IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/loceco/v30y2015i5p484-502.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Entrepreneurship training in tertiary education: Its development and transfer

Author

Listed:
  • Tony Jackson

Abstract

Self-employment is becoming an increasingly viable option for growing numbers of young people entering the labour market, so it is important to identify and develop good practice in the delivery of entrepreneurship training. Not only will this enhance the quality of its provision, but it will also serve to ensure that the economic benefits from larger numbers of start-ups and innovatory new businesses are fully realised. The development and transfer of training in entrepreneurship are examined. Recent studies indicate that its provision at the tertiary education level boosts new business formation, and that experiential learning in entrepreneurship provides students with more incentives to start their own enterprises on graduating than formal enrolment in business programmes. These studies further suggest a strong positive correlation between those European universities that have adopted strategies, resources and institutional infrastructures explicitly targeted towards entrepreneurial objectives and the quality of their entrepreneurship training provision. On this basis, tertiary education institutions need to adopt a holistic cross-disciplinary approach, which commits them fully to promoting opportunities for training students in the formation of enterprises and the translation of innovatory ideas into operational businesses. To be effective, this should involve campus-wide provision, as well as outreach and engagement with the community and its businesses. Evidence demonstrates a number of alternative pathways for the transfer of good practice entrepreneurship training to less developed countries. Bottom-up models depend on the establishment of centres of excellence. These need to develop the capacity to engage with their own government policy-makers in shaping national training initiatives along their own good practice lines. Top-down models depend on creating a policy-framework and funding sources sufficient to encourage the adoption of effective entrepreneurship training programmes across the national educational framework. Here the crucial issue is the ability of existing institutions to respond to such opportunities. Between these extremes, the German dual VET system offers an ‘off-the-shelf’ option for the transfer of vocational entrepreneurship training to less developed countries, which still requires extensive adaptation to local conditions.

Suggested Citation

  • Tony Jackson, 2015. "Entrepreneurship training in tertiary education: Its development and transfer," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 30(5), pages 484-502, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:loceco:v:30:y:2015:i:5:p:484-502
    DOI: 10.1177/0269094215589143
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0269094215589143
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0269094215589143?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David C. Mowery & Bhaven N. Sampat, 2005. "The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University-Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments?," Springer Books, in: Albert N. Link & F. M. Scherer (ed.), Essays in Honor of Edwin Mansfield, pages 233-245, Springer.
    2. Frank T. Rothaermel & Shanti D. Agung & Lin Jiang, 2007. "University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 16(4), pages 691-791, August.
    3. Janet Bercovitz & Maryann Feldman, 2006. "Entpreprenerial Universities and Technology Transfer: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Knowledge-Based Economic Development," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 175-188, January.
    4. David C. Mowery & Bhaven N. Sampat, 2005. "The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University--Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 30(2_2), pages 115-127, January.
    5. Bramwell, Allison & Wolfe, David A., 2008. "Universities and regional economic development: The entrepreneurial University of Waterloo," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1175-1187, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kenney, Martin & Patton, Donald, 2011. "Does inventor ownership encourage university research-derived entrepreneurship? A six university comparison," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1100-1112, October.
    2. Kenney, Martin & Patton, Donald, 2009. "Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the Current University Invention Ownership Model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 1407-1422, November.
    3. Catalina Martínez & Valerio Sterzi, 2021. "The impact of the abolishment of the professor’s privilege on European university-owned patents," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(3), pages 247-282, March.
    4. Link, Albert N. & Siegel, Donald S. & Van Fleet, David D., 2011. "Public science and public innovation: Assessing the relationship between patenting at U.S. National Laboratories and the Bayh-Dole Act," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1094-1099, October.
    5. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Doherr, Thorsten & Hussinger, Katrin & Schliessler, Paula & Toole, Andrew A., 2016. "Knowledge Creates Markets: The influence of entrepreneurial support and patent rights on academic entrepreneurship," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 131-146.
    6. Mario BENASSI & Matteo LANDONI & Francesco RENTOCCHINI, 2017. "University Management Practices and Academic Spin-offs," Departmental Working Papers 2017-11, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    7. Shen, Huijun & Coreynen, Wim & Huang, Can, 2022. "Exclusive licensing of university technology: The effects of university prestige, technology transfer offices, and academy-industry collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    8. Walsh, John P. & Huang, Hsini, 2014. "Local context, academic entrepreneurship and open science: Publication secrecy and commercial activity among Japanese and US scientists," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 245-260.
    9. Rippa, Pierluigi & Secundo, Giustina, 2019. "Digital academic entrepreneurship: The potential of digital technologies on academic entrepreneurship," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 900-911.
    10. Bodas Freitas, Isabel Maria & Marques, Rosane Argou & Silva, Evando Mirra de Paula e, 2013. "University–industry collaboration and innovation in emergent and mature industries in new industrialized countries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 443-453.
    11. Foray, Dominique & Lissoni, Francesco, 2010. "University Research and Public–Private Interaction," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 275-314, Elsevier.
    12. Erika Färnstrand Damsgaard & Marie C. Thursby, 2013. "University entrepreneurship and professor privilege," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 22(1), pages 183-218, February.
    13. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Daniele Biancardi & Mabel Sanchez Barrioluengo & Federico Biagi, 2019. "Study on Higher Education Institutions and Local Development," JRC Research Reports JRC117272, Joint Research Centre.
    14. Perkmann, Markus & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Autio, Erkko & Broström, Anders & D’Este, Pablo & Fini, Riccardo & Geuna, Aldo & Grimaldi, Rosa & Hughes, Alan & Krabel, Stefan & Kitson, Mi, 2013. "Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 423-442.
    15. Einar Rasmussen & Paul Benneworth & Magnus Gulbrandsen, 2013. "Scoping paper: Developing University Innovation Capacity: How can innovation policy effectively harness universities’ capability to promote high-growth technology businesses?," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20131007, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    16. Berbegal-Mirabent, Jasmina & Sánchez García, José Luís & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. Enrique, 2015. "University–industry partnerships for the provision of R&D services," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 1407-1413.
    17. Brantnell, Anders & Baraldi, Enrico, 2022. "Understanding the roles and involvement of technology transfer offices in the commercialization of university research," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    18. Federico Munari & Martina Pasquini & Laura Toschi, 2015. "From the lab to the stock market? The characteristics and impact of university-oriented seed funds in Europe," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(6), pages 948-975, December.
    19. Marcel Hülsbeck & Erik Lehmann & Alexander Starnecker, 2013. "Performance of technology transfer offices in Germany," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 199-215, June.
    20. Temel, Serdal & Dabić, Marina & Murat Ar, Ilker & Howells, Jeremy & Ali Mert, & Yesilay, Rustem Baris, 2021. "Exploring the relationship between university innovation intermediaries and patenting performance," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:loceco:v:30:y:2015:i:5:p:484-502. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/index.shtml .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.