The Expanding Business of the Entrepreneurial University: Job Creation

This chapter explores the role of universities in job creation. It does this by taking two approaches. The first is to look at how the university sees its role as expanding from traditional first and second mission activities to encompass third mission activities including industry engagement and how this supports job creation and economic development. The second approach is to examine how new jobs are created in a geographic region or country, and the role that the university can play in support of this. Typical third mission activities such as incubators, technology transfer, and science parks are also examined; including the role of government support and incentives

The economic and innovation contribution of universities: a regional perspective

Universities and other higher education institutions (HEIs) have come to be regarded as key sources of knowledge utilisable in the pursuit of economic growth. Although there have been numerous studies assessing the economic and innovation impact of HEIs, there has been little systematic analysis of differences in the relative contribution of HEIs across regions. This paper provides an exploration of some of these differences in the context of the UK’s regions. Significant differences are found in the wealth generated by universities according to regional location and type of institution. Universities in more competitive regions are generally more productive than those located in less competitive regions. Also, traditional universities are generally more productive than their newer counterparts, with university productivity positively related to knowledge commercialisation capabilities. Weaker regions tend to be more dependent on their universities for income and innovation, but often these universities under-perform in comparison to counterpart institutions in more competitive regions. It is argued that uncompetitive regions lack the additional knowledge infrastructure, besides universities, that are more commonly a feature of more competitive regions

Knowledge networks and universities : locational and organisational aspects of knowledge transfer interactions

This paper explores the nature of the significant knowledge networks universities form with external organisations through knowledge transfer activities. Focussing on the UK higher education system, the analysis focuses on examining the extent to which organisational and locational characteristics are associated with the nature of these networks, finding that the nature of the networks universities form through knowledge transfer are related to both characteristics. In particular, we find that the institution’s status is important with more established universities are likely to have a more diverse range of organisations with which they interact, as well as a higher number of non-local interactions. In terms of geographic location, we find that universities within lagging regions tend to have more locally focused networks than universities in more leading regions. Overall, the knowledge transfer networking capacity of universities is found to be associated with the regional business environment within which they are situated, with the results going someway to confirming the importance of the role of universities in regional innovation systems, However, it also the case that more established, research focussed, universities are more likely to form part of wider , and possibly even more globalised, knowledge networks. Therefore, both the flow and stock of knowledge within regions is likely to be influenced by the networks formed by its universities, which has implications for both regional innovation capability and regional competitiveness

Rowing against the wind: how do times of austerity shape academic entrepreneurship in unfriendly environments?

[EN] Academic spin-offs (ASOs) help universities transfer knowledge or technology through business projects developed by academic staff. This investigation aims at analyzing the critical factors for spin-off creation at universities operating in crisis-raven, entrepreneurship-unfriendly environments. Such factors revolve around four types of resources: environmental, institutional, organizational, and personal. Focusing on a Southern European context, as an example of an unfriendly environment affected by economic crisis, an entrepreneurial university (the Technical University of Valencia in Spain, UPV) is our research setting. Through a case study approach, we examine the potential of UPV as a springboard for ASOs. Our results show an adverse local environment, a rather favorable influence of institutional and organizational drivers, and a mixed role of personal factors. Our findings illustrate that UPV consistently supports spin-off creation due to a greater (rather positive) reflexivity from its institutional, organizational and personal resources than the (negative) imprinting of the unfriendly environment. This helps counter-balance the structural unfriendliness for academic entrepreneurship, and trigger a crisis-led risk-taking attitude by academic staff. Hence, UPV should continue with its current strategy of supporting academic entrepreneurship, and might transfer best practices to other universities also affected by unfavorable environmental conditions. Generally speaking, we would advise universities facing adverse circumstances to develop rules and mechanisms for academic entrepreneurship, carefully revise and improve malfunctions, and become involved throughout the whole process of spin-off development. All in all, our study advances understanding of how the different drivers for ASO creation can be revamped by universities located in unfriendly environments, having in mind the key role that universities play in fostering social and economic development through academic entrepreneurship in such environments.The authors would like to thank the Universitat Politecnica de Valencia (grant PAID-06-12-0916), and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (grant ECO2011-29863), for their financial support for this research.Seguí-Mas, E.; Oltra, V.; Tormo-Carbó, G.; Sarrión Viñes, F. (2017). Rowing against the wind: how do times of austerity shape academic entrepreneurship in unfriendly environments?. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. 1-42. doi:10.1007/s11365-017-0478-zS142Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2013). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 41, 757–774.Alemany, L. (2011). Libro blanco de la iniciativa emprendedora en España. Resource document. ISEAD. http://idl.isead.edu.es:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/859/1/658ALElib.pdf . Accessed 31 October 2015.Algieri, B., Aquino, A., & Succurro, M. (2013). Technology transfer offices and academic spin-off creation: the case of Italy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(4), 382–400.ARWU (2017). Academic Ranking of World Universities 2017. Resource document. http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2017.html . Accesed 15 August 2017.Ashcroft, B., Holden, D., & Low, K. (2004). Potential entrepreneurs and the self employment choice decision. In Strathclyde Discussion papers in Economics, 4–16. Glasglow: University of Strathclyde.Autio, E., & Kauranen, I. (1994). Technologist-entrepreneurs versus nonentrepreneurial technologists: Analysis of motivational triggering factors. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 6, 315–328.Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy, 43, 1097–1108.Bonnacorsi, A., Colombo, M. G., Guerini, M., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2013). University specialization and new firm creation across industries. Small Business Economics, 41, 837–863.Bruneel, J., Van de Velde, E., & Clarysse, B. (2013). Impact of the type of corporate spin-off on growth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37, 943–959.CampusHabitat5U (2017). International Campus of Excellence. Resource document. UPV. http://campushabitat5u.es/?lang=en . Accessed 5 October 2017.Chiesa, V., & Piccaluga, A. (2000). Exploitation and diffusion of public research: The chase of academic spin-offs companies in Italy. R&D Management, 30, 329–339.Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. New York: IAU Press.Clarysse, B., & Moray, N. (2004). A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: The case of research-based spin-off. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 55–79.Cohen, M., Nelson, R., & Walsh, J. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48, 1–23.Creswell, J.W. & Clark, V. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. SAGE Publications.De Cleyn, S. H., Braet, J., & Klofsten, M. (2015). How human capital interacts with the early development of academic spin-offs. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(3), 599–621.Doutriaux, J., & Peterman, D. (1982). Technology transfer and academic entrepreneurship. Babson Park: Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference (BCERC).Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.European Commission (2017). Erasmus 2013–14. Top 500 higher education institutions receiving Erasmus students. Resource document. EC. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/education/library/statistics/2014/erasmus-receiving-institutions_en.pdf Accessed 5 October 2017.Eurovoc (2017). Mutilingual Thesaurus of the European Union. Resource document. http://eurovoc.europa.eu Accessed 03 February 2017.Franzoni, C. & Lissoni, F. (2006). Academic entrepreneurship, patents and spinoffs: Critical issues and lessons for Europe. CESPRI, Università Commerciale “Luigi Bocconi”. Working Paper No. 80.Fritsch, M., & Aamoucke, R. (2013). Regional public research, higher education, and innovative start-ups: An empirical investigation. Small Business Economics, 41, 865–885.Gartner, W. B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. The Academy of Management Review, 10, 696–706.Gartner, W. B. (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? is the wrong question. American Journal of Small Business, 12, 11–32.Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. J. J. (2006). University Patenting and its Effects on Academic Research: The merging European Evidence. Research Policy, 35, 790–807.Gibbert, M., & Ruigrok, W. (2010). The “What” and “How” of the case Study Rigor: Three Strategies based on Published Work. Organizational Research Methods, 13(4), 710–737.Gómez Gras, J. M., Galiana Lapera, D. R., Mira Solves, I., Verdú Jover, A. J., & Sancho Azuar, J. (2008). An empirical approach to the organisational determinants of spin-off creation in European universities. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(2), 187–198.Grandi, A., & Grimaldi, R. (2005). Academics' organizational characteristics and the generation of successful business ideas. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(6), 821–845.Güemes, J.J. (2011), “Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Informe GEM España 2010”. Resource document. GEM España. http://www.gemconsortium.org/docs/download/616. Accessed 15 January 2015 .Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2012). The development of an entrepreneurial university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1), 43–74.Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Cunningham, J., & Organ, D. (2014). Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions: a case study comparison. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 415–434.Hoang, H., & Antoncic, B. (2003). Network-based research in entrepreneurship: A critical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 165–187.Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences. International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage.Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Hülsbeck, M., & Pickavé, E. N. (2014). Regional knowledge production as determinant of high-technology entrepreneurship: Empirical evidence for Germany. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10, 121–138.INE (2016). INEbase: Operaciones estadísticas. Instituto Nacional de Estadística (National [Spanish] Statistical Institute). Resource document. INE. http://www.ine.es/inebmenu/indice.htm . Accessed 2 July 2016.Kalar, B., & Antoncic, B. (2015). The entrepreneurial university, academic activities and technology and knowledge transfer in four European countries. Technovation, 36-37, 1–11.Kroll, H. (2009). Demonstrating the instrumentality of motivation oriented approaches for the explanation of academic spin-off formation—an application based on the Chinese case. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 5, 97–116.LAEI (2013). Ley 14/2013, de 27 de septiembre, de Apoyo a Emprendedores y su Internacionalización (‘Act of Support to Entrepreneurs and their Internationalization’). Government of Spain, 27 September. Resource document: http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2013/09/28/pdfs/BOE-A-2013-10074.pdf . Accessed 10 March 2016.Lam, A., & De Campos, A. (2015). Content to be sad’ or ‘runaway apprentice’? The psychological contract and career agency of young scientists in the entrepreneurial university. Human Relations, 68(5), 811–841.LCTI (2011). Ley 14/2011, de 1 de junio, de la Ciencia, la Tecnología y la Innovación (‘Science, Technology and Innovation Act’). Government of Spain, 1 June. Resource document: http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2011/06/02/pdfs/BOE-A-2011-9617.pdf . Accessed 10 March 2016.León-Darder, F. (2016). La internacionalització de l’empresa valenciana. In E. Seguí-Mas (Ed.), Una nova via per a l’empresa valenciana (pp. 61–80). Catarroja: Editorial Afers & Fundació Nexe.LES (2011). Ley 2/2011, de 4 de marzo, de Economía Sostenible (‘Sustainable Economy Act’). Government of Spain, 4 March, Resource document. http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2011/03/05/pdfs/BOE-A-2011-4117.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2016 .Leyden, D. P., & Link, A. N. (2013). Knowledge spillovers, collective entrepreneurship, and economic growth: The role of universities. Small Business Economics, 41, 797–817.Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2006). Environmental hostility and firm behavior – An empirical examination of new technology-based firms on science parks. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(3), 386–406.Link, N., & Scott, T. (2005). Opening the ivory’s tower door: An analysis of the determinants of the formation of US 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.LOMLOU (2007). Ley Orgánica 4/2007, de 12 de abril, por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 6/2011, de 21 de diciembre, de Universidades (‘Act of Modification of the University Act’). Government of Spain, 12 April. Resource document. https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2007/04/13/pdfs/A16241-16260.pdf (accessed 11 March 2016).LOU (2001). Ley Orgánica 6/2001, de Universidades (‘University Act’). Government of Spain, 21 December. Resource document: https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2001/12/24/pdfs/A49400-49425.pdf . Accessed 11 March 2016.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, 259–283.Martínez Carrascal, C. & Mulino Ríos, M. (2014). La evolución del crédito bancario a las empresas españolas según su tamaño. Un análisis basado en la explotación conjunta de la información de la CIR y de la CBI, Boletín Económico - Banco de España, Enero (January), pp. 117–125.Mathias, B. D., Williams, D. W., & Smith, A. R. (2015). Entrepreneurial inception: The role of imprinting in entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(1), 11–28.MIET (Spanish Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism) (2012). Estadísticas Pyme. Evolución e indicadores. No. 10″, Resource document. http://www.ipyme.org/Publicaciones/ESTADISTICAS_PYME_N10_2011.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2016 .Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (2008). Qualitative Data Analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Sage Publications.Morales-Gualdrón, S. Y., Gutiérrez-Gracias, & Roig Dobón, S. (2009). The entrepreneurial motivation in academia: A multidimensional construct. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6, 301–317.Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2007). From human capital to social capital: A longitudinal study of technology-based academic entrepreneurs. Entrepreneur, 31, 909–936.Mosey, S., Lockett, A., & Westhead, P. (2006). Creating network bridges for university technology transfer: The Medici fellowship programme. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 18, 71–91.Mosey, S., Wright, M., & Clarysse, B. (2012a). Transforming traditional university structures for the knowledge economy through multidisciplinary institutes. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36, 587–607.Mosey, S., Noke, H., & Binks, M. (2012b). The influence of human and social capital upon the entrepreneurial intentions and destinations of academics. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 24, 893–910.Moutinho, R., Au-Yong-Oliveira, M., Coelho, A., & Manso, J. P. (2016). Determinants of knowledge-based entrepreneurship: an exploratory approach. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(1), 171–197.Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001a). The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: an assessment of the effects of Bayle-Dole Act of 1980. Research Policy, 30(1), 99–119.Mowery, D. C., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001b). Learning to patent: institutional experience, learning, and the characyeristics of US university Patents after the Bayle-Dole Act, 1981-1992. Management Science, 48(1), 73–89.O’Shea, R., Allen, J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of US universities. Research Policy, 34, 994–1009.O’Shea, R., Allen, T., Morse, K., O’Gorman, C., & Roche, F. (2007). Delineating the anatomy of an entrepreneurial university: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Experience. R&D Management, 37(1), 1–16.O’Shea, R., Chugh, H., & Allen, T. (2008). Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: A conceptual framework. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 653–666.Ortín, P., Salas, V., Trujillo, M.V., & Vendrell, F. (2007). El spin-off universitario en España como modelo de creación de empresas intensivas en tecnología. Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio. Secretaría General de Industria. Dirección General de Política de la Pyme. Resource document. http://www.ipyme.org/Publicaciones/Informe spinnoff.pdf . Accessed 2 October 2016.Papaoikonomou, E., Segarra, P., & Li, X. (2012). Entrepreneurship in the context of crisis: Identifying barriers and proposing strategies. International Advances in Economic Research, 18, 111–119.Piperopoulos, P., & Piperopoulos, G. (2010). Is Greece finally on the right path toward entrepreneurship, innovation, and business clusters? International Journal of Public Administration, 33(1), 55–59.Powers, B., & McDougall, P. (2005). University startup formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: A resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 291–311.Red OTRI (2016). Informe de la Encuesta de Investigación y Transferencia 2014 de las universidades españolas. Resource document. http://www.redotriuniversidades.net/index.php/informa-encuesta/6-encuesta-redotri/informa-encuesta-2014/download . Accessed 22 June 2016.Redero San-Román, M. (2002). Origen y desarrollo de la universidad franquista. Studia Zamorensia, 6, 337–352.Rodríguez-Gulías, M. J., Rodeiro-Pazos, D., & Fernández-López, S. (2017). The effect of university and regional knowledge spillovers on firms’ performance: an analysis of the Spanish USOs. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(1), 191–209.Rodríguez-San Pedro, L.E. (2014). Las universidades españolas en su contexto historic. Resource document. Universia. http://universidades.universia.es/universidades-de-pais/historia-de-universidades/historia-universidad-espanola/pasado-reciente/pasado-reciente-multiplicidad-regimen-autonomico.html . Accessed 28 July 2015.Samsom, K., & Gurdon, M. (1990). Entrepreneurial scientist: Organizational performance in scientist-started high technology firms. Forest Park: Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference (BCERC).Schmitz, A., Urbano, D., Dandolini, G. A., de Souza, J. A., & Guerrero, M. (2017). Innovation and entrepreneurship in the academic setting: A systematic literature review. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(2), 369–395.Shane, S., & Khurana, R. (2003). Bringing individuals back in: The effects of career experience on new firm founding. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12, 519–543.Shapero, A., & Sokol, L. (1982). The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 72–90). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.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), 63–76.Soler i Marco, V. (2009). Creixement i canvi estructural. In V. Soler (Ed.), Economia espanyola i del País Valencià. Valencia: Publicacions de la Universitat de València.Suddaby, R., Bruton, G. D., & Si, S. X. (2015). Entrepreneurship through a qualitative lens: Insights on the construction and/or discovery of entrepreneurial opportunity. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(1), 1–10.Tech Transfer UPV FCR (2016). Air Nostrum, Caixa Popular e IVI entran en el fondo de la UPV. Resource document. TTUPV FCR. http://www.techtransferupv.com/noticias/air-nostrum-caixa-popular-e-ivi-entran-en-el-fondo-de-la-upv/ (4 April) Accessed 10 July 2016.The Times Higher Education (2017). 100 Under 50 Ranking 2017. Resource document. THE. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2017/young-university-rankings#!/page/0/length/-1/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats . Accessed 15 august 2017.UPV (2007). Instituto IDEAS 15 aniversario (1992–2007). Resource document. UPV. http://www.upv.es/entidades/IDEAS/menu_urlv.html?http://www.upv.es/entidades/IDEAS/info/memoria15a%F1os.pdf . Accessed 10 April 2016.UPV (2011). Corporación empresarial. Resource document. UPV. http://www.upv.es/noticias-upv/noticia-4904-corporacion-emp-es.html . Accessed 10 April 2016.UPV (2014). Plan de emprendimiento global. Resource document. UPV. https://www.upv.es/noticias-upv/noticia-6846-plan-de-emprend-es.html . Accessed 10 April 2016.UPV (2015). Jornadas de Puertas Abiertas 2015–16. Resource document. UPV. www.upv.es/contenidos/ORIENTA/info/jpa_ciclos_2015-16.ppt . Accessed 10 April 2016.UPV (2017a). Spin-Off UPV. Resource document. UPV. http://www.upv.es/entidades/I2T/info/891434normalc.html . Accessed 5 October 2017.UPV (2017b). Ciudad Politécnica de la Innovación. Parque Científico en Red de la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia. Quienes Somos. Presentación. Resource document. UPV. http://cpi.upv.es/quienes-somos/presentacion . Accessed 5 October 2017.UPV (2017c). Servicio de Promoción y Apoyo a la Investigación, la Innovación y la Transferencia. Presentación. Resource document. UPV. http://i2t.webs.upv.es/i2t/presentacion.php. Accessed 5 October 2017 .UPV. (2017d). Tech Transfer UPV. UPV: Resource document http://www.upv.es/noticias-upv/noticia-8355-tech-transfer-u-es.html. Accessed 5 October 2017 .UPV (2017e). Mission statement, vision and values. Resource document. UPV. https://www.upv.es/organizacion/la-institucion/misionvisionvalores-plan-upv-en.html Accessed 17 October 2017.Vargas Vasserot, C. (2012). Las spin-offs académicas y su posible configuración como empresas de economía social. REVESCO. Revista de Estudios Cooperativos, 107, 186–205.VLC/Campus (2017). VLC/Campus. Valencia, International Campus of Excellence. Resource document. UPV. http://www.vlc-campus.com/en . Accessed 5 October 2017.Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T. (2006). The impact of network capabilities and entrepreneurial orientation on university spin-off performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4), 541–567.Weatherston, J. (1995). Academic Entrepreneurs: Is a spin-off Company too risky. Proceedings of the 40th International Council on Small Business, Sydney, 18–21.Willoughby, M., Talon, J., Millet, J., & Ayats, C. (2013). University services for fostering creativity in hi-tech firms. The Service Industries Journal, 33, 1103–1116.Wright, M., & Mosey, S. (2012). Strategic entrepreneurship, resource orchestration and growing spin-offs from universities. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 24, 911–927.Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Mustar, P., & Lockett, A. (2007). Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Sage: Thousand Oaks.Yusof, M., & Jain, K. J. (2010). Categories of university-level entrepreneurship: A literature survey. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6(1), 81–86

A spill over effect of entrepreneurial orientation on technological innovativeness:an outlook of universities and research based spin offs

partially_open5siBy shifting towards Romer’s (Am Econ Rev 94:1002–1037, 1986) economy and so the spread of knowledge economy, universities started to adopt a collaborative approach with their entrepreneurial ecosystem. They turn out to be risk taker, autonomous, proactive, competitive, and innovative. In a nutshell, they are entrepreneurial oriented with the aim to generate new innovative ventures, known as research-based spin offs. Doubly, this has induced an improvement of technology transfer and the degree of entrepreneurship in the current knowledge economy. However there still is a paucity of studies on the spill over effect of entrepreneurial orientated universities and research-based spin off on technology transfer need to be more explored. Therefore, the article investigates the link between entrepreneurial orientation and such spill overs by offering an outlook of two universities and two research-based spin offs in the United Kingdom. The scope is to provide a deep view of technological innovativeness in a research context, entrepreneurial oriented. Our research suggests that entrepreneurial attitude has become an imperative to succeed in the context where British institutions currently operate. Entrepreneurship brings the necessary technological innovation to the university and its students, which results in better positioning of the university at national and international levels, with the subsequent impact on their ability to attract not only new students and academics but also funding to conduct their research.openScuotto, Veronica; Del Giudice, Manlio; Garcia-Perez, Alexeis; Orlando, Beatrice; Ciampi, FrancescoScuotto, Veronica; Del Giudice, Manlio; Garcia-Perez, Alexeis; Orlando, Beatrice; Ciampi, Francesc

Learning and Educational Programs for Entrepreneurs

This chapter summarizes the latest studies in entrepreneurial learning in order to highlight their implications for the design of educational programs (Pittaway & Thorpe, 2012). It examines in detail the latest thinking on the subject, summarizes the key concepts and empirical contributions with a particular focus on expanding understanding of ‘situated’, social and contextual learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991). The chapter stems from Pittaway and Thorpe’s (2012: 850) summary of Cope’s framework. Here it highlights critical concepts, such as dynamic temporal phases, forms and characteristics of learning (Cope, 2010) and lays out the underlying principles of each concept. Following this initial framework recent contributions to the subject of entrepreneurial learning, both conceptual and empirical, are presented to provide an up-to-date picture of thinking in the field. The latter part of the chapter highlights implications of current thinking on the design of development programs for entrepreneurs. It focuses on how concepts in this field can be used to enhance efforts to consider, design and deliver educational programs for entrepreneurs. A number of forms of educational practice are recommended based on this analysis. The chapter closes by considering future developments and lines of inquiry in entrepreneurial learnin