Next Article in Journal
Effects of Difficult Coworkers on Employees’ Responses in Macao’s Public Organizations—The Mediating Role of Perceived Stress
Next Article in Special Issue
Entrepreneurship Education: The Effects of Challenge-Based Learning on the Entrepreneurial Mindset of University Students
Previous Article in Journal
Holistic View of Intuition and Analysis in Leadership Decision-Making and Problem-Solving
Previous Article in Special Issue
Nascent Technology Entrepreneurship among Bulgarian STEM Students
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Administrative Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 1
10.3390/admsci12010005
admsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Student Entrepreneurship in Universities: The State-of-the-Art

by
Federico Schimperna
1,*,
Fabio Nappo
1 and
Bruno Marsigalia
2
1
Department of Economics and Law, University of Cassino and Southern Lazio, 03043 Cassino, Italy
2
Department of Business Administration, Guglielmo Marconi University, 00193 Rome, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Adm. Sci. 2022, 12(1), 5; https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12010005
Submission received: 31 July 2021 / Revised: 18 December 2021 / Accepted: 22 December 2021 / Published: 28 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Fostering Student Entrepreneurship: Nascent and Active Entrepreneurs in Universities)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The purpose of this paper is to understand how universities develop and support student entrepreneurship. We did a preliminary Systematic Literature Review (SRL) on scientific articles regarding student entrepreneurship published during the last twenty years. Our findings emphasize three main research areas, emerging from a cluster analysis: (i) student entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intention; (ii) university support for entrepreneurship; (iii) entrepreneurship education and learning. Particularly, our study points out that the new paradigm of the entrepreneurial university overcame the classical university model through the introduction of many innovations to foster student entrepreneurship. This paper provides an SLR on university role in fostering student entrepreneurship and it is useful for the academic and professional community. Additionally, it is original because it highlights the future directions of entrepreneurship and the main innovations adopted by universities to help students in the development of entrepreneurial initiatives.

1. Introduction

“Entrepreneurship is defined as a dynamic system of individual’s causally interrelated personality traits, motivation, cognition, needs, emotions, abilities, learning, skills and behaviour” (Oganisjana and Koke 2012) and, in the past decades, the role of the universities in fostering entrepreneurship grew considerably, leading to the development of new strategies, own individual culture, and structures (Lombardi et al. 2017). Thus, the new paradigm of the entrepreneurial university overcame the classical university model (Kuratko 2005; Mueller 2006; Fayolle and Redford 2014). A student entrepreneur does not need only postulated knowledge. Conversely, his/her academic education should be based on a whole range of different skills and on an interdisciplinary approach (Johannisson 1991; Haynie and Shepherd 2009).
Students need to “learn to identify and solve problems, work in teams, calibrate risks, and effectively communicate with others in very different domains, such as with investors. It helps them innovate, inventing and implementing solutions to problems. It moves them beyond current approaches of particular disciplinary perspectives, helping them to create imaginative new options, adopt strategic approaches, and design organisational mechanisms to experiment and transform good ideas into reality”1 (Dodgson and Gann 2020). Thus, universities’ approach to entrepreneurship has been changing and universities introduced innovations, such as (I) the use of business simulations (Samašonok et al. 2020); (II) the development of new entrepreneurship courses, extra-curricular support activities, seminars, and training (Walter et al. 2013; Bergmann et al. 2016; Morris et al. 2017; Sendouwa et al. 2019); and (III) the use of accelerators, incubators, business plan competitions, and grants (Wright et al. 2017).
In the current scenario, the development of new technologies has significantly increased (Schimperna et al. 2020; Lombardi et al. 2021a), stimulating also technological entrepreneurship in universities through start-up creation, university-industry partnerships, licensing, and patenting (Grimaldi et al. 2011). This led to the implementation of mechanisms to support start-ups by both alumni and current students (Wright and Mustar 2019). According to Chiarello et al. (2021), student entrepreneurship is not only linked to a single field of study. Young entrepreneurs attend many different courses, such as economic-statistical, politics, social sciences, and engineering.
We aim to represent a preliminary literature review of the development of student entrepreneurship in the last twenty years. Additionally, we investigate whether the innovations introduced are sufficient or whether more could be done to support students’ entrepreneurship, especially in the light of the current dynamic environment. Our paper aims at answering the following research question (RQ): “What is the state of the art of student entrepreneurship into business, management and accounting fields of study?”. We applied a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) (Tranfield et al. 2003; Kraus et al. 2020; Secundo et al. 2020) and our search query was entered into the Scopus database, finally allowing us to collect 52 scientific articles published from 2001. We selected the business, management and accounting subject areas. Lastly, we propose interesting results in the following three research areas, emerging from a cluster analysis: (i) student entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intention; (ii) university support for entrepreneurship; (iii) entrepreneurship education and learning. Our findings aim at defining the state-of-the-art in university role in fostering student entrepreneurship, proposing issues for academics and practitioners.

2. Methodology

We applied an SLR methodology (Tranfield et al. 2003; Kraus et al. 2020; Secundo et al. 2020) and a cluster analysis to answer our RQ:
What is the state-of-the-art of student entrepreneurship into business, management, and accounting fields of study?
We provided insights into student entrepreneurship in the fields of business, management and accounting. To point out our research, we assumed a set of keywords by the Administrative Sciences’ special issue as theoretical background in composing our search query to find articles in Scopus database. We selected ((“student*” OR “higher education”) AND (“technology transfer” OR “entrepreneurial intent*” OR “entrepreneurial learning” OR “innovative learning” OR “entrepreneurial identity” OR “extra-curricular”)) OR (“student entrepreneur*” AND (“student entrepreneur*” AND (“nascent entrepreneur*” OR “active entrepreneur*” OR “business” OR “start up” OR “academic spin-offs” OR “venture” OR “entrepreneurial”)) as keywords. Our search is up to 15 November 2021 and we collected only scientific articles after 2000, obtaining 3.222 research articles from 5.853 initial documents. Then the search field was limited only to business, management, and accounting and to English-language documents, obtaining 1.293 research articles. Lastly, the authors read titles, abstracts and keywords of collected documents, having a final list of 52 articles based only on research articles mainly related to our research aim. Appendix A shows this final list, while Table 1 summarizes the selected criteria to collect research articles.
Assuring the generalizability of results (White and McBurney 2012), we assured external and internal validity of them (Silverman 2013). We classified and coded articles through the adoption of some categories (Secundo et al. 2020; Lombardi et al. 2021b):
  • Publication time;
  • Geographical distribution of articles;
  • Number of citations of articles/journals and most influential authors;
  • Topics and common keywords.
We used descriptive, bibliometric, and cluster analyses through Nvivo software and VOSviewer software (van Eck and Waltman 2017). In the end, we drafted the emerging research paths.

3. Findings

This section shows findings to answer our research question: What is the state-of-the-art of student entrepreneurship into business, management and accounting fields of study?

3.1. Publication Time

We screened 52 scientific articles published from 2001. Among these articles, 52% are based on a quantitative method, while 38% on a qualitative method and 10% on a mixed one. The trend of publications seems irregular. For the years between 2001 and 2009, we selected a research article only for 2003 and 2005, while the number of selected published documents from 2010 to 2021 is characterized by constant increases and decreases in publications. Lastly, 2017 is the most relevant year in terms of publications (11 documents) (Figure 1).

3.2. Geographical Distribution of Articles

Focusing on the geographical distribution of the selected articles, we tried to understand which are the main countries for our research, analyzing the geographical location of the universities of the authors of selected articles. The United Kingdom is the most representative country (11 articles), followed by the USA (9 articles) and Italy (7 articles). Additionally, we provided an analysis of citations per country, highlighting how Germany (671 citations) is the country to which the most cited articles belong, followed by the USA (629 citations) and the United Kingdom (556 citations) (Table 2).

3.3. Number of Citations of Articles/Journals and Most Influential Authors

Table 3 points out how four is the higher number of articles per journal. Particularly, 5 journals published at least three articles selected for this SLR. Focusing on citations per journal, Journal Of Technology Transfer is the most-cited journal (218 citations), followed by Journal Of Small Business And Enterprise Development (168 citations) and Small Business Economics (167 citations).
Lüthje and Franke (2003); Maresch et al. (2016); Shirokova et al. (2016); Saeed et al. (2015); Boh et al. (2016) and Wright et al. (2017) are the most relevant authors (Table 4). Additionally, we calculated the citation per year (CPY) value and, among the top six cited articles, the highest CPY value (32.8) belongs to Maresch et al. (2016), while the lowest (16.2) to Boh et al. (2016).

3.4. Topics and Common Keywords

Through the occurrence analysis, we found the most relevant keywords in the titles and abstracts of the 52 research articles. We selected 4 as the minimum number of occurrences of a keyword and from our analysis the following main keywords emerged: student entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship education, students, entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial intention, higher education, and entrepreneurial university. Table 5 summarizes our findings.
Additionally, we pointed out the cluster analysis through the occurrence, selecting 4 as the minimum number of occurrences of a keyword. Then, we deleted two words already used. Figure 2 highlights the following three research areas: (i) student entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intention; (ii) university support for entrepreneurship; (iii) entrepreneurship education and learning.
In the following subsections we describe of the most relevant features of the abovementioned research areas.

3.4.1. Research Area 1—Student Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurial Intention

Entrepreneurship and the growing number of entrepreneurs are widely considered instrumental for economic growth, employment and technological progress (Blesia et al. 2019; Nguyen 2020). Entrepreneurship can be defined “as a process of doing something (being creative), being different (being innovative) and daring to take risks (being risk takers)” (Blesia et al. 2019). In this scenario, a creative entrepreneur pays attention to the current situation, especially focusing on details he/she had overlooked, and he/she can develop new ideas, combining his/her available resources (Miller 1983). An innovative entrepreneur points out creative ideas (Hamel and Prahalad 1991), while a risk-taker entrepreneur agrees to support an idea, even if there is a probability of failure (Blesia et al. 2019).
Marchand and Hermens (2015) defined student entrepreneurs “as individuals attending award classes at university and conducting innovative and revenue generating entrepreneurial activities”. More recently, Holienka et al. (2017) have broadened this concept, referring to “all students involved in actively running any enterprising activities, i.e., acting upon identified opportunities and developed ideas, and transforming them into value for others”. Additionally, the literature defines another figure influenced by the new model of entrepreneurial university: the “technology entrepreneur” (Prodan 2007), also known as “entrepreneurial engineer” or “entrepreneurial scientist” (Goldberg 2006). Elia et al. (2017) defined this figure as “a new archetype of human capital, capable to adapt quickly to changes as well as to address societal development and innovation, thus assuring economical, technological and environmental sustainability”. In the light of student entrepreneurship’s contribution to the labor force, higher education is adapting to the dynamic local, national, and international environment (Guerrero and Urbano 2012; Blesia et al. 2019).
Thus, it is possible to recognize three universities’ missions currently affecting student entrepreneurship (Zollo et al. 2017). The first mission refers to teaching and it is based on the development of a proactive and innovative entrepreneurial character in students (European Commission 2012b). The second mission refers to the research and relies on a structural transformation to share and commercialize the university’s intellectual property. Lastly, the third mission “transformed the university into a teaching, research and economic development enterprise” (Etzkowitz 2003, p. 110), paying more attention to the practical implementation and commercialization of research findings (Baubonienė et al. 2019).
Student entrepreneurship has been evolving in the light of new issues to be addressed. The rapid development of new technologies revolutionised entrepreneurship, leading to the need to develop and control these technologies. This revolution also brought new opportunities for learning entrepreneurial skills (Liu and Zhang 2011), starting planning own businesses (Chen et al. 2012), and knowledge or technology transfer (Boh et al. 2016; Barbini et al. 2021). Particularly, the Internet can be regarded as an essential medium to develop entrepreneurship and soft skills (Prameswari et al. 2020). In the current dynamic environment, the last issue student entrepreneurship has to face is related to sustainability (Russo et al. 2021), considering how climate change is dramatically impacting the environment, requiring companies to respond quickly and efficiently (Lombardi et al. 2021c).
Many studies point out drivers of student entrepreneurship, shedding light on the main features that foster student entrepreneurial intention (see Donaldson 2019 for a recent literature review on entrepreneurial intentions). Among these features, it is possible to recognize: (I) gender; (II) age; (III) having entrepreneurial parents; (IV) self-efficacy; (V) risk tolerance; (VI) environmental characteristics. Focusing on the age factor, many studies highlight how men have a stronger predisposition to establish an entrepreneurial activity than women (Scherer et al. 1990; Chen et al. 1998; Zhao et al. 2005; de Bruin et al. 2007; Gupta et al. 2009). Even if this consideration, there are only little or no gender differences in entrepreneurship (Shirokova et al. 2016).
The second feature affecting student entrepreneurship is age. Younger people, such as students, have personal characteristics (they are more energetic, dynamic, enthusiastic, and eager to realize their ambitions), leading them to be more likely to be ready to start an entrepreneurial project (Álvarez-Herranz et al. 2011). However, older people could be: (I) more resolved to convert an entrepreneurial intention into a start-up; (II) more determined to complete the started entrepreneurial initiative; (III) more experienced, a feature that makes it easier to proceed with a start-up activity (Álvarez-Herranz et al. 2011; Shirokova et al. 2016). Focusing on the third feature of student entrepreneurship, it emerged that having entrepreneurial parents represent a significant driver to stimulate the intention to start an entrepreneurial activity (Gubik and Farkas 2016; Holienka et al. 2017). According to the fourth feature (self-efficacy), “people who have strong belief that they are able to start and run entrepreneurship tend to have strong intention to start and run the business (Giles and Rea 1999)” (Rakib et al. 2020). The fifth feature is the risk-tolerance. Risk-taking propensity allows students to go ahead with their entrepreneurial projects despite situations of uncertainty (Zollo et al. 2017; Ibidunni et al. 2020; Zhang et al. 2020). Lastly, also the environmental characteristics foster student entrepreneurship. Particularly, student entrepreneurship is fostered by perceived financial and non-financial support, social support, the presence of an entrepreneurial environment (Nguyen 2020), and national culture (Laskovaia et al. 2017). Additionally, also education affects entrepreneurial intention (Maresch et al. 2016; Trivedi 2016; Gelaidan and Abdullateef 2017), allowing students to learn organizational skills, such as leadership development, time management, and interpersonal skills (Stamboulis and Barlas 2014), or two or more foreign languages to be connected with as many people as possible (Sansone et al. 2021).

3.4.2. Research Area 2—University Support for Entrepreneurship

In the current ultra-competitive scenario, universities have to face new issues. Particularly, recent evolutions and innovations in the corporate world are pushing universities to become more entrepreneurial and international in order to stay competitive (Jansen et al. 2015; Minola et al. 2016), leading to a significant increase in entrepreneurial courses in Europe and in the USA (Kuratko 2005; European Commission 2012a; Hoppe 2016), even if there is still a gap to be filled between knowledge gained during studies and the current situation in the economic and business field (Prameswari et al. 2020). Universities are trying to: (I) contribute to the spirit of entrepreneurship; (II) promote creativity and student aspirations to start up a business; (III) provide adequate knowledge for the establishment and the development of a business; and (IV) introduce new and innovative entrepreneurship curricula and programs (Baubonienė et al. 2019).
Thus, university support for entrepreneurship can be split in many different ways (Bazan et al. 2019). According to Saeed et al. (2015), entrepreneurial self-efficacy is mainly affected by perceived educational support, followed by concept development support, business development support, and overall institutional support. Additionally, the day-to-day exposure to the university environment and its structures can shape students’ entrepreneurial career and their entrepreneurial behaviour (Shirokova et al. 2016), encouraging the establishment of new ventures (Tan et al. 2000; Shirokova et al. 2017).

3.4.3. Research Area 3—Entrepreneurship Education and Learning

Education is essential to shape an entrepreneurial character (Ariyani et al. 2020), bringing students entrepreneurial skills, knowledge, attitudes, and other human capital assets, essential features to allow their personal growth (Rae et al. 2012; Martin et al. 2013; Gedeon 2014). Students’ learning has been enhanced through the following two types of pedagogical approaches: (i) theory-based pedagogical approach; (ii) practice-based approach. The first approach improves students’ understanding of entrepreneurship, while the second one allows the development of entrepreneurial skills (Neck et al. 2014).
Particular attention should be paid to the last approach. The practice-based approach has increasingly become related to the entrepreneurial method (Fayolle and Gailly 2008; Sarasvathy 2008; Yamakawa et al. 2016), based on the following two modes of logic: (i) effectuation; (ii) causation. These two modes are useful to face challenges related to entrepreneurial behavior (Yamakawa et al. 2016). Effectuation allows a better understanding of how ideas can be examined, modified, and delivered to the market (Mäkimurto-Koivumaa and Puhakka 2013), starting an iterative process of value creation for stakeholders (Lackéus et al. 2016). Conversely, according to causation, students “identify and assess long-run opportunities in developing their ventures, and they engage in creating project plans for developing their products and/or services and for conducting market and competitive analyses (Chandler et al. 2011; Fisher 2012; Sarasvathy 2001)” (Ilonen et al. 2018).
In the current scenario, the need for increased levels of graduate entrepreneurship cannot be supported by traditional pedagogical approaches applied to entrepreneurship education. Conversely, it should be supported by the development of more innovative and entrepreneurial approaches, such as the collaborative co-learning approach, based on the engagement of entrepreneurs, university students, and educators in the learning process (Hannon et al. 2005). Other significant steps forward have been made through the introduction of business simulations, considered a useful tool for the development and the improvement of entrepreneurial abilities (Samašonok et al. 2020) and through new entrepreneurship courses, extra-curricular support activities, seminars, and training, in order to shape a supportive environment for entrepreneurship (Walter et al. 2013; Bergmann et al. 2016; Morris et al. 2017; Sendouwa et al. 2019). Accelerators, incubators, business plan competitions, and grants are also recognised as new ways to stimulate entrepreneurial skills (Wright et al. 2017). Particular attention should be paid to extra-curricular activities, among which summer schools, exchanges, mentoring, internships, workshop programs, games, competitions, financial support, pre-incubators, business support programs, student-led enterprise groups, and entrepreneurship societies and clubs (ESs) (Pittaway et al. 2011; Pittaway et al. 2015; Siivonen et al. 2019). These kinds of activities are essential to enhance students’ knowledge, experience (Preedy and Jones 2015), interpersonal and employability skills (Preedy and Jones 2017).
Thus, “the concept of entrepreneurship encompasses more dimensions than a mechanical combination of entrepreneurial knowledge, skills and attitudes as it has been defined as one of the lifelong learning key competencies” (Oganisjana and Koke 2012). Universities are different from each other in terms of competencies and resources, leading to information asymmetries and variances in entrepreneurial competencies among students and graduates that affect venture creation (Beyhan and Findik 2018). In the current scenario, even if universities are trying to innovate the way of teaching and invest in developing entrepreneurship curricula, in order to extend the current status of knowledge, there is still little investment in practical programs and only few entrepreneurship graduates decide to start businesses immediately after graduation (Nenzhelele et al. 2016). Thus, in the next years, universities and policy-makers have to work together in order to overcome contextual barriers and foster student entrepreneurship (Lüthje and Franke 2003).

4. Conclusions

We collected articles on university role in fostering student entrepreneurship, answering the call by Administrative Sciences “Fostering Student Entrepreneurship: Nascent and Active Entrepreneurs in Universities”. Adopting an SLR (Tranfield et al. 2003; Kraus et al. 2020; Secundo et al. 2020), we analysed 52 articles. Focusing on our bibliometric analysis, literature provided several studies in the selected field, but it can be further explored. Additionally, the occurrence analysis and the cluster analysis helped us to find the following three main research areas: (i) student entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intention; (ii) university support for entrepreneurship; iii) entrepreneurship education and learning.
Moving to the literature review, we analysed the abovementioned three research areas. The first research area pointed out how student entrepreneurship has changed significantly in recent years, adapting to changes in the environment, especially those related to new technologies and sustainability issues. Additionally, this research area highlighted that many features foster student entrepreneurship intention. Among these features, gender, age, having entrepreneurial parents, self-efficacy, risk tolerance, and environmental characteristics can be regarded as the main drivers for students’ entrepreneurship. Focusing on the last feature, it is possible to highlight the role of the university in fostering students’ skills and intention to undertake entrepreneurship. This last consideration allows us to focus on the second and third research areas. Indeed, universities’ approach to entrepreneurship has been changing to understand the new requirements of the economic system. In this scenario, universities broadened their support for entrepreneurship and innovated entrepreneurship education, introducing the following innovations: (I) the use of business simulations (Samašonok et al. 2020); (II) the development of new entrepreneurship courses, extra-curricular support activities, seminars, and training (Walter et al. 2013; Bergmann et al. 2016; Morris et al. 2017; Sendouwa et al. 2019); and (III) the use of accelerators, incubators, business plan competitions, and grants (Wright et al. 2017).
Even if these considerations, universities have not implemented the same innovations (Beyhan and Findik 2018) and many steps still need to be taken to improve students’ entrepreneurship. Indeed, in the current scenario, only few entrepreneurship graduates decide to start businesses during or immediately after graduation (Nenzhelele et al. 2016). Additionally, there is the need to further improve the development and use of new technologies and address sustainability issues. These findings from our SLR allow us to state that there is a need for collaboration between policy-makers and universities in order to foster student entrepreneurship.
To advance studies in the field of student entrepreneurship (Kuratko 2005; Mueller 2006; Fayolle and Redford 2014; Lombardi et al. 2017), we suggest that future research will be based on the next innovations that universities are developing to help students in entrepreneurship. For instance, future studies may analyse if and how digital and coding knowledge and skills may foster entrepreneurial intentions and student entrepreneurship. Our SLR is only a preliminary literature review of an emerging topic and it has several limitations, among which the use of only one research database (Scopus), the selection of a restricted number of keywords to collect papers, and the absence of any reference theory. Thus, our future research aims to adopt other databases of search, such as Google Scholar, and to widen the number of selected keywords to extend the basis of research. Additionally, future research may focus not only on students and alumni who created start-ups but also on students and alumni that, as a result of entrepreneurship education, learning, and experiences, became more proactive in SMEs and corporations. For instance, future research may also analyse student entrepreneurs’ role in the development of open innovation activities and intrapreneurship. In addition to this, future studies may analyse how the university supports organizations (e.g., university incubator/accelerator or university technology transfer office) and develops student entrepreneurship. Finally, future research may develop and propose a new theory for student entrepreneurship and compare student entrepreneurship in different countries.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft preparation, F.S.; writing—review and editing, F.N. and B.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Documents full list ordered by year of publication.
Table A1. Documents full list ordered by year of publication.
Nr.AuthorsTitleYearJournal/Source
1Blesia, J.U., Iek, M., Ratang, W., Hutajulu, H.Developing an Entrepreneurship Model to Increase Students’ Entrepreneurial Skills: an Action Research Project in a Higher Education Institution in Indonesia2021Systemic Practice and Action Research
2Ibidunni, A.S., Mozie, D., Ayeni, A.W.A.A.Entrepreneurial characteristics amongst university students: insights for understanding entrepreneurial intentions amongst youths in a developing economy2021Education and Training
3Sansone, G., Ughetto, E., Landoni, P.Entrepreneurial intention: An analysis of the role of Student-Led Entrepreneurial Organizations2021Journal of International Entrepreneurship
4Barbini, F.M., Corsino, M., Giuri, P.How do universities shape founding teams? Social proximity and informal mechanisms of knowledge transfer in student entrepreneurship2021Journal of Technology Transfer
5Rakib, M., Tawe, A., Azis, M., Syam, A., Sanusi, D.A.Determinants of Entrepreneurial Intention: Empirical Study of Student Entrepreneurs2020Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal
6Samašonok, K., Išoraitė, M., Žirnelė, L.Education of entrepreneurship by participation in a business simulation enterprise activities: Conditions of effectiveness and opportunities for improvement2020Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues
7Prameswari, N.S., Cruz, M.D., Amboro, J.L., Wahyuningsih, N., Suharto, M.Analysis of development e-commerce for accommodate students in developing entrepreneurship mental2020International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research
8Ariyani, D., Suyatno, Zuhaery, M.Principal’s entrepreneurial leadership in developing entrepreneurship at 4 magelang high school2020International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research
9Nguyen, T.T.Impact of entrepreneurship environmental support factors to university students’ entrepreneurship self-efficacy2020Management Science Letters
10Siivonen, P.T., Peura, K., Hytti, U., Kasanen, K., Komulainen, K.The construction and regulation of collective entrepreneurial identity in student entrepreneurship societies2020International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research
11Sendouwa, R.H.E., Lonto, A.L., Saroinsong, S.J.R.Entrepreneurship development program in the higher education in Indonesia2019International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering
12Muscio, A., Ramaciotti, L.How does academia influence Ph.D. entrepreneurship? New insights on the entrepreneurial university2019Technovation
13Bazan, C., Shaikh, A., Frederick, S., (...), Finn, C., Rayner, J.Effect of memorial university’s environment & support system in shaping entrepreneurial intention of students2019Journal of Entrepreneurship Education
14Baubonienė, Ž., Hahn, K.H., Puksas, A., Malinauskienė, E.Factors influencing student entrepreneurship intentions: The case of lithuanian and South Korean universities2018Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues
15Beyhan, B., Findik, D.Student and graduate entrepreneurship: ambidextrous universities create more nascent entrepreneurs2018Journal of Technology Transfer
16Ilonen, S., Heinonen, J., Stenholm, P.Identifying and understanding entrepreneurial decision-making logics in entrepreneurship education2018International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research
17Shirokova, G., Osiyevskyy, O., Morris, M.H., Bogatyreva, K.Expertise, university infrastructure and approaches to new venture creation: assessing students who start businesses2017Entrepreneurship and Regional Development
18Choi, K., Park, J., Cho, D., Chu, H.-Y.The Impact of University Support on the Creation of Student Entrepreneurs: Evidence from South Korea2017Entrepreneurship Research Journal
19Wright, M., Siegel, D.S., Mustar, P.An emerging ecosystem for student start-ups2017Journal of Technology Transfer
20Holienka, M., Gál, P., Kovačičová, Z.Drivers of student entrepreneurship in visegrad four countries: Guesss evidence2017Central European Business Review
21Bogatyreva, K., Shirokova, G.From entrepreneurial aspirations to founding a business: The case of Russian students2017Foresight and STI Governance
22Zollo, L., Laudano, M.C., Ciappei, C., Zampi, V.Factors affecting universities’ ability to foster students’ entrepreneurial behaviour: An empirical investigation2017Journal of Management Development
23Gelaidan, H.M., Abdullateef, A.O.Entrepreneurial intentions of business students in Malaysia: The role of self-confidence, educational and relation support2017Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development
24Morris, M.H., Shirokova, G., Tsukanova, T.Student entrepreneurship and the university ecosystem: A multi-country empirical exploration2017European Journal of International Management
25Preedy, S., Jones, P.Student-led enterprise groups and entrepreneurial learning: A UK perspective2017Industry and Higher Education
26Laskovaia, A., Shirokova, G., Morris, M.H.National culture, effectuation, and new venture performance: global evidence from student entrepreneurs2017Small Business Economics
27Elia, G., Secundo, G., Passiante, G.Pathways towards the entrepreneurial university for creating entrepreneurial engineers: An Italian case2017International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management
28Trivedi, R.Does university play significant role in shaping entrepreneurial intention? A cross-country comparative analysis2016Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development
29Shirokova, G., Osiyevskyy, O., Bogatyreva, K.Exploring the intention–behavior link in student entrepreneurship: Moderating effects of individual and environmental characteristics2016European Management Journal
30Bergmann, H., Hundt, C., Sternberg, R.What makes student entrepreneurs? On the relevance (and irrelevance) of the university and the regional context for student start-ups2016Small Business Economics
31Maresch, D., Harms, R., Kailer, N., Wimmer-Wurm, B.The impact of entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial intention of students in science and engineering versus business studies university programs2016Technological Forecasting and Social Change
32Gubik, A.S., Farkas, S.Student entrepreneurship in Hungary: Selected results based on GUESSS survey2016Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review
33Nenzhelele, T.E., Moraka, N.V., More, K.K.The impact of practical entrepreneurship project on future entrepreneurial intentions2016Problems and Perspectives in Management
34Minola, T., Donina, D., Meoli, M.Students climbing the entrepreneurial ladder: Does university internationalization pay off?2016Small Business Economics
35Boh, W.F., De-Haan, U., Strom, R.University technology transfer through entrepreneurship: faculty and students in spinoffs2016Journal of Technology Transfer
36Jansen, S., van de Zande, T., Brinkkemper, S., Stam, E., Varma, V.How education, stimulation, and incubation encourage student entrepreneurship: Observations from MIT, IIIT, and Utrecht University2015International Journal of Management Education
37Saeed, S., Yousafzai, S.Y., Yani-De-Soriano, M., Muffatto, M.The Role of Perceived University Support in the Formation of Students’ Entrepreneurial Intention2015Journal of Small Business Management
38Pittaway, L.A., Gazzard, J., Shore, A., Williamson, T.Student clubs: experiences in entrepreneurial learning2015Entrepreneurship and Regional Development
39Preedy, S., Jones, P.An investigation into university extra-curricular enterprise support provision2015Education and Training
40Stamboulis, Y., Barlas, A.Entrepreneurship education impact on student attitudes2014International Journal of Management Education
41Marchand, J., Sood, S.The alchemy of student entrepreneurs: Towards a model of entrepreneurial maturity2014International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management
42Jang, Y.Modeling student entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study2013Journal of Entrepreneurship Education
43Politis, D., Winborg, J., Dahlstrand, Å.L.Exploring the resource logic of student entrepreneurs2012International Small Business Journal
44Penaluna, K., Penaluna, A., Jones, C.The Context of Enterprise Education: Insights into Current Practices2012Industry and Higher Education
45Oganisjana, K., Koke, T.Does competence-oriented higher education lead to students’ competitiveness?2012Engineering Economics
46Kwong, C.C.Y., Thompson, P., Cheung, C.W.M., Manzoor, H.The role of environment in fostering conductive entrepreneurial learning: Teaching the ‘art’ of entrepreneurship in boot camps2012Journal of General Management
47Matlay, H., Rae, D., Rae, D., (...), Antcliff, V., Hannon, P.Enterprise and entrepreneurship in English higher education: 2010 and beyond2012Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development
48Pittaway, L., Rodriguez-Falcon, E., Aiyegbayo, O., King, A.The role of entrepreneurship clubs and societies in entrepreneurial learning2011International Small Business Journal
49Woodier-Harris, N.R.Evaluating the impact of SPEED on students’ career choices: A pilot study2010Education and Training
50Kraaijenbrink, J., Bos, G., Groen, A.What do students think of the entrepreneurial support given by their universities?2010International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business
51Hannon, P.D., Collins, L.A., Smith, A.J.Exploring Graduate Entrepreneurship: A Collaborative, Co-Learning Based Approach for Students, Entrepreneurs and Educators2005Industry and Higher Education
52Lüthje, C., Franke, N.The ‘making’ of an entrepreneur: Testing a model of entrepreneurial intent among engineering students at MIT2003R and D Management

Note

1
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/10/universities-should-support-more-student-entrepreneurs/ (accessed on 25 December 2021).

References

  1. Álvarez-Herranz, Agustín, Pilar Valencia-De-Lara, and María Pilar Martínez-Ruiz. 2011. How entrepreneurial characteristics influence company creation: A cross-national study of 22 countriestested with panel data methodology. Journal of Business Economics and Management 12: 529–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Ariyani, Dwi, Suyatno, and Muhammad Zuhaery. 2020. Principal’s entrepreneurial leadership in developing entrepreneurship at 4 magelang high school. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research 9: 1446–52. [Google Scholar]
  3. Barbini, Francesco Maria, Marco Corsino, and Paola Giuri. 2021. How do universities shape founding teams? Social proximity and informal mechanisms of knowledge transfer in student entrepreneurship. The Journal of Technology Transfer 46: 1046–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Baubonienė, Živilė, Ho Hahn Kyong, Andrius Puksas, and Eglė Malinauskienė. 2019. Factors influencing student entrepreneurship intentions: The case of Lithuanian and South Korean universities. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 6: 854–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bazan, Carlos, Arifusalam Shaikh, Sean Frederick, Ali Amjad, Simon Yap, Chantel Finn, and James Rayner. 2019. Effect of memorial university’s environment & support system in shaping entrepreneurial intention of students. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education 22: 1–35. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bergmann, Heiko, Christian Hundt, and Rolf Sternberg. 2016. What makes student entrepreneurs? On the relevance (and irrelevance) of the university and the regional context for student start-ups. Small Business Economics 47: 53–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Beyhan, Berna, and Derya Findik. 2018. Student and graduate entrepreneurship: Ambidextrous universities create more nascent entrepreneurs. The Journal of Technology Transfer 43: 1346–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Blesia, Jhon U., Mesak Iek, Westim Ratang, and Halomoan Hutajulu. 2019. Developing an entrepreneurship model to increase students’ entrepreneurial skills: An action research project in a higher education institution in Indonesia. Systemic Practice and Action Research 34: 53–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Boh, Wai Fong, Uzi De-Haan, and Robert Strom. 2016. University technology transfer through entrepreneurship: Faculty and students in spinoffs. The Journal of Technology Transfer 41: 661–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chandler, Gaylen N., Dawn R. DeTienne, Alexander McKelvie, and Troy V. Mumford. 2011. Causation and effectuation processes: A validation study. Journal of Business Venturing 26: 375–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chen, Chao C., Patricia Gene Greene, and Ann Crick. 1998. Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing 13: 295–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chen, Daijiang, Juanjuan Chen, and Yujiao Wang. 2012. Online entrepreneurship and e-commerce experimental teaching. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Engineering and Applications (IEA) 2012. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, vol. 216, pp. 19–26. [Google Scholar]
  13. Chiarello, Maria Assunta, Riccardo Fini, Silvia Ghiselli, Claudia Girotti, Azzurra Meoli, and Maurizio Sobrero. 2021. Student and Graduate Entrepreneurship in Italy-Report 2020. SSRN. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3774909 (accessed on 25 December 2021).
  14. de Bruin, Anne, Candida G. Brush, and Friederike Welter. 2007. Advancing a framework for coherent research on women’s entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 31: 323–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Dodgson, Mark, and David Gann. 2020. Universities Should Support More Student Entrepreneurs. Here’s Why—And How. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/10/universities-should-support-more-student-entrepreneurs/ (accessed on 25 December 2021).
  16. Donaldson, Colin. 2019. Intentions resurrected: A systematic review of entrepreneurial intention research from 2014 to 2018 and future research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 15: 953–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Elia, Gianluca, Giustina Secundo, and Giuseppina Passiante. 2017. Pathways towards the entrepreneurial university for creating entrepreneurial engineers: An Italian case. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management 21: 27–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Etzkowitz, Henry. 2003. Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy 32: 109–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. European Commission. 2012a. Effects and Impact of Entrepreneurship Programmes in Higher Education. Brussels: European Commission. [Google Scholar]
  20. European Commission. 2012b. A Guiding Framework for Entrepreneurial Universities. Paris: OECD, December 18, Available online: www.oecd.org/site/cfecpr/guiding-framework.htm (accessed on 25 December 2021).
  21. Fayolle, Alain, and Benoit Gailly. 2008. From craft to science: Teaching models and learning processes in entrepreneurship education. Journal of European Industrial Training 32: 569–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fayolle, Alain, and Dana T. Redford. 2014. Handbook on the Entrepreneurial University. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  23. Fisher, Greg. 2012. Effectuation, causation, and bricolage: A behavioral comparison of emerging theories in entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 36: 1019–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gedeon, Steven A. 2014. Application of best practices in university entrepreneurship education: Designing a new MBA program. European Journal of Training and Development 38: 231–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gelaidan, Hamid Mahmood, and Aliyu Olayemi Abdullateef. 2017. Entrepreneurial intentions of business students in Malaysia: The role of self-confidence, educational and relation support. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 24: 54–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Giles, Melanie, and Avril Rea. 1999. Career self-efficacy: An application of the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 72: 393–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Goldberg, David E. 2006. The Entrepreneurial Engineer: Personal, Interpersonal, and Organizational Skills for Engineers in a World of Opportunity. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  28. Grimaldi, Rosa, Martin Kenney, Donald S. Siegel, and Mike Wright. 2011. 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy 40: 1045–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gubik, Andrea S., and Szilveszter Farkas. 2016. Student Entrepreneurship in Hungary: Selected Results Based on GUESSS Survey. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review 4: 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Guerrero, Maribel, and David Urbano. 2012. The development of an entrepreneurial university. The Journal of Technology Transfer 37: 43–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gupta, Vishal K., Daniel B. Turban, S. Arzu Wasti, and Arijit Sikdar. 2009. The role of gender stereotypes in perceptions of entrepreneurs and intentions to become an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33: 397–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hamel, Gary, and Coimbatore K. Prahalad. 1991. Corporate imagination and expeditionary marketing. Harvard Business Review 69: 81–92. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  33. Hannon, Paul D., Lorna A. Collins, and Alison J. Smith. 2005. Exploring graduate entrepreneurship: A collaborative, co-learning based approach for students, entrepreneurs and educators. Industry and Higher Education 19: 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Haynie, Michael, and Dean A. Shepherd. 2009. A measure of adaptive cognition for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33: 695–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Holienka, Marian, Peter Gál, and Zuzana Kovačičová. 2017. Drivers of student entrepreneurship in Visegrad four countries: Guesss evidence. Central European Business Review 6: 54–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Hoppe, Magnus. 2016. Policy and entrepreneurship education. Small Business Economics 46: 13–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ibidunni, Ayodotun Stephen, Dumebi Mozie, and Adebanji Wlliam A. A. Ayeni. 2020. Entrepreneurial characteristics amongst university students: Insights for understanding entrepreneurial intentions amongst youths in a developing economy. Education+ Training 63: 71–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ilonen, Sanna, Jarna Heinonen, and Pekka Stenholm. 2018. Identifying and understanding entrepreneurial decision-making logics in entrepreneurship education. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 24: 59–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Jansen, Slinger, Tommy Van De Zande, Sjaak Brinkkemper, Erik Stam, and Vasudeva Varma. 2015. How education, stimulation, and incubation encourage student entrepreneurship: Observations from MIT, IIIT, and Utrecht University. The International Journal of Management Education 13: 170–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Johannisson, Bengt. 1991. University training for entrepreneurship: Swedish approaches. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 3: 67–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kraus, Sascha, Matthias Breier, and Sonia Dasí-Rodríguez. 2020. The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 16: 1023–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Kuratko, Donald F. 2005. The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29: 577–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lackéus, Martin, Mats Lundqvist, and Karen Williams Middleton. 2016. Bridging the traditional-progressive education rift through entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 22: 777–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Laskovaia, Anastasiia, Galina Shirokova, and Michael H. Morris. 2017. National culture, effectuation, and new venture performance: Global evidence from student entrepreneurs. Small Business Economics 49: 687–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Liu, Zunfeng, and Chunling Zhang. 2011. Research on entrepreneurship education based on e-commerce. Communications in Computer and Information Science, Information and Management Engineering 223: 381–88. [Google Scholar]
  46. Lombardi, Rosa, Alessandra Lardo, Benedetta Cuozzo, and Raffaele Trequattrini. 2017. Emerging trends in entrepreneurial universities within Mediterranean regions: An international comparison. EuroMed Journal of Business 12: 130–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lombardi, Rosa, Federico Schimperna, and Raffaele Marcello. 2021a. Human capital and smart tourism’s development: Primary evidence. International Journal of Digital Culture and Electronic Tourism 3: 294–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lombardi, Rosa, Raffaele Trequattrini, Federico Schimperna, and Myriam Cano-Rubio. 2021b. The Impact of Smart Technologies on the Management and Strategic Control: A Structured Literature Review. Management Control, 11–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lombardi, Rosa, Federico Schimperna, Paola Paoloni, and Michele Galeotti. 2021c. The climate-related information in the changing EU directive on non-financial reporting and disclosure: First evidence by Italian large companies. Journal of Applied Accounting Research. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lüthje, Christian, and Nikolaus Franke. 2003. The ‘making’of an entrepreneur: Testing a model of entrepreneurial intent among engineering students at MIT. R&d Management 33: 135–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Mäkimurto-Koivumaa, Soili, and Vesa Puhakka. 2013. Effectuation and causation in entrepreneurship education. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing 5: 68–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Marchand, Julien, and Antoine Hermens. 2015. Student Entrepreneurship: A Research Agenda. International Journal of Organizational Innovation 8: 266–82. [Google Scholar]
  53. Maresch, Daniela, Rainer Harms, Norbert Kailer, and Birgit Wimmer-Wurm. 2016. The impact of entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial intention of students in science and engineering versus business studies university programs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 104: 172–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Martin, Bruce C., Jeffrey J. McNally, and Michael J. Kay. 2013. Examining the formation of human capital in entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. Journal of Business Venturing 28: 211–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Miller, Danny. 1983. The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science 29: 770–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Minola, Tommaso, Davide Donina, and Michele Meoli. 2016. Students climbing the entrepreneurial ladder: Does university internationalization pay off? Small Business Economics 47: 565–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Morris, Michael H., Galina Shirokova, and Tatyana Tsukanova. 2017. Student entrepreneurship and the university ecosystem: A multi-country empirical exploration. European Journal of International Management 11: 65–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Mueller, Pamela. 2006. Exploring the knowledge filter: How entrepreneurship and university–industry relationships drive economic growth. Research Policy 35: 1499–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Neck, Heidi M., Patricia G. Greene, and Candida G. Brush. 2014. Practice-based entrepreneurship education using actionable theory. In Annals of Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy–2014. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 3–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Nenzhelele, Tshilidzi Eric, Nthabiseng Violet Moraka, and Kopano Kalvyn More. 2016. The impact of practical entrepreneurship project on future entrepreneurial intentions. Problems and Perspectives in Management 14: 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Nguyen, Thuy T. 2020. Impact of entrepreneurship environmental support factors to university students’ entrepreneurship self-efficacy. Management Science Letters 10: 1321–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Oganisjana, Karine, and Tatjana Koke. 2012. Does competence-oriented higher education lead to students’ competitiveness? Engineering Economics 23: 77–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Pittaway, Luke, Elena Rodriguez-Falcon, Olaojo Aiyegbayo, and Amanda King. 2011. The role of entrepreneurship clubs and societies in entrepreneurial learning. International Small Business Journal 29: 37–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Pittaway, Luke Alan, Jim Gazzard, Adam Shore, and Tom Williamson. 2015. Student clubs: Experiences in entrepreneurial learning. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 27: 127–53. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/08985626.2015.1014865 (accessed on 25 December 2021).
  65. Prameswari, Nadia S., Menchie D. Cruz, Joko L. Amboro, Novita Wahyuningsih, and Mohamad Suharto. 2020. Analysis of development e-commerce for accommodate students in developing entrepreneurship mental. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research 9: 2856–61. [Google Scholar]
  66. Preedy, Sarah, and Paul Jones. 2015. An investigation into university extra-curricular enterprise support provision. Education+ Training 57: 992–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Preedy, Sarah, and Paul Jones. 2017. Student-led enterprise groups and entrepreneurial learning: A UK perspective. Industry and Higher Education 31: 101–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Prodan, Igor. 2007. A model of technological entrepreneurship. In Handbook of Research on Techno-Entrepreneurship. Edited by François Thérin. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 26–38. [Google Scholar]
  69. Rae, David, Lynn Martin, Valerie Antcliff, and Paul Hannon. 2012. Enterprise and entrepreneurship in English higher education: 2010 and beyond. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 19: 380–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Rakib, Muhammad, Amiruddin Tawe, Muhammad Azis, Agus Syam, and Dian Anugrah Sanusi. 2020. Determinants of entrepreneurial intention: Empirical study of student entrepreneurs. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal 26: 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  71. Russo, Sarah, Federico Schimperna, Rosa Lombardi, and Pasquale Ruggiero. 2021. Sustainability performance and social media: An explorative analysis. Meditari Accountancy Research. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Saeed, Saadat, Shumaila Y. Yousafzai, Mirella Yani-De-Soriano, and Moreno Muffatto. 2015. The role of perceived university support in the formation of students’ entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Small Business Management 53: 1127–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Samašonok, Kristina, Margarita Išoraitė, and Lina Žirnelė. 2020. Education of entrepreneurship by participation in a business simulation enterprise activities: Conditions of effectiveness and opportunities for improvement. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 7: 3122–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Sansone, Giuliano, Elisa Ughetto, and Paolo Landoni. 2021. Entrepreneurial intention: An analysis of the role of Student-Led Entrepreneurial Organizations. Journal of International Entrepreneurship 19: 399–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Sarasvathy, Saras D. 2001. Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review 26: 243–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Sarasvathy, Saras D. 2008. Effectuation: Elements of Entrepreneurial Expertise. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  77. Scherer, Robert F., James D. Brodzinski, and Frank A. Wiebe. 1990. Entrepreneur career selection and gender: A socialization approach. Journal of Small Business Management 28: 37. [Google Scholar]
  78. Schimperna, Federico, Rosa Lombardi, and Zhanna Belyaeva. 2020. Technological transformation, culinary tourism and stakeholder engagement: Emerging trends from a systematic literature review. Journal of Place Management and Development 14: 66–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Secundo, Giustina, Valentina Ndou, Pasquale Del Vecchio, and Gianluigi De Pascale. 2020. Sustainable development, intellectual capital and technology policies: A structured literature review and future research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 153: 119917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Sendouwa, Recky H. E., Apeles L. Lonto, and Sam J. R. Saroinsong. 2019. Entrepreneurship development program in the higher education in Indonesia. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering 8: 1006–10. [Google Scholar]
  81. Shirokova, Galina, Oleksiy Osiyevskyy, and Karina Bogatyreva. 2016. Exploring the intention–behavior link in student entrepreneurship: Moderating effects of individual and environmental characteristics. European Management Journal 34: 386–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Shirokova, Galina, Oleksiy Osiyevskyy, Michael H. Morris, and Karina Bogatyreva. 2017. Expertise, university infrastructure and approaches to new venture creation: Assessing students who start businesses. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 29: 912–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Siivonen, Päivi Tuulikki, Kirsi Peura, Ulla Hytti, Kati Kasanen, and Katri Komulainen. 2019. The construction and regulation of collective entrepreneurial identity in student entrepreneurship societies. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 26: 521–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Silverman, David. 2013. Doing Qualitative Research, 4th ed. London: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  85. Stamboulis, Yeoryios, and Achilleas Barlas. 2014. Entrepreneurship education impact on student attitudes. The International Journal of Management Education 12: 365–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Tan, Teck-Meng, Wee-Liang Tan, and John E. Young. 2000. Entrepreneurial infrastructure in Singapore: Developing a model and mapping participation. The Journal of Entrepreneurship 9: 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Tranfield, David, David Denyer, and Palminder Smart. 2003. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management 14: 207–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Trivedi, Rohit. 2016. Does university play significant role in shaping entrepreneurial intention? A cross-country comparative analysis. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 23: 790–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. van Eck, Nees Jan, and Ludo Waltman. 2017. Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics 111: 1053–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Walter, Sascha G., K. Praveen Parboteeah, and Achim Walter. 2013. University departments and self–employment intentions of business students: A cross–level analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 37: 175–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. White, Theresa L., and Donald H. McBurney. 2012. Research Methods. Boston: Cengage Learning. [Google Scholar]
  92. Wright, Mike, and Philippe Mustar. 2019. Student Start-Ups: The New Landscape of Academic Entrepreneurship. Singapore: World Scientific, vol. 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Wright, Mike, Donald S. Siegel, and Philippe Mustar. 2017. An emerging ecosystem for student start-ups. The Journal of Technology Transfer 42: 909–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Yamakawa, Yasu, Kate McKone-Sweet, James Hunt, and Danna Greenberg. 2016. Expanding the focus of entrepreneurship education: A pedagogy for teaching the entrepreneurial method. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship 27: 19–46. [Google Scholar]
  95. Zhang, Shu-Ning, Yong-Quan Li, Chih-Hsing Liu, and Wen-Qi Ruan. 2020. Critical factors identification and prediction of tourism and hospitality students’ entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 26: 100234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Zhao, Hao, Scott E. Seibert, and Gerald E. Hills. 2005. The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology 90: 1265–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  97. Zollo, Lamberto, Maria Carmen Laudano, Cristiano Ciappei, and Vincenzo Zampi. 2017. Factors affecting universities’ ability to foster students’ entrepreneurial behaviour: An empirical investigation. Journal of Management Development 36: 268–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Admsci 12 00005 g001 550
Figure 1. Trend of analyzed publications. Source: our elaboration from Scopus data.
Figure 1. Trend of analyzed publications. Source: our elaboration from Scopus data.
Admsci 12 00005 g001
Admsci 12 00005 g002 550
Figure 2. Clusters by keywords’ occurrence.
Figure 2. Clusters by keywords’ occurrence.
Admsci 12 00005 g002
Table
Table 1. Sample selection process.
Table 1. Sample selection process.
Selection CriteriaResults
Stage 1:
Search for TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“student*” OR “higher education”) AND (“technology transfer” OR “entrepreneurial intent*” OR “entrepreneurial learning” OR “innovative learning” OR “entrepreneurial identity” OR “extra-curricular”)) OR (“student entrepreneur*” AND (“student entrepreneur*” AND (“nascent entrepreneur*” OR “active entrepreneur*” OR “business” OR “start up” OR “academic spin-offs” OR “venture” OR “entrepreneurial”)) PUBYEAR > 2000 AND (LIMIT-TO (PUBSTAGE, ”final”))		5.853 documents
Stage 2:
Limiting the search field to research articles only		3.222 research articles
Stage 3:
Limiting the search field to business, management and accounting only		1.327 research articles
Stage 4:
Limiting the search field to English-language research articles only		1.293 research articles
Stage 5:
Selection of the collected research articles mainly related to our research aim		52 research articles
Source: our elaboration.
Table
Table 2. N° of analyzed articles and citations by countries.
Table 2. N° of analyzed articles and citations by countries.
CountryN° of ArticlesN° of Citations
United Kingdom11556
United States9629
Italy7215
Russian Federation5282
Indonesia55
Germany3671
Netherlands3296
Australia351
Source: our elaboration.
Table
Table 3. N° of analyzed articles and citations per journal.
Table 3. N° of analyzed articles and citations per journal.
JournalN° of Articles N° of Citations
Journal Of Technology Transfer4218
Journal Of Small Business And Enterprise Development3168
Small Business Economics3167
Industry And Higher Education386
Education And Training330
Source: our elaboration.
Table
Table 4. Analyzed articles per citations and citations per year.
Table 4. Analyzed articles per citations and citations per year.
AuthorsCitationsCPY
Lüthje and Franke (2003)55220.1
Maresch et al. (2016)19732.8
Shirokova et al. (2016)15926.5
Saeed et al. (2015)11917
Boh et al. (2016)9716.2
Wright et al. (2017)9619.2
Source: our elaboration.
Table
Table 5. Keywords occurrence.
Table 5. Keywords occurrence.
KeywordsOccurrence
Student entrepreneurship 14
Entrepreneurship education11
Students10
Entrepreneurship7
Entrepreneurial intention6
Higher education6
Entrepreneurial university6
Education5
Student entrepreneurs4
Entrepreneurial learning4
Experiential learning4
Effectuation4
Source: our elaboration.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Schimperna, F.; Nappo, F.; Marsigalia, B. Student Entrepreneurship in Universities: The State-of-the-Art. Adm. Sci. 2022, 12, 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12010005

AMA Style

Schimperna F, Nappo F, Marsigalia B. Student Entrepreneurship in Universities: The State-of-the-Art. Administrative Sciences. 2022; 12(1):5. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12010005

Chicago/Turabian Style

Schimperna, Federico, Fabio Nappo, and Bruno Marsigalia. 2022. "Student Entrepreneurship in Universities: The State-of-the-Art" Administrative Sciences 12, no. 1: 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12010005

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop