**1. Introduction**

Universities emerged from monastic (scholastic) schools in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Their teaching and research roles were only added much later with the creation of the University of Berlin, which has been regarded as the first modern university, and which was created in 1810 [1]. Currently, five types of universities can be identified in terms of their role [2]. First, the academic university, which is largely aimed at teaching students. Second, the classic university, where research is combined with teaching. Third, the social university, which takes an active part in the discussion and resolution of society's problems. Fourth, the business university, where teaching and Research and Development activities are carried out based on business criteria. Fifth, the entrepreneurial university, which has a strong role in the social context within which it operates. In addition to the basic teaching and research functions, a third key mission for society should be incorporated into universities: Fostering entrepreneurial projects or conducting development projects working together with other agents within the regional system [3]. Universities can be actively engaged in these projects, as they are close to the markets and have sound knowledge of the different trends as they emerge [4]. In today's knowledge society, universities are increasingly and more directly becoming promoters of economic and social development [2]. Universities have recognized the role of education in building societies based on values of equity, social justice and sustainability.

The term entrepreneurial university was coined by Etzkowitz in 1998 [5], and refers to regional economic development [6]. This concept is also known as the triple helix model, which describes the relationship between universities, industries and governmental organisations intended to stimulate innovation [7], create incubators and/or support structures for lecturers and students to start new businesses [8] and raise awareness of and promote entrepreneurship [9]. Other authors, including Subotzky (1999, quoted in 8), have defined entrepreneurial universities as those where a closer partnership exists between academia and businesses; where faculties have greater responsibility for obtaining external funding; and where there is a managerial ethos in institutional governance, leadership and planning. It should be noted that the relationship between these three actors, university, industry and government, is interdependent; in other words, these actors condition each other and constitute an organic unit [10].

While no consensus exists about a single definition of the entrepreneurial university, several authors have listed a number of features that characterise it [11]. However, there are few models that explain the entrepreneurial university's foundations and conceptual basis. There is also a paucity of empirical studies on the subject [7]. The majority of the research carried out has been based on conceptual frameworks that seek to identify the features that should characterise the entrepreneurial university. As an example, O'Shea et al. [6] proposed a number of factors that could bolster the entrepreneurial university, namely top-down leadership, policies that support and encourage the process of academic entrepreneurship, own funding, technological transfer offices and incubators, an entrepreneurial culture, entrepreneurial attitudes and aptitudes, access to venture capital, infrastructures and technology clusters. Baporikar [12] highlights the context and organizational aspects to understand the entrepreneurial university.

Only a few studies have empirically analysed the entrepreneurial university [8,13–16], most of which have relied on the different factors involved in building their conceptual frameworks. Moreover, Riviezzo, Napolitano and Fusco [17] highlight that empirical assessment of the social and cultural impacts of the university in a community has been largely overlooked.

A specific area of research interest is in analysing factors based on the creation of university spin-offs, which seeks to identify why some universities are more successful at generating them [6,18–22]. However, the literature is scarce on the factors that make up the entrepreneurial university as a whole; instead, research tends to be focused on proposing theoretical models that are yet to be empirically demonstrated [23,24].

Based on their review of 17 studies centred on identifying which factors are important in fostering the entrepreneurial university, and how the entrepreneurial university influences regional development, Guerrero-Cano et al. [25] indicated three formal factors (governance organisation and structure; support measures to start new businesses; and an entrepreneurial university) and three informal factors (attitudes of the university community; teaching methodologies aimed at entrepreneurship; and an academic reward system) that are conducive to strengthening the entrepreneurial university.

In 2013, the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD, 2013) and the European Commission issued the self-evaluation tool HEInnovate (higher education institutions innovation) [26]. This tool is intended to assess the entrepreneurial and innovative potential of higher education institutions across eight key areas. The key areas directly related to the aims of this paper are those related to entrepreneurial teaching and learning, and to the support of entrepreneurs.

Since the studies published to date are not focused on models that encompass all the factors covered in the literature, there is a need to further the knowledge of the determinant factors of the entrepreneurial university, and the extent of their influence. To this end, Errasti et al. [27] devised and validated a model of maturity for the measurement of the level of academic entrepreneurship among faculties and universities. The model included thirteen factors: Legal and administrative context; business and organisational context; entrepreneurship funding; training in entrepreneurship for faculty staff; inclusion of professionals from businesses and organisations in the development and delivery of the curriculum; mission and strategy; policies and procedures; support from the management team; organisational design; training and research in entrepreneurship; extra-curricular training; active methodologies; and internationalisation.

The study conducted by Errasti et al. [27] concluded that there was a modest degree of development in the various elements involved in the entrepreneurial university, and that there is still much room for improvement. It also showed that the most developed factors among Spanish universities were internationalisation, use of active methodologies, mission and strategy and support from the management team. In contrast, the least developed factors were found to be entrepreneurship funding; business and organisational context; training in entrepreneurship for faculty staff; and the legal and administrative context.

While some studies have focused on identifying which factors promote the entrepreneurial university, others have highlighted some potential correlations between those factors. This is the case of Fini et al. [21], who held that a close interaction between local businesses or organisations and the university help create a social environment that supports people and encourages them to share knowledge and ideas. Guerrero and Urbano [28] and Hu [29], for their part, argued that funding was essential for a university's autonomy and development. Davey et al. [30] and De Luca et al. [31] concurred that the collaboration of external business experts in advising on and developing the curriculum fosters both university-business cooperation processes and the acquisition of key skills by future entrepreneurs.

Errasti et al. [27] presented a descriptive analysis of the factors that contribute to the development of the entrepreneurial university. Following this study, the main research question of the present paper is: What are the existing relations among these factors? Therefore, the overall aim of this study is to determine whether there are associations between the levels of development of some factors involved in the entrepreneurial university that indicate significant influence relations to help further its advancement. This aim will be specifically focused on the following objectives:


#### **2. Hypotheses and Variables**

As indicated, the variables under study in this work have been the characteristics of the entrepreneurial university identified by the literature and that have been previously validated as constituent factors of it. More specifically, in order to respond to the objectives set out, the relationship between these variables has been analysed. To this end, the hypotheses expressing the expected relationships between these factors have been formulated, based on the literature and previous research. Below, we detail how the conceptual definition of these variables has been made, as well as the operational definition through the elements of each one of them that are evaluated with the instrument developed for their measurement.

The hypothesis that guide the study have been organised according to the CIPP model [32], a model for institutional evaluation that uses contextual, input, process and product factors. The hypothesis of the study can be stated as follows.

In the first place, the models for institutional evaluation that use contextual, process and product factors have traditionally advocated that contextual factors help to explain other internal (process and product) factors and variables, since they have an impact on them to a greater or lesser extent. This impact has been attributed to the fact that they outline the conditions for intervention, as they consider explanatory and control variables related to political, legal, administrative, demographic, socio-economic and cultural conditions.

**Hypothesis 1 (H1).** *External contextual factors (Legal and Administrative Context, Business and Organizational Context) are positively related to the development of internal factors. This hypothesis has been supported by previous literature on the development of the entrepreneurial university* [33–35]. See Table 1.


**Table 1.** Hypotheses and variables (conceptual and operational definition) related to the context of the entrepreneurial university.

Secondly, resource factors are intended to account for the inflows into the system, both in the form of material (economic, infrastructure) resources and human resources (staff) available for an organisation to operate. See Table 2.

**Hypothesis 2 (H2).** *Resource factors (Entrepreneurship funding, Training in Entrepreneurship for Faculty Sta*ff*, Inclusion of professionals) are related to the development of institutional statements linked to entrepreneurship (Mission and Strategy, Policies and Procedures).*

**Hypothesis 3 (H3).** *Resource factors (Entrepreneurship funding, Training in Entrepreneurship for Faculty Sta*ff*, Inclusion of professionals) are associated with the development of structures that support entrepreneurship (Support from the management team, Organisational Design).*

**Hypothesis 4 (H4).** *Resource factors (Entrepreneurship funding, Training in Entrepreneurship for Faculty Sta*ff*, Inclusion of professionals) are related to the development of processes for entrepreneurship (Training and Research in entrepreneurship, Extra-curricular entrepreneurship training, Active methodologies, Internationalisation)*.



In the third place, process-related factors account for the processes that an organisation puts in place to operate and provide its services. They may be related to the projects it carries out, which guide its actions; to the structures organised to implement them; or to the training processes whereby it operates (by means of the key training process). See Table 3.


**Table3.**Hypothesesandvariables(conceptualandoperationaldefinition)relatedtotheprocesses—projects,structures,trainingandresearch—developedbyentrepreneurial





**Hypothesis 5 (H5).** *The existence of entrepreneurship Projects (Mission and Strategy, Policies and Procedures) would be related to Structures that support entrepreneurship (Support from the management team, Organisational design).*

**Hypothesis 6 (H6).** *The existence of entrepreneurship Projects (Mission and Strategy, Policies and Procedures) would be associated with entrepreneurship Training Processes (Formal entrepreneurship training, Extra-curricular entrepreneurship training, Active methodologies, Internationalisation).*

**Hypothesis 7 (H7).** *The existence of Structures that support entrepreneurship (Support from the management team, Organisational design) could be expected to be related to the development of entrepreneurship Training Processes (Formal entrepreneurship training, Extra-curricular entrepreneurship training, Active methodologies, Internationalisation)*.

### **3. Materials and Methods**

The sample invited to participate in this study was made up of 567 faculties, schools and affiliated centres belonging to 44 universities (public and private) from six autonomous regions, those identified in the literature as being benchmarks in academic entrepreneurship in Spain [36,37]. Participation was voluntary, and confidentiality was guaranteed through a letter requesting their cooperation and informed consent.

A total of 98 subjects from the invited sample responded to the request for participation. After a preliminary analysis, 14 were eliminated because of their atypical responses (extreme and outstanding cases in the box diagram). This led to the final sample consisting of 84 cases, 14.81% of the invited sample.

The percentage of participation of public institutions was greater than that from private ones (76% and 24%, respectively). Five different areas were taken into account for the study. While the subject areas were not homogeneously represented, the participating autonomous regions were.

In order to meet the research objectives, a questionnaire was used that had been previously designed and validated by Errasti et al. [27] to measure the maturity of academic entrepreneurship among different faculties. This questionnaire, based on the original instrument by Markuerkiaga et al. [38], consisted of 14 blocks of mostly closed questions, with the inclusion of a smaller number of open questions to allow participants to provide evidence and/or add comments and clarifications. The first 13 blocks were required to be answered, while block 14 was optional. The questionnaire was preceded by a section where each faculty's general and descriptive data were recorded.

The questionnaire included a total of 13 blocks and 48 elements, with mandatory matrix questions rated on a 10-point Likert-type scale, and were grouped into three levels (low, medium and high). A rubric with descriptors and mutually exclusive response options were employed. The blocks and elements included have already been stated in the previous section. This dimension also contained an optional open-ended question aimed at obtaining comments, clarifications and evidence that the subjects may wish to provide.

Following the design of the contacts database, the questionnaire was sent from the internal messaging system of the Qualtrics programme (tool used for creating, collecting and consolidating surveys). A reminder was sent two weeks later and another one within a month after the questionnaire had been distributed. All data collection was conducted online.

It is important to emphasise that, during the data collection process, all necessary steps were taken to ensure the confidentiality of the participants. Time and resources were devoted to explaining the purpose and nature of the research. The individual freedom to participate in the research was respected at all times, and participants were informed about how the results would be used [39].
