The effect of curricular and extracurricular activities on university students? entrepreneurial intention and competences

This study examines how the alliance-building process affects the intention to enter into international alliances in the case of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). From a psychological perspective (Perceived Behavioural Control), the authors analyse the alliance-building process as an inhibitor of the international collaboration intention, considering to what extent the experience affects the intention of the partners involved. The study explores these hypotheses based on a sample of 220 Spanish SMEs. The results provide empirical evidence showing that the intention to develop international alliances is negatively affected by the search and the selection process as well as by the negotiation of the agreement, which reduces the intention to establish an international agreement. In addition, the intention is moderated by the experience of the SME manager. Moreover, there is a negative relationship between the extent of the SME manager's international experience and the intention to develop an international alliance

Relational practices and reflexivity: Exploring the responses of women entrepreneurs to changing household dynamics

This qualitative study explores how and why women, positioned as mothers, wives, or carers, navigate changing household dynamics, related to care and reproductive resources, and become entrepreneurial. Drawing on relational reflexivity, we show how women’s embodied, intimate relations with important others in the household form the focal point for entrepreneurial activities and offer evidence of their entrepreneurial agency. Our analysis reveals the emergence of three relational practices that result in a new venture as the entrepreneurial response of women. We critically evaluate normative analyses on gender, entrepreneurship, and household

Impact of childhood experiences on the development of entrepreneurial intentions

Fostering entrepreneurship and an entrepreneurial culture has become a key policy priority for governments. To encourage entrepreneurship and an entrepreneurial culture, however, there is a need to understand the factors that influence and shape individuals' intentions to start a business. This study extends models of entrepreneurial intentions by investigating the influence of various childhood-experience factors on the perceived feasibility and desirability of starting a business. A structured questionnaire was completed by over 1,000 university students and analysed using regression analysis. Results indicated that perceptions of entrepreneurship were influenced not only by parental ownership of a business, but also by a difficult childhood and frequent relocation

How to Educate Entrepreneurs?

Entrepreneurship education has two purposes: To improve students’ entrepreneurial skills and to provide impetus to those suited to entrepreneurship while discouraging the rest. While entrepreneurship education helps students to make a vocational decision its effects may conflict for those not suited to entrepreneurship. This study shows that vocational and the skill formation effects of entrepreneurship education can be identified empirically by drawing on the Theory of Planned Behavior. This is embedded in a structural equation model which we estimate and test using a robust 2SLS estimator. We find that the attitudinal factors posited by the Theory of Planned Behavior are positively correlated with students’ entrepreneurial intentions. While conflicting effects of vocational and skill directed course content are observed in some individuals, overall these types of content are complements. This finding contradicts previous results in the literature. We reconcile the conflicting findings and discuss implications for the design of entrepreneurship courses

Defining and assessing enterprise capability in schools

This paper describes the development of an instrument for assessing enterprise capability in schools. The approach to assessing enterprise capability builds on previous work by including three dimensions: self-efficacy, aspirations and knowledge and awareness. We find significant but weak associations between these three constructs suggesting that that, whilst they can be considered as providing a coherent description of enterprise capability they can also be regarded as distinct dimensions. The instrument also distinguishes between aspiration towards not-for-profit and for-profit enterprise and also between self-efficacy towards two broad enterprise capabilities: (i) project planning and (ii) working with people and information and two specific, market related capabilities: (iii) market risk and (iv) price and profit. We found only modest associations between students’ sense of enterpriser self-efficacy and their enterprise knowledge and awareness

Entrepreneurship Assessment in Higher Education: A Research Review for Engineering Education Researchers

BackgroundDespite the wide adoption of entrepreneurship by United States engineering programs, there have been few advances in how to measure the influences of entrepreneurial education on engineering students. We believe the inadequate growth in engineering entrepreneurship assessment research is due to the limited use of research emerging from the broader entrepreneurship education assessment community.PurposeThis paper explores entrepreneurship education assessment by documenting the current state of the research and identifying the theories, variables, and research designs most commonly used by the broader community. We then examine if and how these theories and constructs are used in engineering entrepreneurship education.Scope/MethodTwo literature databases, Scopus® and Proquest, were searched systematically for entrepreneurship education assessment research literature. This search yielded 2,841 unique papers. Once inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, 359 empirical research papers were coded for study design, theory, variables measured, instruments, and validity and reliability.ConclusionsWhile there has been growth in entrepreneurship education assessment research, little exchange of ideas across the disciplines of business, engineering, and education is occurring. Nonempirical descriptions of programs outweigh empirical research, and these empirical studies focus on affective, rather than cognitive or behavioral, outcomes. This pattern within the larger entrepreneurship community is mirrored in engineering where the use of theoryâ based, validated entrepreneurship education assessment instruments generally focuses on the context of intent to start a new company. Given the engineering community’s goals to support engineering entrepreneurship beyond business creation, the engineering education community should consider developing assessment instruments based in theory and focused on engineeringâ specific entrepreneurship outcomes.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/145556/1/jee20197.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/145556/2/jee20197_am.pd

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

Discovery and Creation: Alternative Theories of Entrepreneurial Action

As oportunidades empreendedoras existem, independentemente, das percepções dos empreendedores, esperando apenas para serem descobertas? Ou, estas oportunidades são criadas pelas ações dos empreendedores? Duas teorias, internamente, consistentes com as oportunidades empreendedoras são: teoria da criação e teoria da descoberta- as quais serão descritas. Enquanto, será sempre possível, descrever a formação de uma oportunidade particular, como exemplo, de um processo da descoberta ou da criação de oportunidade, estas duas teorias têm implicações importantes para a eficácia de uma variedade ampla de ações empreendedoras em contextos diferentes. As implicações destas teorias para sete destas ações serão descritas, acompanhadas de uma discussão sobre algumas das implicações teóricas mais amplas destas duas teorias para os campos do empreendimento e do gerenciamento estratégico

Entrepreneurial-intention constraint model: A comparative analysis among post-graduate management students in India, Singapore and Malaysia

YesAlthough literature on entrepreneurship has increasingly focused on intention-based models, not much emphasis has been laid on understanding the combined effect of contextual and situational factors along with support of university environment on the formation of entrepreneurial intention among students. In an effort to make up for this shortfall, by taking Theory of Planned Behavior as basic framework, the present study seeks to understand the influence of three of the most important factors, viz. (a) endogenous barriers, (b) exogenous environment, and (c) university environment and support on the entrepreneurial intention among management students. The study sample consisted of 1,097 students, wherein 526 students were from India, 252 from Singapore, and 319 were from Malaysia. The results indicates that along with positive attitude and perceived behavioral control that directly influences entrepreneurial intention, university environment and support and exogenous environment also have an indirect but significant impact on shaping of entrepreneurial intention among students. With this, it was found that exogenous environment was found to have a negative relationship with both attitude towards behavior and perceived behavioral control for all three countries.The full-text of this article will be released for public view at the end of the publisher embargo on 2 Jun 2018