Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of Universities’ Entrepreneurial Activity on Perception of Regional Competitiveness

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
EAI International Conference on Technology, Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Education (TIE 2017)

Part of the book series: EAI/Springer Innovations in Communication and Computing ((EAISICC))

Abstract

Within the framework of the entrepreneurial university (EU), this study aims to test its multidimensional domain and therefore to confirm the positive contribution of EU factors to perceived regional competitiveness in Portugal. Data were collected from ten Portuguese public universities (PPUs) through a self-employed questionnaire. First- and second-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were performed through factor and multiple linear regression analyses. The proposed EU construct was confirmed, thus proving the adequacy of scales for the PPUs context. Overall, the main findings show that EU factors—‘internal processes’, ‘entrepreneurial supporting measures’, ‘international collaboration’, and ‘funding strategy’—make a positive contribution to the perception of regional competitiveness. ‘Entrepreneurial supporting measures’ is the EU factor which has the biggest impact on perceived regional competitiveness and ‘organisational design’ is the only EU factor that does not reveal any impact on it. This contribution demonstrates to policy makers that PPUs are not merely cost centres but knowledge spillovers that can have a positive influence on regional competitiveness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. A. Bramwell, D.A. Wolfe, Universities and regional economic development: the entrepreneurial University of Waterloo. Res. Policy 37(8), 1175–1187 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. D. Urbano, M. Guerrero, Entrepreneurial universities: socioeconomic impacts of academic entrepreneurship in a European region. Econ. Dev. Q. 27(1), 40–55 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242412471973

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. D.B. Audretsch, From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society. J. Technol. Transfer. 39(3), 313–321 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. D.B. Audretsch, I. Peña-Legazkue, Entrepreneurial activity and regional competitiveness: an introduction to the special issue. Small Bus. Econ. 39(3), 531–537 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. M. Guerrero, D. Urbano, A. Fayolle, Entrepreneurial activity and regional competitiveness: evidence from European entrepreneurial universities. J. Technol. Transf. 41(1), 105–131 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. B.R. Clark, Sustaining change in universities: continuities in case studies and concepts. Tert. Educ. Manag. 9(2), 99–116 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1023538118918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. R. Deem, 'New managerialism’ and higher education: the management of performances and cultures in universities in the United Kingdom. Int. Stud. Sociol. Educ. 8(1), 47–70 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1080/0962021980020014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. R. Deem, S. Hillyard, M. Reed, Knowledge, Higher Education, and the New Managerialism: The Changing Management of UK Universities (OUP, Oxford, 2007)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. M. Shattock, The entrepreneurial university: an idea for its time. Lond. Rev. Educ. 8(3), 263–271 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1080/14748460.2010.515125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. M.P. Taylor, The entrepreneurial university in the twenty-first century. Lond. Rev. Educ. 10(3), 289–305 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1080/14748460.2012.729885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. OECD and European Commission, in A Guiding Framework for Entrepreneurial Universities, 2012

    Google Scholar 

  12. J. Barsony, in Towards the Entrepreneurial University Paper presented at the SEFI 2003 Conference - Global Engineer: Education and Training for Mobility, University of Porto, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  13. G. Secundo, S. Elena Perez, Ž. Martinaitis, K.H. Leitner, An intellectual capital framework to measure universities’ third mission activities. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 123, 229–239 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.12.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. M. Guerrero, J.A. Cunningham, D. Urbano, Economic impact of entrepreneurial universities’ activities: an exploratory study of the United Kingdom. Res. Policy 44(3), 748–764 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.10.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. M. Guerrero, D. Urbano, The development of an entrepreneurial university. J. Technol. Transf. 37(1), 43–74 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9171-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. M. Abreu, V. Grinevich, The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. Res. Policy 42(2), 408–422 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.10.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Z.W. Todorovic, R.B. McNaughton, P. Guild, ENTRE-U: an entrepreneurial orientation scale for universities. Technovation 31(2), 128–137 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2010.10.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. G.G. Dess, G.T. Lumpkin, J.E. Mcgee, Linking corporate entrepreneurship to strategy, structure, and process: suggested research directions. Entrep. Theory Pract. 23(3), 85–102 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879902300306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. S.E. Zaharia, E. Gibert, The entrepreneurial university in the knowledge society. High. Educ. Eur. 30(1), 31–40 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1080/03797720500088038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. B.R. Clark, Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation (IAU Press, Oxford, 1998)

    Google Scholar 

  21. K. Aiginger, Competitiveness: from a dangerous obsession to a welfare creating ability with positive externalities. J. Ind. Compet. Trade 6(2), 161–177 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10842-006-9475-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. G. Bristow, Everyone’s a ‘winner’: problematising the discourse of regional competitiveness. J. Econ. Geogr. 5(3), 285–304 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbh063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. B. Gardiner, R. Martin, P. Tyler, HEAD. Reg. Stud. 38(9), 1045–1067 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340042000292638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. M. Kitson, R. Martin, P. Tyler, Regional competitiveness: an elusive yet key concept? Reg. Stud. 38(9), 991–999 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. R. Camagni, On the concept of territorial competitiveness: sound or misleading? Urban Stud. 39(13), 2395–2411 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098022000027022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. I. Turok, Cities, regions and competitiveness. Reg. Stud. 38(9), 1069–1083 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340042000292647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. A. Balkyte, M. Tvaronavičiene, Perception of competitiveness in the context of sustainable development: facets of “sustainable competitiveness”. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 11(2), 341–365 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2010.17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. J. Jansson, A. Waxell, Quality and regional competitiveness. Environ. Plan. A 43(9), 2237–2252 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1068/a4469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. M. Nicolae, I. Ion, E. Nicolae, Regional differences in entrepreneurial perceptions and implications for the Romanian competitiveness policy. Manage. Mark. 11(1), 394–409 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1515/mmcks-2016-0005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. R.P. O’Shea, H. Chugh, T.J. Allen, Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: a conceptual framework. J. Technol. Transf. 33(6), 653–666 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961–007-9060–0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. G.D. Markman, D.S. Siegel, M. Wright, Research and technology commercialization. Journal of Management Studies 45(8), 1401–1423 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00803.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. M. Kenney, D. Patton, Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole act and the current university invention ownership model. Res. Policy 38(9), 1407–1422 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.07.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. A.N. Link, D.S. Siegel, University-based technology initiatives: quantitative and qualitative evidence. Res. Policy 34(3), 253–257 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. European Expert Network on Economics of Education, in The contribution of universities to innovation, (regional) growth and employment. EENEE Analytical Report No. 18 Prepared for the European Commission, 2014

    Google Scholar 

  35. A. Romano, G. Passiante, P.D. Vecchio, G. Secundo, The innovation ecosystem as booster for the innovative entrepreneurship in the smart specialisation strategy. Int. J. Knowl. Based Dev. 5(3), 271–288 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. H. Etzkowitz, Anatomy of the entrepreneurial university. Soc. Sci. Inf. 52(3), 486–511 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018413485832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. D.B. Audretsch, M. Hülsbeck, E. Lehmann, Regional competitiveness, university spillovers, and entrepreneurial activity. Small Bus. Econ. 39(3), 587–601 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. R. Trequattrini, A. Lardo, B. Cuozzo, R. Lombardi, The impact of entrepreneurial universities on regional growth: a local intellectual capital perspective. J. Knowl. Econ. 9(1), 199–211 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-015-0334-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. P. Grimm, Pretesting a questionnaire, in Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing (Wiley, New York, 2010). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444316568.wiem02051

  40. G. Zhang, K.J. Preacher, Factor rotation and standard errors in exploratory factor analysis. J. Educ. Behav. Stat. 40(6), 579–603 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998615606098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. K.G. Jöreskog, A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika 34(2), 183–202 (1969). https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02289343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. L.R. Fabrigar, D. Wegener, R.C. MacCallum, E.J. Strahan, Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol. Methods 4(3), 272–299 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. L. Tarkkonen, K. Vehkalahti, Measurement errors in multivariate measurement scales. J. Multivar. Anal. 96(1), 172–189 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmva.2004.09.007

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. D. Grayson, H.W. Marsh, Identification with deficient rank loading matrices in confirmatory factor analysis: multitrait-multimethod models. Psychometrika 59(1), 121–134 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02294271

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. J. Henseler, C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt, A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 43(1), 115–135 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. R.L. Gorsuch, Factor Analysis, 2nd edn. (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, 1983)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. M.S. Bartlett, The statistical conception of mental factors. Br. J. Psychol. 28(1), 97–104 (1937). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1937.tb00863.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. A. Skrondal, P. Laake, Regression among factor scores. Psychometrika 66(4), 563–575 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02296196

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  49. P.-W. Lei, Evaluating estimation methods for ordinal data in structural equation modeling. Qual. Quant. 43(3), 495–507 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-007-9133-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. S.M. Bell, R.S. McCallum, E.A. Cox, Toward a research-based assessment of dyslexia: using cognitive measures to identify reading disabilities. J. Learn. Disabil. 36(6), 505–516 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194030360060201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. B. Chris, B. Suzan, E. Gregory, M. KH, Prediction of attitude and behavioural intentions in retail banking. Int. J. Bank Mark. 25(2), 102–116 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1108/02652320710728438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. E. Eyduran, M. Topal, A. Adem, Y. Sonmez, Use of factor scores in multiple regression analysis for estimation of body weight by several body measurements in Brown Trouts (Salmo trutta fario). Int. J. Agric. Biol. 12(4), 611–615 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  53. S. Keskin, I. Daskiran, A. Kor, Factor analysis scores in a multiple linear regression model for the prediction of carcass weight in Akkeci kids. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 31(2), 201–204 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2007.9706664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. M. Long, C. McMellon, Exploring the determinants of retail service quality on the Internet. J. Serv. Mark. 18(1), 78–90 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040410520726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. L. Sangun, S. Cankaya, G.T. Kayaalp, M. Akar, Use of factor analysis scores in multiple regression model for estimation of body weight from some body measurements in Lizardfish. J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 8(1), 47–50 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  56. J.S. Long, L.H. Ervin, Using heteroscedasticity consistent standard errors in the linear regression model. Am. Stat. 54(3), 217–224 (2000). https://doi.org/10.2307/2685594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. W.H. Greene, Econometric Analysis (Prentice Hall, New York, 1997)

    Google Scholar 

  58. E. Demidenko, Mixed Models: Theory and Applications with R (Wiley, New York, 2013)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  59. R.M. O’Brien, A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Qual. Quant. 41(5), 673–690 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. R.B. Kline, Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd edn. (Guilford Press, New York, 2011)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  61. J.C. Nunnally, Psychometric Theory (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978)

    Google Scholar 

  62. A. Field, Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, 2007)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  63. R.F. DeVellis, Scale Development: Theory and Applications (SAGE, Chapel Hill, 2003)

    Google Scholar 

  64. J.F. Hair, B. Black, R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham, Multivariate Data Analysis (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  65. K.M. Loewenthal, An Introduction to Psychological Tests and Scales (Psychology Press, London, 2001)

    Google Scholar 

  66. H.F. Kaiser, An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39(1), 31–36 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02291575

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  67. T.S.H. Teo, S.C. Srivastava, L. Jiang, Trust and electronic government success: an empirical study. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 25(3), 99–131 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. D.F. Kuratko, M.H. Morris, Corporate entrepreneurship: a critical challenge for educators and researchers. Entrepreneurship Educ. Pedagogy 1(1), 42–60 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127417737291

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was financed by FEDER—Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional funds through the COMPETE 2020—Operacional Programme for Competitiveness and Internationalisation (POCI), and by Portuguese funds through FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia in the framework of the project PTDC/IVC-PEC/5514/2014.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IN+, Center for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal

    Gonçalo Rodrigues Brás & Miguel Torres Preto

  2. GOVCOPP, DEGEIT, Universidade de Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

    Ana Dias Daniel & Andreia Vitória

  3. GOVCOPP, DCSPT, Universidade de Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

    Carlos Rodrigues

  4. CEF.UP, Faculty of Economics, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

    Aurora Teixeira & Ana Oliveira

Authors
  1. Gonçalo Rodrigues Brás
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Miguel Torres Preto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ana Dias Daniel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andreia Vitória
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Carlos Rodrigues
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Aurora Teixeira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ana Oliveira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gonçalo Rodrigues Brás .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Business School, Canterbury Christ Church University, Canterbury, UK

    Ping Zheng

  2. Department of Computer Science, University of Essex, Colchester, UK

    Vic Callaghan

  3. Ravensbourne University, London, UK

    David Crawford

  4. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd. Human Factors in Complex Systems, Tekniikankatu, Tampere, Finland

    Tiina Kymäläinen

  5. Polytechnic University of Catalonia, Castelldefels, Barcelona, Spain

    Angelica Reyes-Munoz

Appendices

Appendix 1: Scales and Descriptive Statistics

 

Observ.

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. Dev.

Skewness

Ex. kurtosis

Perception-based measure of regional competitiveness

619

1.00

7.00

4.2859

1.2323

−0.126

−0.348

it1—My university encourages professors and students to participate in research projects with practical results for industry or society

619

1.00

7.00

4.5089

1.69937

−0.334

−0.739

it2—My university has strong links with business incubators, science and technology parks, and/or other similar organisations

619

1.00

7.00

4.0630

1.58499

0.045

−0.594

it3—My university is recognised for its link to industry and to society

619

1.00

7.00

4.1648

1.60157

−0.043

−0.583

it4—Many professors of my university conduct research in collaboration with companies, governmental, and non-governmental institutions

619

1.00

7.00

4.5460

1.58749

−0.457

−0.522

It5—The entrepreneurial activity of my HEI improves economic and regional development

619

1.00

7.00

4.1454

1.50561

−0.080

−0.152

Entrepreneurial supporting measures

619

1.00

7.00

3.8644

0.99565

−0.012

0.719

It6—My university establishes clear targets to achieve in the entrepreneurial framework, such as the number of new patents or the number of new spin-offs

619

1.00

7.00

2.9871

1.16440

0.815

2.096

It7—My university regularly controls the compliance of objectives established in the entrepreneurial framework

619

1.00

7.00

3.1244

1.12015

1.146

2.979

It8—My university supports the entrepreneurial activity of their members (students, researchers, professors, and staff) by training, consulting, industrial propriety information, etc.

619

1.00

7.00

3.8611

1.47583

0.047

−0.120

It9—In my university there are support facilities for entrepreneurial activity (e.g. incubators, science and technology parks, support office for entrepreneurship, etc.)

619

1.00

7.00

4.0129

1.58057

0.016

−0.353

It10—My university provides their members (students, researchers, professors, and staff) with access to funding sources to develop entrepreneurial activity (e.g. information about national and international funding programmes, support for applications to funding programmes, organisation of events that improve links between entrepreneurs and potential funders, etc.)

619

1.00

7.00

4.0598

1.41923

0.024

0.102

it11—At my university innovative teaching methods are used (e.g. case studies, experimental classes, games, simulations, etc.)

619

1.00

7.00

4.0662

1.54033

0.041

−0.339

it12—At my university the teaching of entrepreneurship is included in the curricular plans of several courses

619

1.00

7.00

4.1583

1.58190

−0.050

−0.249

it13—My university encourages and supports the participation of their members (students, researchers, professors, and staff) in extracurricular and other activities (e.g. ideas completion, voluntary work, etc.)

619

1.00

7.00

4.5299

1.63507

−0.433

−0.595

It14—My university supports and encourages its members (students, researchers, professors, and staff) to create new businesses (spin-offs and start-ups)

619

1.00

7.00

3.8853

1.31635

−0.048

0.625

International collaboration

619

1.00

7.00

4.6539

1.1359

−0.337

−0.140

It15—My university supports the international mobility of their members (students, researchers, professors, and staff)

619

1.00

7.00

5.1422

1.47662

−0.643

−0.041

It16—My university plays with international institutions to create courses (bachelor, master, and PhD degrees)

619

1.00

7.00

4.8078

1.53604

−0.618

−0.031

it17—The staff (professors and non-professors) of my university come from many different cultures

619

1.00

7.00

3.8562

1.56737

0.217

−0.417

it18—My university links with international institutions to develop research projects

619

1.00

7.00

4.8982

1.49031

−0.572

−0.025

Funding strategy

619

1.00

7.00

4.0984

1.0228

−0.013

1.620

it19—My university gets funding from sources apart from public sector

619

1.00

7.00

3.9968

1.27078

−0.051

0.768

It20—The faculties/departments of my university have autonomy to attract their own funding sources

619

1.00

7.00

4.1502

1.32625

0.048

0.902

it21—The top management of my university plays an active role in obtaining funds and alternative incomes

619

1.00

7.00

3.9806

1.22657

0.021

1.546

Internal processes

619

1.00

7.00

4.3611

1.1109

−0.207

0.185

it22—In my university teamwork and multidisciplinary work are valued

619

1.00

7.00

4.6381

1.56568

−0.470

−0.385

it23—In my university dialogue and the exchange of experiences among all its members (students, researchers, professors, and staff) are stimulated

619

1.00

7.00

4.3473

1.63909

−0.046

−0.722

it24—My university values its members (students, researchers, professors, and staff) that seek alternative and innovative solutions to difficult situations or problems

619

1.00

7.00

4.2876

1.46304

−0.025

−0.211

It25—My university supports the efforts of individuals and teams that work autonomously

619

1.00

7.00

4.2100

1.36217

−0.107

0.334

It26—The top management of my university values research and innovation

619

1.00

7.00

5.1454

1.50130

−0.790

0.306

It27—In my university there is access to information in a clear and transparent way

619

1.00

7.00

4.6446

1.57848

−0.459

−0.419

It28—The members (students, researchers, professors, and staff) of my university who support or develop entrepreneurial activities are recognised and rewarded by the institution

619

1.00

7.00

4.0275

1.30380

−0.095

0.611

It29—My university actively improves and innovates its organisation and the services that it provides

619

1.00

7.00

3.9499

1.43096

−0.015

−0.103

It30—At my university all members (students, researchers, professors, and staff) contribute to the development of the strategy and policies

619

1.00

7.00

3.8530

1.36509

0.064

0.105

Organisational design

619

1.00

7.00

3.5240

0.99597

0.204

0.563

it31—At my university there are few hierarchical levels

619

1.00

7.00

3.9144

1.43379

−0.031

0.015

it32—At my university the power and responsibility of decision-making is decentralised

619

1.00

7.00

3.6769

1.26144

−0.175

0.479

It33—At my university there is not too much bureaucracy

619

1.00

7.00

3.1470

1.28573

0.686

0.710

Appendix 2: HTMT Matrix

 

ESM

FS

IC

IP

OD

PMC

ESM

1

     

FS

0.70286

1

    

IC

0.772794

0.654565

1

   

IP

0.800833

0.598202

0.709308

1

  

OD

0.474189

0.424226

0.299025

0.679753

1

 

PMC

0.83999

0.656239

0.721386

0.721982

0.414782

1

Appendix 3: Goodness-of-fit—Model Fit Summary

1.1 CMIN

Model

NPAR

CMIN

DF

P

CMIN/DF

Default model

74

1,301,681

487

0.000

2673

Saturated model

561

0.000

0

  

Independence model

33

10,368,066

528

0.000

19,636

1.2 RMR, GFI

Model

RMR

GFI

AGFI

PGFI

Default model

0.101

0.885

0.868

0.768

Saturated model

0.000

1000

  

Independence model

0.780

0.183

0.132

0.172

1.3 Baseline Comparisons

Model

NFI delta1

RFI rho1

IFI delta2

TLI rho2

CFI

Default model

0.874

0.864

0.918

0.910

0.917

Saturated model

1000

 

1000

 

1000

Independence model

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

1.4 Parsimony-Adjusted Measures

Model

PRATIO

PNFI

PCFI

Default model

0.922

0.807

0.846

Saturated model

0.000

0.000

0.000

Independence model

1000

0.000

0.000

1.5 NCP

Model

NCP

LO 90

HI 90

Default model

814,681

711,456

925,550

Saturated model

0.000

0.000

0.000

Independence model

9,840,066

9,512,591

10,173,930

1.6 FMIN

Model

FMIN

F0

LO 90

HI 90

Default model

2106

1318

1151

1498

Saturated model

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

Independence model

16,777

15,922

15,393

16,463

1.7 RMSEA

Model

RMSEA

LO 90

HI 90

PCLOSE

Default model

0.052

0.049

0.055

0.162

Independence model

0.174

0.171

0.177

0.000

1.8 AIC

Model

AIC

BCC

BIC

CAIC

Default model

1,449,681

1,458,298

1,777,361

1,851,361

Saturated model

1,122,000

1,187,322

3,606,167

4,167,167

Independence model

10,434,066

10,437,908

10,580,193

10,613,193

1.9 ECVI

Model

ECVI

LO 90

HI 90

MECVI

Default model

2346

2179

2525

2360

Saturated model

1816

1816

1816

1921

Independence model

16,884

16,354

17,424

16,890

1.10 HOELTER

Model

HOELTER 0.05

HOELTER 0.01

Default model

257

268

Independence model

35

37

Appendix 4: Heteroscedasticity and Multicollinearity Tests

1.1 White’s Test for Heteroscedasticity

OLS, using observations 1–619

Dependent variable: uhat2

 

Coefficient

Std. error

t-ratio

p-value

Const

0.197056

0.654600

0.3010

0.7635

IP

0.295992

0.357266

0.8285

0.4077

ESM

0.284071

0.345797

0.8215

0.4117

IC

−0.121642

0.291754

−0.4169

0.6769

FS

−0.0865215

0.233605

−0.3704

0.7112

OD

−0.174273

0.257735

−0.6762

0.4992

sq_IP

0.112177

0.0507905

2.209

0.0276**

X2_X3

−0.209953

0.0904929

−2.320

0.0207**

X2_X4

−0.0296214

0.0646530

−0.4582

0.6470

X2_X5

0.0194060

0.0744441

0.2607

0.7944

X2_X6

−0.126261

0.0732829

−1.723

0.0854*

sq_ESM

0.0883296

0.0594812

1.485

0.1381

X3_X4

−0.118673

0.0737006

−1.610

0.1079

X3_X5

0.0418866

0.0733095

0.5714

0.5680

X3_X6

0.0960222

0.0729513

1.316

0.1886

sq_IC

0.118346

0.0400243

2.957

0.0032***

X4_X5

−0.138155

0.0557808

−2.477

0.0135**

X4_X6

0.0859883

0.0564807

1.522

0.1284

sq_FS

0.0746652

0.0386240

1.933

0.0537*

X5_X6

−0.0717139

0.0511498

−1.402

0.1614

sq_OD

0.0304794

0.0406145

0.7505

0.4533

Unadjusted R-squared = 0.070017

Test statistic: TR2 = 43.340796, with p-value = P(Chi-square(20) > 43.340796) = 0.001843

1.2 Variance Inflation Factors

Minimum possible value = 1.0

Values >10.0 may indicate a collinearity problem

IP

2.600

ESM

2.487

IC

1.812

FS

1.539

OD

1.374

VIF(j) = 1/(1 − R(j)2), where R(j) is the multiple correlation coefficient between variable j and the other independent variables

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Brás, G.R. et al. (2020). The Impact of Universities’ Entrepreneurial Activity on Perception of Regional Competitiveness. In: Zheng, P., Callaghan, V., Crawford, D., Kymäläinen, T., Reyes-Munoz, A. (eds) EAI International Conference on Technology, Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Education. TIE 2017. EAI/Springer Innovations in Communication and Computing. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16130-9_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16130-9_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-16129-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-16130-9

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation