Journal of High Technology Management Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of High Technology Management Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/hitech

Impact of the qualities of the manager and type of university on the

development of the entrepreneurial university
Sawsen Sidrata, , Maha Ayadi Frikhab
⁎

a
University of Sfax, Faculty of Economics Sciences and Management of Sfax, Tunisia
b
University of Tunis El Manar, Faculty of Economics and Management of Tunis, UR13ES23- Innovation, Strategies and Organization- URISO, 2092
Tunis, Tunisia

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords: This paper sheds light on the importance of the evolution of the university towards an en-
Qualities of the manager trepreneurial one. To clarify the specific characteristics allowing the university to become en-
Type of university trepreneurial, we conducted a quantitative study on 120 heads of Tunisian universities. Our
Entrepreneurial university results show that for a university to become an entrepreneur, it has to undergo internal trans-
formations. In this sense, the role of the manager and the university type has a positive impact on
the development of an entrepreneurial university. Therefore, the proposed conceptual model can
serve as a reference or a starting point for further research aimed at studying the entrepreneurial
university.

1. Introduction

In order to contribute fully to the revitalization and socio-economic development of the community and the country in question,
universities seek to further develop themselves. Faced with a turbulent environment, universities are required to raise the major
challenges and achieve the already set objectives. They are expected to provide good academic training, develop skills, and contribute
to edify society, enrich knowledge, develop technology and bring it to the benefit of the community through establishing or even
strengthening an effective partnership between the academic world and the productive one.
The university must work to become a real engine of society in all fields; it should be fully involved in national and regional
development of efforts, which requires the opening of the university on its environment, establishing a university business dialogue,
listening in general and proximity in particular not only to be able to meet their expectations, their needs, and also to address their
shortcomings.
It is now generally accepted that universities are an important instrument in facilitating the knowledge-based economy.
Universities and research institutions, where much knowledge is developed, are seen as important catalysts for economic and social
development through the spin-off of new innovative firms that add value through knowledge creation. This is why governments
around the world are trying to create more entrepreneurial universities. Higher education institutions are increasingly called upon to
operate more in a spirit-like enterprise, to commercialize the results of their research, and to create new knowledge-based enterprises.
According to Etzkowitz (1998, 2003 and 2004), universities are currently the subject of a “second revolution”, integrating economic
and social development into their mission. The new entrepreneurial university integrates economic development as an additional
function (Etzkowitz, 1993; Laukkanen, 2000; Ropke, 1998). In this sense, public administrations and other institutions have begun to
put in place support measures to create entrepreneurial environments at the university level and to motivate interaction between

⁎
Corresponding author at: University of Sfax, URECA, Research Unit in Applied Economics, Faculty of Economics Sciences and Management Sfax, Tunisia.
E-mail address: sawsensidrat@yahoo.fr (S. Sidrat).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2018.04.003

1047-8310/ © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Sidrat, S., Journal of High Technology Management Research (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2018.04.003
S. Sidrat, M.A. Frikha Journal of High Technology Management Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

them and universities.

An entrepreneurial society refers to the area where both knowledge about entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial spirit have
emerged as a driving force for economic growth, competitiveness and job creation. In this context, we find that entrepreneurial
universities play an essential role as producers of knowledge. It should be noted that each author tries to propose a “recipe” for the
creation and development of an entrepreneurial university by presenting a set of ingredients to realize it. Moreover, as Zaharia and
Gibert (2005) emphasize, “the process of entrepreneurial transformation is long and varies from one university to another as it is
influenced by traditions, economic development, cultural factors and legislative frameworks”.
Moreover, Clark (2001) considers that the creation of an entrepreneurial university “is not a stage that can be passed through once
and forever. It is a process without end. Its creation is likely to happen not as a big bang, but in an incremental, evolutionary fashion, as a
flexible organizational character that can adjust and readjust with better responses to rapidly changing demands”.
Rajhi (2014) argued in her qualitative study that the university is led to carry out internal transformations so as to become
entrepreneurial. Similarly, Gibb (2001) advocates the need to identify stages of transformations within the university. According to
her, it is not a matter of focusing only on “small changes” in teaching and research programs but also on changes in the structure,
organization and culture of the university. To this end, several universities have turned to entrepreneurial practices.
According to Kwiek (2001), the university transformation seems inevitable for both developed and developing countries.
Nevertheless, this field of study remains underdeveloped because the majority of studies have followed other approaches such as
academic capitalism, commercialization of knowledge without taking into account the specific characteristics of the entrepreneurial
university.
Then, a proper identification of the specific characteristics of the entrepreneurial university (role of managers and the type of the
university) becomes crucial because an entrepreneurial university needs to design and implement better characteristics allowing for
an entrepreneurial orientation. Thus, the analysis of the impact of the university's own characteristics on the development of the
entrepreneurial university becomes a topical subject.
Therefore, the main question of this research paper is formulated as follows: what are the specific characteristics that have been
adopted towards an entrepreneurial university?
To our knowledge, we believe that Rajhi (2014), using a qualitative study, was the first who investigated the role of the supervisor
and the type of university in the field of university research.
Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that the current investigation is the first quantitative study that attempts to highlight the
interrelations between the qualities of the manager and the type of university that condition the development of entrepreneurial
universities with teaching, research and the entrepreneurial missions that they need to achieve. The contribution of this study can
also be seen through the development of a conceptual model, showing the importance of these factors in the development of an
entrepreneurial university, the accumulation and development of knowledge clarifying this phenomenon, and better position re-
searchers in the field of entrepreneurship. Then, the originality of our study stems from the fact that it seeks to refine this conceptual
model by a quantitative survey with the heads of Tunisian universities. The conceptual model that we have proposed can be used as a
tool available to those leaders for initiating and implementing a policy for the creation and development of entrepreneurial uni-
versities.
Our work is divided into four parts. We present in the first section a review of the literature and the development of hypotheses,
the second section focuses on the presentation of the conceptual model, variables, data and methodology. The third section is devoted
to test the validity of hypotheses test. Finally, the concern of the last section is to interpret and discuss the results.

2. Review of the literature and development of hypotheses

In the light of the literature review on the entrepreneurial university, we note that authors do not agree on one way to create or
develop an entrepreneurial university. Indeed, we have chosen the variables explaining why some universities become en-
trepreneurial than the others. These variables are dealt with under the following headings: role of the supervisor and type of uni-
versity.

2.1. Role of the leader

Any university requires managers with specific personal characteristics, in different full-time positions, to fulfill its mission. The
university manager is the key position in the university. In this context, Rajhi (2014), in her work “Conceptualization of en-
trepreneurial spirit and identification of the factors of its development at university” has enriched the conceptual model by adding
new variables, namely the importance of the role of the manager in the development of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial spirit in
the university. The results of her case study revealed that 83.3% of the respondents believe that the role of the leader is extremely
crucial.
Indeed, she concluded that “to help develop entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial spirit, the manager must have several qualities,
namely initiative, perseverance, volunteerism and vision”. She also thinks that the combination of these manager's qualities reflects
the entrepreneur's profile. According to her qualitative exploratory survey by means of semi-directive interviews with Tunisian
university officials, Nadia. R concludes that “the head of the university must be himself an entrepreneur”. In the same vein, Gasse
(2009) emphasizes that “the ideal would be to bring the leaders of the university structures to behave like entrepreneurs, that is to
say, capable of defining, realizing visions and building a dynamic and efficient relational and organizational system”.
Similarly, Miles (2003) developed a scale to measure entrepreneurial dimensions in business schools. He suggests the role of the

2
S. Sidrat, M.A. Frikha Journal of High Technology Management Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

dean as a determining factor. According to this author, the dean must re-examine the school's mission, nurture the entrepreneurial
capacity of the school, support and develop the creation of opportunity, integrate entrepreneurship into the school's strategy, pro-
mote an entrepreneurial strategy in the school, encourage innovation in teaching, research and service.
It is thus possible for us to pose the following hypothesis:
H1. The role of the manager influences the development of the entrepreneurial university.

2.2. The type of university

A university is an institution of higher education, study and research. Though it is named according to some traditions such as
“school”, “faculties”, and “institutes”, the university remains an entity that forms a coherent administrative body with a defined legal
status, be it public or private. Under this legal and administrative umbrella, the following missions are gathered or monopolized: the
production (research), the preservation (publications) and the transmission (higher studies) of different chosen fields of studies and
knowledge (management, commerce, informatics …).
As we have previously argued, Rajhi (2014) is the first who has studied the importance of the type of university in promoting
entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurial spirit of the university. According to the results of her study, half of the interviewees (50%)
think that the type of the university greatly influences the promotion of entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurial spirit. Indeed,
according to the opinions of these academic leaders “a private university is oriented more towards the development of en-
trepreneurship than a public university: because of its status, it is a for-profit enterprise”. Similarly, she concludes that a school or a
management institute allows developing more entrepreneurial practices than a faculty. This has led Nadia Rajhi to signal that “the
nature of the disciplines taught, such as engineering, commerce, management and computer science, develops entrepreneurship more
than other disciplines such as arts, languages, human sciences”.
Nadia. R sees that “the type of training offered (professionalising) and the nature of the granted diploma subsequently allows
students to start a job, to be easily integrated into the professional life and to create their own jobs”. Thus, on the basis of these
developments, we can make the following hypothesis:
H2. The type of university positively influences the creation and development of the entrepreneurial university.

3. Presentation of the model, variables, data and methodology

3.1. Conceptual model (Fig. 1)

Research Operationalization of
variables
Paradigm
The development
Role of the manager of the
Characteristics of
entrepreneurial
the university university
Type of the university

Fig. 1. The conceptual model of research.

3.2. Research variables

In order to measure the dependent variable, “the development of the entrepreneurial university”, and the two independent
variables, “the role of the manager” and “the type of university”, we have opted for a measurement scale inspired from the work of
Lee, Strong, Kahn, and Wang (2002) and Vedder and Wachbroit (2003). The respondents are required to respond to questions made
on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”.

3.3. The survey

In order to test our research model, we carried out a questionnaire survey, administered either in a face-to-face manner or
electronically, to 120 Tunisian university heads (directors, deans, university president, heads of departments, and directors of stu-
dies).

3
S. Sidrat, M.A. Frikha Journal of High Technology Management Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

We have been able to access the names and e-mail addresses of the latter through the list of universities provided by the Ministry
of Higher Education and Scientific Research (mes.tn) sections Universities and Private Higher Education where there are all
Information on all institutions of higher education with their addresses and the names of their officials.

3.4. Research methodology

The simultaneous influence of all the metric explanatory variables on the development of the entrepreneurial university is tested
through multiple regression. This is an extension of a simple linear regression involving several independent variables.
The objectives of multiple regression are generally the same as those of the simple regression. First, it is a question of explaining
the variations of the dependent variable from those independent variables which are assumed to be at the origin of these variations.
Second, the goal is also to determine the intensity of this relationship. Finally, compared to simple regression, the multiple regression
has the advantage of analyzing the contributions made by each of the explanatory variables in the interpretation of the studied
phenomenon.

4. Multiple regression results

4.1. Assessment of the overall quality of the model

The assessment of the results of the regression does not stop at each variable.
In this regard, the strength and significance of the link between the variables to be explained and the explanatory variables should
be assessed (Evrard, Pras, & Roux, 2003). In other words, it is to interpret the regression results at the global level.
By studying the overall adjustment quality of the regression, we note that the multiple correlation coefficient and the adjusted
correlation coefficient are very strong (adjusted R-2 = 0.520).
The empirical results show that 52.8% of the variation in the level of development of the entrepreneurial university is explained
by certain characteristics such as: the role of the manager and the type of the university. The Fisher (F) statistic confirms the good
quality of the model (F = 65.455, sig. = 0.000). We can conclude that the model is statistically significant and explanatory of the
phenomenon studied. Regarding the significance of the independent variables, we can see that all variables are statistically sig-
nificant.
The following Table summarizes the results of the multiple regression. We can stipulate that hypotheses H1 and H2 are validated
in our study context since they are significant at 5%. We develop and discuss in the following the results of the regression obtained
(Table 1).

4.2. Analysis of the impact of the role of the manager on the development of the entrepreneurial university

Our first hypothesis states that the role of the manager positively influences the development of the entrepreneurial university.
The examination of the statistical tests shows that this variable has a positive and significant effect on the variation in the level of
development of the entrepreneurial university. Indeed, the examination of causal relationships shows that the coefficient associated
with the link between the role of the manager and the development of the entrepreneurial university is positive (0.476) and sta-
tistically significant (the value of the associated t is 5.378 with a p = 0.000).
The results indicate that there is a strong positive relationship between the role of the manager and the development of the
entrepreneurial university. So the development of the entrepreneurial university is strongly associated with the role of the manager.
This corroborates the predictions of the hypothesis (H1).

Table 1
Résultats de la régression linéaire multiple de modèle.
Modèl Somme des carrés ddl Carré moyen F Signification

Régression Résidu Total 55,766 2 27,883 65,455 ,000

49,841 117 ,426
105,608 119
Coefficients non standardisés Coefficients standardisés

B Erreur standard Bèta t Signification

(Constante) ,249 ,063 3976 ,000

Le rôle du responsable ,449 ,084 ,476 5378 ,000
Type de l'université ,303 ,086 ,310 3505 ,001

R2 = 0.528, R2 ajusté = 0.520.

4
S. Sidrat, M.A. Frikha Journal of High Technology Management Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

4.3. Analysis of the impact of the type of university on the development of the entrepreneurial university

The second hypothesis is used to check whether the type of university has a positive influence on the development of the
entrepreneurial university. The examination of statistical tests shows that this variable has a positive and significant effect on the
variation in the level of development of the entrepreneurial university.
Indeed, the examination of the causal relationships shows that the coefficient associated with the link between the type of
university and the development of the entrepreneurial university is positive (0.310) and statistically significant (the associated t value
is 3.505 with a P = 0.001).
The results indicate that there is a strong positive relationship between the type of university and the development of the en-
trepreneurial university. So the development of the entrepreneurial university is strongly associated with the type of university. This
corroborates the predictions of the hypothesis (H2).

5. Discussion

Throughout this empirical investigation in the Tunisian context, the carried out analyses enabled us to meet our research ob-
jective that consists of determining the impact of the type of university and the role of the manager on the development of the
entrepreneurial university. Thus, multiple conclusions can be drawn from the above-mentioned results regarding the development of
the entrepreneurial university.
At the end of this article, we have noted that to become entrepreneurial, the university must carry out internal transformations.
So, to propel entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurial spirit, two main factors must be taken into consideration: the type of uni-
versity and the role of its manager. Indeed, concerning the role of the manager, the estimated results tend to confirm the hypothesis.
Based on the obtained results, the role of the manager influences the development of the entrepreneurial university. Therefore, we
note that the head of the university plays a key role in the promotion of entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurial spirit. In the same
vein, Rajhi (2014) postulates that “to promote entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurial spirit, the head of the university must be
himself an entrepreneur”.
So, the fact that the head of the university has the profile of an entrepreneur stands as a significant force allowing for the
development of the university he/she is running. An entrepreneurial manager is indeed a statistically significant predictor of the
development of the entrepreneurial university's chances. Therefore, a manager plays a key role in the running of the university since
he/she has to plan and direct all activities related to administrative sectors for which he/she is responsible.
It is worth noting that the university leader is characterized by a high need for accomplishment: he/she has to solve problems, set
goals and try to achieve them. He/she acts as a facilitator within the team as well as with students or professionals during training
periods. He/she enjoys teamwork and has a strong sense of communication. As a good speaker, he/she is capable of drawing the
attention of the public. Besides, the university manager must also prove his/her availability and adaptability. All these qualities,
which are necessary in the present context, rely heavily on processes and systems. However, human qualities are ultimately the
enabling forces to set up partnerships and solid relationships leading to a lasting success towards an entrepreneurial university.
So, for the creation and development of an entrepreneurial university, it is necessary that its leaders have many qualities of an
entrepreneur. He must necessarily have all the qualities of a good team leader, namely perseverance, volunteering, leadership and
vision. This formula can be considered as a form of learning that allows the head of the university to evaluate his/her entrepreneurial
qualities, which in turn helps him/her to create and develop a more entrepreneurial university.
In this sense, we admit that a university run by an entrepreneur is more entrepreneurial than other universities. We consider that
the trend towards an entrepreneurial university is essentially driven by the manager. In this respect, we emphasize here the crucial
role of entrepreneurial leader in the process of the creation and development of an entrepreneurial university. Regarding the type of
university, as an indicator of the development of the entrepreneurial university, the results of the regression confirm the already
proposed hypothesis.
Therefore, we can conclude that the type of university is a determining factor for the development of entrepreneurial universities.
Indeed, it should be mentioned that the nature or type of the institution differs: in a higher institution of engineering, commerce,
management and computer science the study plan is focused on the practical side which is not the case for a university concerned
with teaching human sciences or Arts. Again, a faculty differs from a school or institute. For instance, the Higher Institute of
Management of Gabes has developed more entrepreneurial traditions and practices than the Faculty of Human Sciences or Economics
and Management of Tunis.
Our empirical investigation has allowed drawing three eminent conclusions. First, private universities are geared towards the
development of entrepreneurship more than public institutions. Second, a higher business school develops more entrepreneurial
practices than a faculty does. Third, higher institutions concerned with teaching disciplines such as economics, management science,
business, engineering, and computer science are expected to develop more entrepreneurship than other institutions having disciplines
such as Arts, languages, human sciences.
In this scope, it is important to clarify what is an entrepreneurial university. Though many works have attempted to define the
entrepreneurial university, a great number of them fit into a narrow conception. The current study proposes a new definition of the
entrepreneurial university that is totally different from the literature presented by Clark (1998), Gibb (2002, 2005), Guerrero Canno
(2006), Etzkowitz (2013), Hannon (2013), (Jameson, 2015) and Habtamu (2016).
In our context, an entrepreneurial university is a private higher school or institute that is run by a manager who is himself an
entrepreneur. Such a university participates in technology and knowledge transfer, has connections with the realm of business, which

5
S. Sidrat, M.A. Frikha Journal of High Technology Management Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

allows students to start a job, easily integrate into the professional life and create their own jobs.
Contrary of our findings, Etzkowitz (2013) proposes another definition of the entrepreneurial university: “An entrepreneurial
university involves extension from ideas to practical activity, capitalizing knowledge, organizing new entities and managing risks.
The university is a capacious institution, with the ability to periodically reinvent itself and incorporate multiple missions, like
teaching and research, which enhance each other even as they persist in a creative tension”.
It should be pointed out that each author tries to propose a “recipe” for the creation and the development of an entrepreneurial
university by presenting a set of ingredients to realize it.
Nevertheless, most of them suggest developing institutional characteristics, such as structure, organization, management and
governance (Kirby, 2007).
Indeed, our proposed model differs from the existing models in the literature (Charisse, 2017; Clark, 1998; Etzkowitz, 2004;
Gianluca, Giustina, & Giuseppina, 2017; Gibb, 2012; Guerrero & Urbano, 2010; Johann & Markus, 2014; Martin, Christiana, & Julia,
2016; Rothaermel, Agung, & Jiang, 2007; Sporn, 2001; Thanida, 2017).
In addition, we believe that this plurality of development visions of the entrepreneurial university is only a contribution to the
enrichment of literature on the entrepreneurial university. However, in the current study, the obtained results are considerably
different from nine fundamental factors that are proposed by Hossein (2016). These factors which can lead to an entrepreneurial
university are listed as follows: courses' content, organizational culture, graduates, macro management, spin-off companies, char-
acteristics of students, science and technology parks, instructors' characteristics and publications.
In the same vein, the obtained results diverge from the findings of Thanida (2017) in a recent study. The author studied the
existence of an entrepreneurial university in Thailand and examined the dynamics of the trend towards the entrepreneurial university
of King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT). Thanida Dharmajiva used a theoretical framework developed by
Burton Clark (1998). She believes that the entrepreneurial university exists to some extent in Thai higher education and that the
concepts of the entrepreneurial university have been instilled in KMUTT.
Then, the diversified financing base strongly exists within KMUTT and should be even more important in the future. Again, the
core of strengthened leadership is also in its transition phase. Other elements, including the enlarged periphery, the academic heart
and the integrated entrepreneurial culture are at an initial stage of KMUTT's transformation into an entrepreneurial university. In the
scope of our study, the transition from a classical university to an entrepreneurial one can be organized around two main axes: the
type of university and the role of its responsible.
Conversely, Charisse (2017) points out that “The entrepreneurial university was tackled in terms of the transformation of the
university which encompasses: 1) the behavior and practices within departments, faculties, and independent institutes concerning
their approach to income-generating activities; 2) the institutional activities' link to the national policy on entrepreneurship; 3) the
roles and contributions of various actors in cultivating entrepreneurial activities at the university; and 4) the commitment of the
academic community to align the tasks, activities, and goals of the university with the government's policy framework on en-
trepreneurship”.
Hence, the transformation of a traditional university into an entrepreneurial university will play an important role in the global
knowledge-based economy. Universities need to change into evolving entrepreneurial organizations to fulfill their mission in an
economy that must increase wealth and create jobs by integrating new knowledge into innovative products and technologies. The
creation of an entrepreneurial university represents a transformational opportunity to develop a truly relevant and innovative or-
ganization capable of responding flexibly to the needs of stakeholders and society.
The results of our research are interesting in the scientific world because it is interesting to know what the state and prospects for
the development of an entrepreneurial university.
The current academic situations reveal a challenging path and suggest strategies for definitively turning universities into more
enterprising institutions. Thus, the main results of our work propose instruments capable of supporting the development of more
entrepreneurial universities.

6. Conclusion

Finally, it can be noted from these observations that the identification of a model that takes into account the specific char-
acteristics of the university towards an entrepreneurial orientation is a relevant approach. It allows evaluating the effects of the
evolution of a university that goes from a traditional to an entrepreneurial institution through internal transformations. The obtained
results fully confirm our hypotheses since they show the important role of the type of university and the role of the manager in the
process of the entrepreneurial development of the university.

7. Contribution

It is generally assumed that the contributions of a research paper can be of three types: theoretical, managerial and methodo-
logical:
At the first theoretical level, the results of our study may serve to enrich the results of previous studies on the understanding of the
entrepreneurial university and their developmental factors. Thus, our study has introduced new concepts namely, the type of uni-
versity and the role of managers in the field of university research, which enables enlightening literature that addresses the en-
trepreneurial university.
The managerial contributions are addressed to the heads of universities (directors, deans, presidents, heads of department, and

6
S. Sidrat, M.A. Frikha Journal of High Technology Management Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

directors of studies). In fact, the prominent interest of a manager is to seek links facilitating participation in technology and
knowledge transfer. This has become a track securing the success of managers where the university plays the role of a facilitator and
represents a source for achievement.
At the university level, our contributions are of four types:
➢ We proposed possible ways to create a favorable context to the development process of the entrepreneurial university.
➢ The university is itself required to become entrepreneurial by considering internal transformations affecting its type and
qualities of the leader.
➢ We have sensitized university leaders on the importance of their qualities (perseverance, volunteerism, vision, and leadership)
with regard to the development of the entrepreneurial university.
➢ It is necessary that universities should take into consideration their types in the development of entrepreneurship and their
entrepreneurial spirit.

8. Theoretical and practical limitations

The limitations are inherent in how this study was conducted. From a practical point of view, we can raise several limits. The first
concerns the small number of the surveyed universities, which makes it difficult to extrapolate practices to all Tunisian universities.
So, our conclusion will remain limited to the universities taken as a sample.
In addition, we have been confronted with a number of limitations and difficulties related mainly to the unavailability of in-
formation, particularly academics who believe that they do not participate in technology and knowledge transfer or do not have links
with entrepreneurship. These people feel that they have been less likely to respond to the survey.
Furthermore, particularly those in the faculties of literature, language, arts and sport thought they do not represent the relevant
discipline for this study because they are not involved in technology or knowledge transfer.
Another limitation is that there is only one study of a qualitative nature, as we have previously proposed on this topic, and it has
therefore not been obvious to compare our findings with existing studies.
The most important theoretical limit is certainly the absence of a globalizing measure of the entrepreneurial university and their
factors of development. Until now, no measure has been developed. In addition, we found difficulties related to the theoretical
foundations since there are almost no books that have already dealt with this topic.

9. Perspectives

It would be possible to extend our research by working on several paths consisting either in deepening the problems on the
development of the entrepreneurial university or in dealing with new issues which can be derived from the research question.
The first perspective is to continue the work carried out in this research by carrying out quantitative studies on larger samples,
other types of universities and other relevant disciplines that have links with entrepreneurship in distinct regions. In doing so, we
could verify and deepen our investigation and subsequently will be able to generalize our results.
The second perspective is the broadening of the study by investigating other characteristics of the entrepreneurial university (i.e.,
measuring the impact of age and the gender of the manager on the development of the entrepreneurial university) and dealing with
the question of the articulation of managerial policies, which serves the development of entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurial
spirit, with the overall strategy of the university. Thus, it would be interesting to respond to the following question: How to articulate
entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurial spirit and the managerial policies in the university with its global strategy?

References

Charisse, R. (2017). Frames in the institutionalization of the entrepreneurial university model: The case of National University of Singapore. Tampere University Press (ISBN:
ISBN 978-952-03-0490-4).
Clark, B. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities. London: Pergamon Press1998.
Clark, B. (2001). The entrepreneurial university: New foundations for collegiality, autonomy and achievement. Higher Education Management, 13(2), 9–24.
Etzkowitz, H. (1993). Technology transfer: The second academic revolution. Technology Access Report, 6, 7–9.
Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university – Industry linkages. Research Policy, 27(8), 823–833.
Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as “quasi-firms”: the invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research policy. 32 (1). Research policy (pp. 109–121).
Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International Journal of Technology and Globalization, 1, 64–77.
Etzkowitz, H. (2013). Anatomy of the entrepreneurial university. Social Science Information, 52(3), 486–511.
Evrard, Y., Pras, B., & Roux, E. (2003). Market: études et recherches en marketing (3 ed.). (Dunod, Paris).
Gasse, E. Y. (2009). Perceptions et Intentions Entrepreneuriales en milieu universitaire: un portrait comparatif international. Actes du 6ème Congrès de l'Académie de
l'Entrepreneuriat (19, 20 et 21 novembre. Sophia Antipolis).
Gianluca, E., Giustina, S., & Giuseppina, P. (2017). Pathways towards the entrepreneurial university for creating entrepreneurial engineers: An Italian case.
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management (IJEIM), 21(1/2).
Gibb, A. A. (2002). In pursuit of a new ‘enterprise’ and ‘entrepreneurship’ paradigm for learning: Creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new
combinations of knowledge. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(3), 213–233.
Gibb, A. A. (2005). Towards the entrepreneurial university. Entrepreneurship education as a lever for change. A policy paper for the national council for graduate
entrepreneurship (NCGE) UK.
Gibb, A. A. (2012). Exploring the synergistic potential in entrepreneurial university development: Towards the building of a strategic framework. Annals of Innovation
& Entrepreneurship, 3(1), 16742.
Gibb, D. W. (2001). Towards a theory of entrepreneurship careers. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 3(6), 12–22.
Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., & Kirby, D. (2006). A literature review on entrepreneurial universities: An institutional approach working Paper Series, 06-8. Autonomous
Universty of Barcelona: Business Economics Department.

7
S. Sidrat, M.A. Frikha Journal of High Technology Management Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2010). The development of an entrepreneurial university. The Journal of Technology Transfer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-
9171-x.
Habtamu, D. G. (2016). The state of entrepreneurialism in a public university in Ethiopia: Status, challenges and opportunities, MDP in Research and Innovation in
Higher Education. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:uta-201608292198.
Hannon (2013). Why is the entrepreneurial university important? Journal of Innovation Management, JIM, 1(2), 10–17 (2013).
Hossein, M. E. (2016). Designing an entrepreneurial university model with the organizational entrepreneurship approach in Payam-e-Noor University. Journal of
Administrative Management, Education and Training (JAMET), 12(3), 429–443 (ISSN: 1823-6049, 2016).
Jameson, J. (2015). The entrepreneurial university: A unifying theme for TU4Dublin? Dublin: Higher Education in Transformation Conference2015.
Johann, B., & Markus, R. (2014). Entrepreneurial university archetypes: A meta-synthesis of case study literature, Otto group chair of strategic management. http://
www.leuphana.de/professuren/strategisches-management.html.
Kirby, D. A. (2007). Changing the entrepreneurship education paradigm. In A. Fayolle (Ed.). Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education, volume 1, A general
perspective. USA: Edward Elgar, Cheltenham UK, Northampton, MA.
Kwiek, M. (2001). Les dimensions sociales et culturelles de la transition dans l'enseignement supérieur en Europe centrale et de l'EST, in Enseignement supérieur en Europe, Vol.
XXVI,N°. 3, 2001. UNESCO.
Laukkanen, M. (2000). Exploring alternative approaches in high-level entrepreneurship education: Creating micro-mechanisms for endogenous regional growth.
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 12, 25–47.
Lee, Y. W., Strong, D. M., Kahn, B. K., & Wang, R. Y. (2002). AIMQ: a methodology for information quality assessment. Information & Management, 40, 133–146.
Martin, S., Christiana, M., & Julia, S. (2016). The concept of the entrepreneurial university applied to Universities of Technology in Austria: already reality or a vision
of the future? Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(10) (October 2016).
Miles, M. B. (2003). Analyse des données qualitatives. (632 pages, Editions De Boeck).
Rajhi, N. (2014). Identification de l'esprit entrepreneurial et identification des facteurs de son développement dans l'enseignement supérieur tunisien. Thèse de doctorat en
Sciences de Gestion, Université Pierre Mendes France de Grenoble.
Ropke, J. (1998). The entrepreneurial university: Innovation, academic knowledge creation and regional development in a globalized economy, working paper. Philipps-
Universität Marburg.
Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.
Sporn, B. (2001). Building adaptive universities: Emerging organisational forms based on experiences of European and US universities. Tertiary Education and
Management, 7(2), 121–134.
Thanida, D. (2017). Entrepreneurial university in Thailand: A case study of King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT), MDP in Research and
Innovation in Higher Education. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:uta-201706262116.
Vedder, A., & Wachbroit, R. (2003). Reliability of information on the internet: Some distinctions. Ethics and Information Technology, 5(4), 211–215.
Zaharia, S. E., & Gibert, E. (2005). L'université entrepreneuriale dans la société du savoir, UNESCO, in L'Enseignement Supérieur en Europe, Vol XXX, N°1 Mars.