

2002). Several authors have adopted the case study to explore the complex phenomenon of
entrepreneurial universities using different perspectives (Klofsten and Jones-Evans 2000;
Bernasconi 2005; Martinelli et al. 2008; O’Shea et al. 2005, 2007). This paper adopts a
multiple case-study approach to explore the main differences/similarities among the
conditioning factors and outcomes/outputs of entrepreneurial universities in different
regions. Multiple-case studies are generally regarded as more robust than single-case
studies, providing the observation and analysis of a phenomenon in several settings (Yin
1984). Thus, this strategy not only allows for comparison of different cases selected to
obtain similar results (literal replication) but also allows for the exploration and confir-
mation of the patterns identified in the initial cases (theoretical replication). Therefore, this
methodology offers no hard-and-fast rules about the number of cases needed to satisfy the
requirements of the replication strategy, as such cases have been selected for this study on
the basis of theoretical criteria used to identify the entrepreneurial university (Clark 1998;
Di Gregorio and Shane 2003; Shane 2004; Audretsch and Lehmann 2005; O’Shea et al.
2005, 2007; Rothaermel et al. 2007, Wright et al. 2007; Guerrero and Urbano 2012). From
the literature, these criteria have been recognized as the following the promotion of an
entrepreneurial culture by strategic actions that allow for adaptation to environmental
changes; self-instituting efforts to change its general character by developing entrepre-
neurial initiatives; and being located in regions characterized by higher levels of entre-
preneurship measured by the number of new enterprises. In order to satisfy the
requirements of the replication strategy, universities were selected on the basis of tech-
nological universities (offering technology and engineering degree programs with more
focused complimentary areas) versus broad-based universities (offering a variety of degree
programs in different areas of knowledge such as medicine, technology and engineering,
business, arts, humanities). A brief description of each organization selected is presented in
Table 1. The methods used for data-gathering are based upon a systematic application of
the embedded multiple case-study approach. To triangulate the case findings and enhance
the validity and reliability of the study (Yin 1984), several sources and archival material
were collected from 2006 to 2010 for all case-study universities. These sources included

Table 1 Entrepreneurial universities selected

Regiona Universityb Type Founded Rankc Distinctive entrepreneurial characteristics

Spain UAB Broad-based 1968 238 Collaboration with the government and
industry in entrepreneurial activities.
UPC Technological 1968 145 Relationship with the industry for more than
10 years. Assume the technological change.
Ireland NUIG Broad-based 1845 602 Collaboration with regional and national
industry and government agencies.
Distinctiveness prestige and status in
research, teaching and service to
community.
UL Technological 1972 614 Alliances in technological, research and
teaching activities and history of a close
relationship with the industry
a
Regions characterized by higher levels of entrepreneurship measured by the number of new enterprises
(GEM 2010)
b
UAB Autonomous University of Barcelona, UPC Technical University of Catalonia, NUIG National
University of Ireland Galway, UL University of Limerick
c
World Rank (Webometrics 2010)

123
422 M. Guerrero et al.

records and media reports published by each university, such as university magazines,
bulletins, annual reports and websites. In addition, sources included records and media
reports published by official bodies and associations associated with higher education,
technology transfer and innovation and entrepreneurship within each region, country and
internationally. As well, the reliability requirement was covered using a standard protocol,
with a common set of open-ended questions concerning the proposed conceptual frame-
work. Regarding data analysis, a research database was initially created by each university
and by each conditioning factor, outcome and output identified in the data obtained, which
enhanced reliability across all cases (Yin 1984). The data was analyzed using pattern
models and cross-case strategy, as well as, using the qualitative software Atlas Ti. This
design allows the triangulation of perspectives, valuations and other data in a comparative
(Jick 1979) and inductive analysis (Eisenhardt 1989). The triangulation assures that the
interpretation of each factor is supported by each unit and sub-unit of analysis by region
(Stake 2006).

4 Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions: conditioning factors,

outcomes and outputs

4.1 Entrepreneurial universities’ conditioning factors in Spain and Ireland

According to Lazzeretti and Tavoletti (2005), the entrepreneurial university needs an

entrepreneurial organizational structure in order to transmit this culture to the university
community and identify the stakeholders’ requirements or synergies. In the Spanish cases,
UAB and UPC, the majority of the universities’ governance structures are hierarchical,
with some centralized and decentralized decisions, but the difference is the strong
participation in technology transfer and entrepreneurship activities. The most common
constraint to entrepreneurial university management is the ‘‘collegial structure’’ and
decision-making patterns (Rochford 2001). This phenomenon is not only attributable to
government policy but also to the convergence of policy directions in a globalized higher
education context, therefore, the Spanish universities need more shared leadership. In the
Irish cases, NUIG and UL formally retain much of the traditional academic governance
structure. Nevertheless, both organizations have made moves toward a more formal
managerial system. NUIG has undergone significant academic restructuring and has moved
to a college and school structure. UL has made more explicit moves toward a profes-
sionalized management culture with an executive committee having responsibility for
overall management of the university’s affairs (the faculty boards, the academic program
review committee and the academic council). With the rise of the third mission as a priority
for Europe’s universities, a range of mechanisms has emerged as fundamental support
measures for entrepreneurial activities. Central to these efforts has been the creation of an
entrepreneurial climate and the implementation of support measures for academic entre-
preneurs such as technology transfer offices (Van der Sijde and Tilburg 2000). The UAB
and UPC’s model was initially focused on promoting the entrepreneurial spirit, but the
model has now shifted the identification and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities
through the Sphere’s UAB and Ideas Programme at UPC. In this context, the Spanish
universities have developed several strategies (business creation or technology transfer
programs) that try to provide support at different levels of an entrepreneurial initiative; to
improve the entrepreneurial culture inside the university; to promote the value added
through knowledge; and to contribute to the regional development. With respect to

123
Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions 423

intellectual property, both the Spanish university legislation and patent legislation establish
the models of exploitation between the university and the inventor. In the Irish context,
both NUIG and UL have established their technology transfer offices with the stated
purpose of achieving international leadership in the commercialization of research and
other knowledge-intensive activity for the benefit of universities, the economy and society.
Moreover, NUIG and UL have created explicit policy and procedural frameworks for the
administration of IP within the organizations. These further legitimize commercialization
activities within the universities and additionally remove ambiguity around sensitive issues
such as royalty distribution and IP ownership. In addition, entrepreneurship education
programs are an important mechanism to promote the entrepreneurial intentions in the
university community because they help to improve skills, attributes, abilities, behavior
and knowledge about this issue (Kirby 2005). In this respect, Spain’s UAB and UPC have
implemented internal and external entrepreneurial education programs for potential
entrepreneurs and academic entrepreneurs. Within the Irish university system, both uni-
versities have offerings at all levels that are designed to provide an understanding of
the entrepreneurial process as well as giving students an experiential approach of setting up
a business and the challenges faced by an entrepreneur. In particular, UL provides a
co-operative education program that provides opportunities to undertake work placements
for up to 8 months as part of undergraduate degree programs. Also, NUIG has one of the
longest established programs in entrepreneurships delivered to various science groups,
Introduction to Business, which requires students to develop a business plan for an
entrepreneurial idea and actively participate in national Strategic Innovation Fund pro-
grams such as Accelerating Campus Entrepreneurship (ACE) and Roadmap for Academic
Enterprise Partnerships (REAP). Complementary, the attitudes, values and culture are clear
examples of how an organization could be influenced by informal ways of human inter-
actions (North 1990). In this respect, attitudes toward entrepreneurship are another
important element that needs to be considered to build an innovative and entrepreneurial
environment (Krueger et al. 2000). In Spain, at UAB and UPC, the experience indicated
that during the last 5 years the number of potential entrepreneurs has increased. The main
explanation would be linked with the actions developed by the university that reinforce the
capabilities, sensibility, knowledge and exploitation of entrepreneurial opportunities
(Guerrero et al. 2008; Liñán et al. 2011). Within the Irish economy, the attitude toward
entrepreneurship has been positive since the mid-1990s when this activity became more
legitimized and acceptable in Irish society. This change has come about due to the greater
media profile of entrepreneurs, the Ernst and Young Entrepreneur of the Year awards,
secondary-school transition-year entrepreneurial programs and various mentoring pro-
grams supported by county enterprise boards. This change has been reflected in both NUIG
and UL, with greater engagements with industry partners within the region, guest lecturers
and mentoring from established entrepreneurs and both universities’ involvement in
teaching and research activities that enables entrepreneurial endeavors among its stake-
holders groups. This context where individuals are enrolled or employed provides role
models that could positively affect individual intentions (Scherer et al. 1991). The diffusion
of successful entrepreneurial experiences helps to change the personal expectative or social
image about it. The universities promote several activities with the participation of external
and internal entrepreneurs who have emerged from the university. In Spain, the UAB’s and
UPC’s flexibility allows academics and students contact with the government, industry,
research centers and other universities to increase the probability of knowing successful
entrepreneurs or future networks. The knowledge used in business is derived and devel-
oped from the interaction of individuals within a purposeful domain of practice as a result

123
424 M. Guerrero et al.

of their activity, context and culture. The main objective is not only to influence their
intentions but also to create informal networks with other entrepreneurs involved in the
same region or discipline. In Ireland, NUIG and UL’s support structures provide oppor-
tunities for university communities to engage with entrepreneurs and to acquire knowledge
and expertise necessary to establish their own enterprises. Both universities run seminars
with academic entrepreneurs who provide their expertise to relevant areas, networking
events and competitions. According to Debackere and Veugelers (2005), the rewards
system within the departments and faculties has been based on the assessment of research
quality and teaching ability. In the Spanish universities, these incentives have been
determined by research production and teaching evaluations. According to the Spanish
Education Law (BOE 86/2007), when an academic entrepreneur creates or develops an
enterprise based on a patent or research founded, in whole or partially, with public funds
within an university, the main incentive is that he/she may apply for a temporal authori-
zation that allows the opportunity to be part of the new enterprise and to later return to the
university. In the same line, the inventions are the property of the university where they
were developed. The inventor (academic entrepreneur) has the right to part of the benefits
obtained, according to the university’s statutes (IP law, BOE 73/1986). In this respect,
Sandgren and Strömqvist (2006) mention that university funding depends on the region,
and there are regional bonuses for academics’ salaries. However, there are some barriers
associated with the academic recognition of being entrepreneurial. The Irish universities
operate internal promotional systems for academic members focused on teaching, research
and services. The promotional criteria at NUIG from lectureship to senior lectureship
includes recognition for patents and service contributions that recognized engagements
with external stakeholders in academics, industry and society. NUIG has established a
framework wherein income of up to €125,000 is divided along a 75/25 % split between the
inventor and the university, and a sliding scale up to €1,000,000 above which all income is
divided on a 30/70 % inventor-university split. UL operates on the basis of a flat 50/50 %
split on income between the inventor and the university. Thus, both universities operate
sabbatical programs that can be availed of by academic members for professional devel-
opment purposes that support the missions of the university.
According to previous studies, the main resource responsible for the creation of
entrepreneurial universities is human capital (Guerrero and Urbano 2012). In Spain, UAB
and UPC have been characterized by entrepreneurial leaders who are highly committed to
transforming their universities into entrepreneurial and innovative organizations. There-
fore, the promotion of an entrepreneurial spirit has been incorporated into their statutes.
This might be considered a first step toward promoting a more entrepreneurial mindset
among the universities’ communities. In Catalonia, the investment for higher education is
around €900,000 per year, which is invested in approximately 12,000 full professors and
8,000 administrative staff to provide education to more than 260,000 graduate and post-
graduate students, who also have the opportunity to participate in European mobility
programs (ACUP 2011). As well, because of the quality of their education programs and
research, each year these universities attract researchers from around the world, while
Catalonian researchers participate in exchange programs worldwide. In Ireland, both NUIG
and UL have made a number of decisive moves in this regard, with the major features
being the development of cross-functional research teams, the attraction of foreign
researchers and an attendant increase in the number of doctoral and post-doctoral research
positions, the hiring of aforementioned specialized technology transfer office (TTO) staff
with expertise in crucial commercial functions and the creation of research center and
institute directorships. As addressed in the previous section, both NUIG and UL have

123
Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions 425

created research centers with researchers drawn from a wide range of disciplinary back-
grounds. These initiatives have been largely facilitated by the program for Research in
Third-Level Institutions (PRTLI), which has since its inception awarded €1.22 billion in
funding for investment in Ireland’s human and physical research infrastructure. This
program has made organizations such as NUIG and UL much more competitive on the
global stage in their attempts to attract researchers for their own centers and institutes and
in building critical research mass for substantive scientific contributions. Thus, both NUIG
and UL have increasingly moved toward the creation of directorships and appropriate
research governance across their universities, within which individuals are given leader-
ship roles in the context of research institutes and centers. Prior research of entrepreneurial
universities has indicated that financial capital plays an important role to support tech-
nology transfer and the creation of mechanisms for stimulating entrepreneurial culture
within the university (O’Shea et al. 2007). In Spain, the current university norms imply that
the majority of financial resources came from governments (CRUE 2007). Nevertheless,
UAB and UPC had the best combination of public and university funds to support their
entrepreneurial transformation process. In addition, the resources generated by the UPC
itself became key elements for fulfilling its new entrepreneurial functions. This evidence
points to the necessity of a new model of governance structure with more responsibilities
and a greater emphasis on accountability. In Ireland, NUIG and UL are publicly funded
and actively engaging with government agencies such as Enterprise Ireland in the pursuit
of funding for their entrepreneurial activities. As such, the financial profile of NUIG and
UL as publicly funded universities can only be categorized as moderately compatible with
the archetypal entrepreneurial university. NUIG and UL can best be described as exche-
quer-funded organizations that additionally compete for research funding above and
beyond their core state grants. Both organizations also operate foundations as fundraising
mechanisms, with UL’s foundation being in place since 1989 and NUIG’s established in
1998. Technological capital refers to the structures needed for achieving the universities’
missions (Guerrero and Urbano 2012), particularly the exploitation of knowledge and
technological transfer (Siegel et al. 2004; O’Shea et al. 2007). In 2004, the percentages of
square meters destined for teaching and research activities by the Spanish universities’
superficies were 39 % UPC and 23 % UAB. Since then, a greater diversity of infra-
structures has been developed, such as business incubators, science parks and technology
transfer offices, to promote the generation of value added through the transmission and
commercialization of knowledge. The Spanish cases also display a positive relationship
between the existence of infrastructures and the academics’ entrepreneurial commitments
within the universities. In other words, appropriate infrastructures were a stimulus for
academics to accept their new roles in the entrepreneurial university context. In Ireland,
NUIG and UL, major investment in technological capital has taken the form of the
development of TTOs and incubation centers. NUIG has developed an on-campus complex
of 25 incubation units ranging in size from 300 to 750 square feet. The complex holds six
bio-incubator laboratories along with a core laboratory, as well as containing office,
conference, and meeting room facilities with full broadband access. As a means of inte-
grating its services, this campus innovation center also hosts the offices of the TTO staff.
The university has invested in high-caliber experts across a number of crucial functions,
with particular emphasis on IP management professionals and business development
managers. Newly emerging entrepreneurial universities require trans-disciplinary and
heterogeneous structures in order to create the synergies needed to exploit technological
convergence. Alliances and networks (social capital) between universities and public or
private organizations aid universities in the process of promoting the emergence of the

123
426 M. Guerrero et al.

university–industry–government model (Murray 2002). The cases presented here indicated

the existence of networks with public and private organizations. In Spain, while UAB has
developed alliances with regional governments and public organizations, UPC’s networks
have been principally established with private organizations. This suggests that, to a great
extent, the type of university influences the type of network established with external
organizations. Also, in UAB, there may be more network links between academic and
entrepreneurs in their opinion, yet these links were not well understood by some gov-
ernment teams, who hindered the development of tasks necessary for creating that kind of
relationship. At a financial level, the strategies implemented have been characterized by
networks with the most important university leaders in technology and innovation (e.g.,
UAB and UPC are members of the UNIBA network). In the same way, the context where
individuals are enrolled or employed provides several patterns that could impact positively
on individual intentions (Scherer et al. 1991). In Ireland, NUIG has faced this challenge by
creating a range of specialist research centers across a number of key areas. Central to
these have been the creation of biomedical research center focusing on gene therapy and
stem cell research. UL has also created a number of multidisciplinary research institutes,
broadly encompassing the faculties of science, engineering, education and health studies.
Both NUIG and UL also interact with a number of key actors at both a regional and
national level who directly focus on the stimulation of business in all forms and job
creation. NUIG interacts with a range of regional, national and internationally operative
organizations that are focused explicitly on enterprise and employment development. The
universities’ status and prestige developed by historical events and entrepreneurial tradi-
tions have been highlighted in the literature as factors that contribute to the creation of
entrepreneurial universities (O’Shea et al. 2007). In Spain, UAB has a long tradition of
promoting innovation and founding members of the European Consortium of Innovative
Universities (ECIU). While UPC operates such as an innovative enterprise with a big
research and development department focused and depends on the demand or market. In
Ireland, the international standing of NUI Galway and UL has grown rapidly over the last
decade.

4.2 Entrepreneurial universities’ outcomes in Spain and Ireland

The primary outcomes reviewed in this study are patents, spinoffs, and publications. In
Spain, on average, the amount of patenting by entrepreneurial universities is quite limited.
For example, between 2006 and the end of 2010, UAB had generated on average by year
14 patents, 4 spinoffs, and 1,500 publications, while UPC had generated on average by
year 35 patents, 20 spinoffs, and 970 publications. This is corroborated by the higher
productive index2 in Spain in terms of scientific publications, innovations with practical
applications publications, and the generation of entrepreneurs and spinoffs. In this respect,
UAB has been characterized by its participation in a high number of research projects.
These research projects have been the result of partnerships among the university, industry
and regional government, which have facilitated UAB’s knowledge transfer in the regional
industry. These networks have increased investor interest in the region (e.g., Alba Syn-
chrotron, Service Innovation Group, Alba Park and International Station Business Area),
which has affected not only the industrial structure, labor market and mobility but also the

2
Index developed by the Grupo SCImago (2007) to measure the academic productivity of Spanish uni-
versities from 1999 to 2007 in terms of the number of papers published in international journals and the
number of academics involved in each university.

123
Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions 427

infrastructure, housing and traffic. UPC has also had an important influence on regional
development because of the partnerships it has promoted between itself and the local
industry for the past 10 years. As with UAB, these partnerships have generated, in turn, an
important infrastructure for regional development (e.g., National Center of Accelerations,
Quantico Ecological Station, Microelectronic National Center, among others). As a con-
sequence, Catalonia is focused on recruiting international talent to fuel its knowledge and
innovation intensive strategy. The strategy is most visible in the number of science parks
that have been developed throughout the region, attached to universities or as part of a
broader industry/city/university consortium (OECD 2010). All these actions are oriented to
promote high research quality, innovation, and economic and social progress. With respect
to the ‘‘harder’’ outcomes associated with entrepreneurial university, in Ireland, both NUIG
and UL have demonstrated significant levels of activity, with both organizations producing
spinoffs, licenses and patents as well as engaging in multiple collaborative projects with
industry. A strategic alliance between the two universities aims to produce 20 spin-out
companies, 110 licenses and 200 patents in the 2010–2015 period. Reflecting its broad
research focus, NUIG has spin out companies across a number of high-tech industries,
creating 21 companies between 2006 and the end of 2010. As mentioned, alongside its
spin-out activities NUIG has engaged in major collaborative projects with industrial
partners, such as its relationship with Apica Cardiovascular Ltd, and licensing agreements
such as its provision of nucleic acid detection technology to the biomedical diagnostics
firm Beckman Coulter. Similarly, UL has shown considerable diversity in its spin-out
activity with the creation of medical sector firms. Like NUIG, UL has licensed extensively
with a wide range of industry partners, including telecommunications giant Nokia Siemens
Networks. In terms of ‘‘softer’’ outcomes, NUIG and UL (as publicly funded universities)
both universities have responded to national initiatives to increase the number of PhD
students across all discipline areas and have participated in national programs aimed at
skill workers who are unemployed due to the current economic recession. Since 2006, the
research income has increased for both organizations and is reflective of the growth in
human research capital. This investment has seen the research productivity of both orga-
nizations as well as the Irish research system improve by world standards over the last
decade. In summary, when these two regions are compared with the rest of the European
countries, in terms of the higher education scientific production by population and by GDP,

Fig. 2 Higher education scientific production by population and GDP (2010). Source: OECD and Eurostat
(ACUP 2011)

123
428 M. Guerrero et al.

Fig. 3 Productivity per researcher based on the resources and impacts UE15 (2004–2008). Source: OECD
and Eurostat (ACUP 2011)

Catalonia and Ireland are similarly positioned with respect to the European Union average
(Fig. 2).
Nevertheless, there is not data available for each specific region; this evidence brings
the opportunity to understand this phenomenon through these approximations. When we
compare these regions in terms of productivity by researcher, there is a long distance
between Catalonia and Ireland that could be motivated by the specific context of each
region (Fig. 3).

5 Conclusions

Adopting the institutional economics and resource-based view has provided additional
insights into the conditioning factors of entrepreneurial universities. Our analysis of
entrepreneurial universities in two similar regions reaffirms North’s (1990, 2005), Veciana
and Urbano (2008), Thornton et al. (2011) and Guerrero and Urbano (2012) assertion that
one of the primary functions of organizations in a society is to establish a stable structure
for human interaction. The conditioning factors of the universities, in our study, were
necessary to being and sustaining such as an entrepreneurial organization. The resource-
based view perspective, in the context of this study, facilitates a demonstration of the
manner in which organizations exploit their resources in order to implement key strategies
(Amit and Schoemaker 1993). Based on our research questions and analysis, Table 2
summarizes the similarities and differences in the conditioning factors, outcomes and
outputs of entrepreneurial universities in two European regions. Regionally, universities
exploited their resources and capabilities in different ways and at different times. For
example, the Spanish universities have closed research teams with entrepreneurial leaders,
whereas the Irish universities have multicultural cross-functional research teams with
specialization, while both Irish and Spanish universities are focused on being as attractive
as possible to international research talent. Moreover, our study illustrates that publicly
funded universities are not significantly constrained by financial capital to support their

123
Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions 429

Table 2 Spanish and Irish entrepreneurial universities’ comparison

Conditioning Factors (F) Spanish Universities Irish Universities

Environmental factors (E)

EF1: Organization and Collegial structure Streamlined organizational structures
governance structure
EF2: Support measures for Business creation and Full-service technology transfer offices
entrepreneurship technology transfer
EF3: Entrepreneurship All educational levels All educational levels for university students
education programs for university
community and
external
EF4: Attitudes toward Positive but will Positive and legitimized
entrepreneurship challenge to change
the mind
EF5: Role models Diffusion of Events to promote and disseminate local and
successful international entrepreneurship
entrepreneurs
EF6: Reward systems Lack rewards systems Recognition and explicit inventor agreements
of entrepreneurial
activities
Internal factors (I)
IF1: Human capital Closed research Cross-functional and multi-cultural research teams,
teams, technology transfer specialists
entrepreneurial
leaders, attraction of
foreign researchers
IF2: Financial capital Public funds and Public-funded foundation offices actively
alternative competing for public research funding
mechanisms
IF3: Technological capital Significant investment Significant investment in physical and human
in physical capital
resources
IF4: Social capital Alliances with public Alliances with public and private organizations
and private
organizations
IF5: Status and prestige National and National and international research engagement
international and recognition
entrepreneurial
recognition
Outcomes (O) and
Output (E)
O1: Teaching activities Significant Significant educational programs with international
educational recognition
programs with
international
recognition
O2: Research activities Strong academic Strong academic productivity (number of
productivity publications)
(number of
publications)
O3: Entrepreneurial Less number of Strong number of patents, spinoffs and licenses
activities patents, spinoffs and
licenses

123
430 M. Guerrero et al.

Table 2 continued

Conditioning Factors (F) Spanish Universities Irish Universities

E1: Economical Foreign inversion Human capital attraction

attraction, human
capital attraction
E2: Social Require a change of Strong labor connection for university students
mind about
entrepreneurship

entrepreneurial mission in a regional setting. Organizational structures supporting mea-

sures for entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship educational programs can be enabling and
legitimizing factors in supporting the university communities and as a means of engaging
with regional actors in the creation of an environment that provides for bilateral knowledge
dissemination and engagement. Therefore, in general terms, the Spanish and Irish uni-
versities present similar environmental factors related to support measures for entrepre-
neurship (EF2) and entrepreneurship education programs (EF3), as well as some internal
factors such as financial capital (IF2), technological capital (IF3) and social capital (IF4).
What is evident from both contexts is each university has focused on critical activities that
reinforce the entrepreneurial mission within their organizations. Some of these develop-
ments have resulted in a coordinated strategy as argued by Kirby et al. (2011), while others
have emerged from external factors such as industry demand and government policies.
NUIG has responded to the growth in the medical device sector through educational
programs and strengthening research capacity (human and physical) (Giblin and Ryan
2010).
At the same time, our study has found some differences in the environmental factors and
the internal capabilities and resources. These differences—particularly with respect to
governance structures, attitudes toward entrepreneurship and reward systems and their root
cause effect—require further empirical investigation.
Proposition 1a In regions with comparable social, economic and political situations,
entrepreneurial universities could present similarities in environmental conditioning fac-
tors related to support measures and entrepreneurial education programs.
Proposition 1b In regions with comparable social, economic and political situations,
entrepreneurial universities could present differences in environmental conditioning fac-
tors related to the governance structures, attitudes toward entrepreneurship and rewards
systems.
Proposition 2a In regions with comparable social, economic and political situations,
entrepreneurial universities could present similarities in internal conditioning factors
related to financial, technological and social capital.
Proposition 2b In regions with comparable social, economic and political situation,
entrepreneurial universities could present differences in internal conditioning factors
related to human capital.
The universities in our study were committed to supporting third-mission activities;
however, our study provided additional insight into how internal conditioning factors shape
the intrapreneurial culture (Di Gregorio and Shane 2003). In the Irish context, the freedom
to administer IP rights at a local level contributed to a much greater vibrancy, and

123
Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions 431

consequently a greater output, on campus with respect to patenting, licensing and spinoffs,
with these ‘‘harder’’ outputs becoming a more central feature of the universities’ entre-
preneurial visions. The differences in human capital also influenced the nature of the
entrepreneurial values within organizations. The greater emphasis on multidisciplinary
research centers in the Irish context leant itself more easily to the organic emergence of
groups that were capable of bringing an innovation to market. Conversely, the more
traditional academic structure in the Spanish context demanded that the initiation of
commercialization projects required much more active entrepreneurial leadership by
individuals, who were either in formal or non-formal leadership roles. Moreover, the
exploitation of resources and capabilities is necessary to support the entrepreneurial mis-
sion. This needs to be balanced with managerial systems to ensure long-term sustainability
of activities of regional universities, and this absorptive capacity within and outside
stakeholders’ increases as universities embrace more aspects of entrepreneurship.
Proposition 3 In regions with comparable social, economic and political situations, the
differences in environmental (governance structures, attitudes toward entrepreneurship
and rewards systems) and internal factors (human capital) conditioned directly the out-
comes/outputs related to entrepreneurial activities.
Future research is needed to continue refining the entrepreneurial universities model
(Fig. 1). What we have done is try to understand the similarities and differences of the
conditioning factors and the outcomes/outputs of entrepreneurial universities; assuming
that these characteristics are associated with the organization more than the regional dif-
ferences (i.e., we try to control it using different regions that share similar social, economic
and political conditions). However, we believe that further empirical research could be
done firstly to analyze individually the leadership that has significant relevance in different
regions (Young et al. 2008). On whole, strong leadership capability across all functions,
but in particular within the key dimensions of the entrepreneurial university, is essential to
the cultivation of an environment conducive to entrepreneurial activity. Thus, leadership is
required in both managing the university and establishing a research framework that will
attract and connect with a range of stakeholders both in the region and internationally. This
could play a significant underlying role in developing the crucial environmental factors
referred to in the study (EF1 to EF6). Secondly, a focus on outreach activities (e.g., aimed
at industry and primary- and secondary-school pupils) is critically important for univer-
sities to sustain their competitive positions with respect to core missions. This is partic-
ularly a constant concern for regionally based universities with disperse populations across
a region. The outreach with industry maximizes the opportunities for research collabora-
tion, technology transfer and graduate recruitment. Our study found a variety of activities
that regional universities have adopted and in doing so contributed to entrepreneurial
societies and regions (Audretsch 2009). Thirdly, insights about the socioeconomic output
of entrepreneurial universities are necessary to evaluate the real-world effect in the long-
term of adopting ideas from the endogenous growth theory, such as ‘‘related to productive
factors’’ (Salter and Martin 2001). The main implications of this paper are aligned with
strategies for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth in regional contexts promoted by the
European Union for 2020. Particularly, in times of crisis, recession and recovery, where are
the organizational changes are producing cleaning effects based on the entrepreneurial
abilities to dare, to initiate and to overcome obstacles (Caballero and Hammour 1994).
Then, within these competitive contexts are required policies that improve the quality of
the entrepreneurial pool (Ghatak et al. 2007). In this context, university authorities need to
recognize their core role at this time as not only building but also enforcing the university

123
432 M. Guerrero et al.

entrepreneurship ecosystem that nurtures entrepreneurial potential (incentives, new

learning tools, role models) as well as stimulating skills, competences and tools that are
most useful, creating entrepreneurial mindsets that drive innovation (not only inside uni-
versities but also within the existent firms) and becoming entrepreneurial organizations.

Acknowledgments We are most grateful to several participants for their comments and suggestions. We
are also grateful to comments and suggestions by two anonymous reviewers, which have decisively con-
tributed to this improved final version of our paper. Maribel Guerrero acknowledges the funding provided by
the Mexican Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT). David Urbano has received financial
resources from ECO2010-16760 (Spanish Ministry of Education and Science) and 2005SGR00858 (Catalan
Government’s Department for Universities, Research and Information Society). James Cunningham and
Damien Organ acknowledge funding received from the Higher Education Authority, Programme for
Research in Third Level Institutions Cycle 4, and co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund.

References

ACUP. (2011). Impact of the Catalan Public Universities on society. Barcelona: Nexe Impressions.
Adler, P., & Kwon, S. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review,
27, 17–40.
Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. M. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from
MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 44–60.
Aldridge, T., & Audretsch, D. (2011). The Bayh–Dole Act and scientist entrepreneurship. Research Policy,
40(8), 1058–1067.
Amit, R., & Schoemaker, D. C. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management
Journal, 14(1), 33–46.
Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Orga-
nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150–169.
Audretsch, D. (2009). The entrepreneurial society. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 245–254.
Audretsch, D., & Lehmann, E. (2005). Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for
regions? Research Policy, 34, 1191–1202.
Benneworth, P., & Charles, D. (2005). University spin-off policies and economic development in less
successful regions: Learning from two decades of policy practice. European Planning Studies, 13(4),
537–557.
Bernasconi, A. (2005). University entrepreneurship in a developing country: The case of the P. Universidad
Catolica de Chile, 1985–2000. Higher Education, 50(2), 247–274.
Caballero, R., & Hammour, M. (1994). The cleaning effect of recessions. American Economic Review,
84(5), 1350–1368.
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities. Oxford: Pergamon.
CRUE. (2007). Spanish higher education funding. Spain: Ministry of Education and Science.
Debackere, K., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in
improving industry science links. Research Policy, 34, 321–342.
Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?
Research Policy, 32, 209–227.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4),
532–550.
Gartner, W., & Birley, S. (2002). Introduction to the special issue on qualitative methods in entrepreneurship
research. Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 387–395.
GEM. (2010). Global entrepreneurship monitor—Spanish database. Wellesley, MA: London Business
School, Babson College.
Ghatak, M., Morelli, M., & Sjöström, T. (2007). Entrepreneurial talent, occupational choice and trickle up
policies. Journal of Economic Theory, 137, 27–48.
Giblin, M. & Ryan, P. (2010). Tight clusters or loose networks? The critical role of inward foreign direct
investment in cluster creation. Regional Studies. doi:10.1080/00343404.2010.497137.
Godin, B., & Gingras, Y. (2000). The place of universities in the system of knowledge production. Research
Policy, 29(2), 273.
Grandi, A., & Grimaldi, R. (2005). Academics’ organizational characteristics and the generation of suc-
cessful business ideas. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(6), 821–845.

123
Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions 433

Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing aca-
demic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1045–1057.
Grupo SCImago. (2007). ISI productivity of Spanish Universities (2000–2004). The informationist, 16(4),
354–358.
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.
Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2012). The development of an entrepreneurial university. Journal of Tech-
nology Transfer, 37(1), 43–74.
Harzig, C., Juteau, D., & Schmitt, I. (2006). The social construction of diversity: Recasting the master
narrative of industrial nations. US: Berghahn Books.
Inzelt, A. (2004). The evolution of university–industry–government relationships during transition.
Research Policy, 33, 975–995.
Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 24, 602–611.
Kirby, D. A. (2005). Creating entrepreneurial universities in the UK: Applying entrepreneurship theory to
practice. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(5), 599–603.
Kirby, D. A., Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2011). The theoretical and empirical side of entrepreneurial
universities: An institutional approach. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 28(3), 302–316.
Klofsten, M., & Jones-Evans, D. (2000). Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe—The case of
Sweden and Ireland. Small Business Economics, 14(4), 299–310.
Krueger, N., Reilly, M., & Carsrud, A. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of
Business Venturing, 15(5/6), 411–532.
Landry, E., Amara, N., & Rherrand, I. (2006). Why are some university researchers more likely to create
spin-offs than others? Evidence from Canadian universities. Research Policy, 35(10), 1599–1615.
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.
Lee, J., & Win, H. N. (2004). Technology transfer between university research centers and industry in
Singapore. Technovation, 24, 433–442.
Levy, R., Roux, P., & Wolff, S. (2009). An analysis of science–industry collaborative patterns in a large
European university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 1–23.
Liñán, F., Urbano, D., & Guerrero, M. (2011). Regional variations in entrepreneurial cognitions: Start-up
intentions of university students in Spain. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(3),
187–215.
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, 1106–1112.
Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out
companies. Research Policy, 34, 1043–1057.
Louis, K. S., Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M. E., & Stoto, M. A. (1989). Entrepreneurs in academe: An explo-
ration of behaviours among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(1), 110–131.
Markman, G. D., Phan, P. H., Balkin, D. B., & Gianiodis, P. T. (2005). Entrepreneurship and university-
based technology transfer. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 241–263.
Martinelli, A., Meyer, M., & Von Tunzelmann, N. (2008). Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case
study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented
university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 259–280.
Martı́nez, D., Ginés-Mora, J., & Vila, L. (2007). Entrepreneurs, the self-employed and employees amongst
young European higher education graduates. European Journal of Education, 42(1), 99–117.
Matkin, G. W. (1997). Organizing university economic development: Lessons from continuing education
and technology transfer. New Directions for Higher Education, 97, 27–41.
Murray, F. (2002). Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: Exploring tissue
engineering. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1389–1403.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
North, D. C. (2005). Understanding the process of economic change. Princeton NJ: Princeton University
Press.
O’Shea, R., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer
and spin-off performance of US universities. Research Policy, 34, 994–1009.
O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Morse, K. P., O’Gorman, C., & Roche, F. (2007). Delineating the anatomy of an
entrepreneurial university: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology experience. R & D Manage-
ment, 37(1), 1–16.

123
434 M. Guerrero et al.

OECD. (2010). Higher education in regional and city development. The autonomous region of Catalonia,
Spain. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Palmberg, C. (2008). The transfer and commercialization of nanotechnology: A comparative analysis of
university and company researchers. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 631–652.
Powers, J., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). University start-up formation and technological licensing with firms
that go public: A resource based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing,
20, 291–311.
Rochford, F. (2001). Issues of University Governance and Management giving rise to legal liability. Journal
of Higher Education Policy and Management, 23(1), 49–61.
Roller, E., & Sloat, A. (2002). The Impact of Europeanisation on Regional Governance: A Study of
Catalonia and Scotland. Public Policy and Administration, 17(2), 68–86.
Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: Taxonomy of the liter-
ature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.
Salter, A. J., & Martin, B. R. (2001). The economic benefits of publically funded basic research: A critical
review. Research Policy, 30, 509–532.
Sandgren, A. & Strömqvist, G. (2006). Human resources and the entrepreneurial university: The cases of
Finland, Spain, Sweden and the UK. URL: http://www.euerek.info/Public_Documents/Documents/
Sandgren-Stromqvist-HRM.pdf. Last access September 2008.
Scherer, R. F., Brodzinsky, J. D., & Wiebe, F. A. (1991). Examining the relationship between personality
and entrepreneurial career preference. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 3, 195–206.
Shane, S. (2004). Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh–Dole Act on university
patenting in the United States. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 127–151.
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2004). Toward a model of the effective
transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the
commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technological Management,
21, 115–142.
Smilor, R., O’Donnell, N., Stein, G., & Welborn, R. S, I. I. I. (2007). The research university and the
development of high-technology Centers in the United States. Economic Development Quarterly,
21(3), 203–222.
Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. London: The Guilford Press.
Thornton, P., Ribeiro, D., & Urbano, D. (2011). Socio-cultural factors and entrepreneurial activity: An
overview. International Small Business Journal, 29(2), 105–118.
Van der Sijde, P., & Tilburg, J. (2000). Support of university spin-off companies (pp. 13–21). February:
Entrepreneurship and Innovation.
Van Vught, F. (1999). Innovative universities. Tertiary Education and Management, 5(4), 347–354.
Vanaelst, I., Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Moray, N., & S’Jegers, R. (2006). Entrepreneurial team
development in academic spinouts: An examination of team heterogeneity. Entrepreneurship Theory &
Practice, 30(2), 249–271.
Veciana, J. M., & Urbano, D. (2008). The institutional approach to entrepreneurship research: An intro-
duction. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(4), 365–379.
Venkataraman, S. (2004). Regional Transformation through Technological Entrepreneurship. Journal of
Business Venturing, 19, 153–167.
Vohora, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech
spinout companies. Research Policy, 33, 147–174.
Webometrics (2010). Methodology of world university ranking. http://www.webometrics.info/methodology_
es.html. Accessed September 28, 2008.
Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Mustar, P., & Lockett, A. (2007). Academic entrepreneurship in Europe. Mas-
sachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Yin, R. (1984). Case study research, design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Young, B., Hewitt-Dundas, N., & Roper, S. (2008). Intellectual Property management in publicly funded
R&D centres. A comparison of university-based and company-based research centres. Technovation
28(8), 473–484.

123