Dissertation

MBA 2010/2011

The entrepreneurial intentions of academic
researchers in an emerging knowledge economy
Joy Sixholo

A research dissertation submitted to the Gordon Institute of Business Science,
University of Pretoria, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Business Administration

09 November 2011

© University of Pretoria
Copyright © 2012, University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the University of Pretoria.

1

ABSTRACT
This study analysed the entrepreneurial intentions of academic researchers to
create spinoffs in a country where the phenomenon of academic spinoffs is
emerging. The study consisted of a quantitative analysis of entrepreneurial
intentions, performed within the context of South Africa’s Higher Education
Institutions and Science Councils.

The study drew from psychological and entrepreneurship research on
intentionality to measure the level of entrepreneurial intentions using specific
determinants (entrepreneurial self-efficacy, personal networks, perceived role
models, number of years spent at the academic institution, number of patents/
copyrights/ designs, type of research, and cooperation with industry) that
characterise the emergence of academic entrepreneurial intentions that lead
academics to the creation of spinoffs. The study also aimed to determine if
there were differences in the entrepreneurial intentions between researchers in
technical and non-technical fields of expertise.

A quantitative online survey was conducted amongst researchers in higher
education institutions and science councils, followed by data analysis using a
multiple linear regression to measure the entrepreneurial intentions. Thereafter
a determination of factors associated with the higher levels of intention and a
comparison of the level of intentions was conducted between researchers from
the two study groups using an analysis of coefficients and significance tests
respectively.

i

The study showed that the entrepreneurial intentions of researchers in South
Africa were very low. It was also shown that entrepreneurial self-efficacy was
the strongest predictor of academic entrepreneurial intentions. Furthermore it
was found that there was no significant difference in the entrepreneurial
intentions between researchers in technical and non technical fields of
expertise.

Keywords:
university

Entrepreneurial

intention,

spinoff/spinout/startup,

academic

academic

spinoff/spinout/startup,

entrepreneurship,

technology

transfer, commercialisation, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, academic personal
networks, academic cooperation with industry, academic entrepreneurial
process, valorisation.

ii

DECLARATION

I declare that this research project is my own work. It is submitted in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Master of Business Administration
at the Gordon Institute of Business Science, University of Pretoria. It has not
been submitted before for any degree or examination at any other university. I
further declare that I have obtained the necessary authorisation and consent to
carry out this research.

Researcher: Joy Sixholo
Date: 09 November 2011

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to extend my gratitude to the following people and institutions that
contributed to the success of the study:
-

God Almighty for always leading me to greener pastures.

-

My study leader and research promoter, Mr Leon Staphorst for his guidance
and valuable insights.

-

My friend, Mr Sithembiso Mpungose for help with the statistics.

-

Many thanks to all the respondents who participated in this study.

-

My former colleagues from Onderstepoort Veterinary Institute for testing the
usability of the online questionnaire.

-

The Technology Innovation Agency for the financial sponsorship.

-

The National Research Foundation for their generosity in providing the
sample frame.

-

My line manager Dr Siyabulela Ntutela for his support and for approving all
my leave requests in order to attend classes during my MBA.

-

My deepest gratitude goes to my parents Themba and Rosetta Sixholo for
always supporting me in everything that I do, and for looking after my
daughter when I had to attend classes on weekends, when I was away on
the global module and during the final write up of this dissertation.

-

My friends Ms Morwesi Ramonyai; Dr Mkhetwa Maluleke, Mr Phineas
Thosago, Dr Emela Mochubele, Dr Muhammed Sayed; and Mr Naim
Rassool, for the intellectual discussions and explaining management
concepts I did not understand.

-

All my classmates, especially those who have been part of my syndicate, for
sharing their knowledge and experiences.

iv

-

My colleagues who supported me throughout the MBA process with special
gratitude to Ms Mahlogonolo Mabula and Ms Sibongile Letuku.

-

My dearest Unathi who kept me smiling.

v

This dissertation is dedicated to my dear husband

Akin Jenkins

vi

CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.......................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction to the research problem ........................................................ 1
1.2 Background on the research context ........................................................ 3
1.3 Research aims and scope ........................................................................ 6
1.4 Research motivation ................................................................................. 7
1.5 Novel contributions emanating from the study .......................................... 9
1.6 Organisation of the dissertation .............................................................. 10
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE AND THEORY REVIEW ..................................... 12
2.1 Intentionality and its determinants........................................................... 12
2.1.1 Entrepreneurial self-efficacy ............................................................. 15
2.1.2 Perceived role models ...................................................................... 15
2.1.3 Personal networks ............................................................................ 16
2.1.4 Number of years spent at the academic institution ........................... 17
2.1.5 Intellectual Property .......................................................................... 18
2.1.6 Industry cooperation and type of research........................................ 19
2.2 Academic entrepreneurship .................................................................... 20
2.3 The spinoff .............................................................................................. 21
2.5 The South African context ....................................................................... 24
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESIS ....................... 25
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 25
3.2 Research objectives................................................................................ 25
3.3 Research hypothesis .............................................................................. 26
CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN ........................... 31
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 31
4.2 Part 1: To measure entrepreneurial intentions among academics
in EIs and SCs ......................................................................................... 31
4.2.1 Scope ............................................................................................... 31
4.2.2 Population and sampling .................................................................. 32
4.2.4 Data analysis .................................................................................... 38

vii

4.2.4a Analysis of the factors that explain whether the respondents
have intentions or not ...................................................................... 38
4.2.4b Analysis of factors associated with the higher levels of intention .... 40
4.2.4c Comparison of intentions from the two groups................................ 40
4.3 Handling of non responses and response bias ....................................... 40
4.4 Reliability and validity.............................................................................. 41
4.5 Research limitations................................................................................ 41
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS .................................................................................. 43
5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 43
5.2 Results of Part 1: To measure entrepreneurial intentions among
academics in HEIs and SCs .................................................................... 43
5.2.1. Sample characteristics..................................................................... 43
5.2.2 Biographical data .............................................................................. 44
5.2.3 Test for non-response bias ............................................................... 44
5.2.4 Reliability and internal consistency ................................................... 45
5.2.5 Linearity ............................................................................................ 46
5.2.6 Normality (Anderson-Darling test)..................................................... 49
5.2.7 Analysis of the factors that explain whether the respondents
have intentions or not ...................................................................... 50
5.2.8. Analysis of factors associated with the higher levels of intention ..... 48
5.2.9 Comparison of intentions from the two groups ................................. 48
5.2.10 Handling of non responses and response bias ............................... 48
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ..................................................... 49
6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 49
6.2 Handling of non responses and response bias ....................................... 49
6.3 Reliability and internal consistency ......................................................... 49
6.4 Linearity .................................................................................................. 51
6.5 Normality................................................................................................. 51
6.6 Analysis of the factors that explain whether the respondents have
intentions or not ....................................................................................... 51
6.7 Analysis of factors associated with the higher levels of intention ............ 52
6.8 Suggestion for future research ................................................................ 53
viii

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION ........................................................................... 54
Appendix A: Consistency matrix....................................................................... 57
Appendix B: Timeline ....................................................................................... 49
Appendix C: List of HEIs and SCs represented in the sample frame ............... 50
Appendix D: Survey email invitation ................................................................. 51
Appendix E: Questionnaire .............................................................................. 60
Appendix F: NRF Researcher rating requirement summary ............................ 65
REFERENCES................................................................................................. 67

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Main types of partners gathered in a German industry cluster
(zu Köcker, 2009) - Page 3
Figure 2: Innovation policy impetuses and milestones
(TIA Corporate Presentation, 2011) - Page 5
Figure 3: Scatter plot for linearity between YAEI and Entrepreneurial self-efficacy
(X1) - Page 47
Figure 4: Scatter plot for linearity between YAEI and Personal networks
(X2) - Page 47
Figure 5: Scatter plot for linearity between YAEI and Perceived role models
(X3) - Page 48
Figure 6: Scatter plot for linearity between YAEI and Cooperation with industry
(X4) - Page 48
Figure 7: Scatter plot for linearity between YAEI and Number of years spent at
academic institution (X5) - Page 49
Figure 8: Scatter plot for linearity between YAEI and Number of patents/
copyrights/ designs (X6) - Page 49
Figure 9: Normal Probability Plot - Page 50

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Open ended questionnaire to discover underlying determinants of
differences between researches in social and technical fields - Page 29
Table 2: List of activities related to starting a business
(Prodan & Drnovsek, 2010) - Page 35
Table 3: Academic entrepreneurial predictors and questions to be used in
questionnaire (Prodan & Drnovsek, 2010) - Page 36
Table 4: Analysis of missing items from the questionnaire - Page 45
Table 5: Test for internal consistency - Page 45
Table 6: Linear regression results for all six variables X1- X6 – Page 46
Table 7: Linear regression results for five variables X1, X3, X4 and X6 – Page 47
Table 8: Coefficients of X1-X6 – Page 48

xi

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AEI

Academic Entrepreneurial Intentions

AUTM

According to the Association of University Technology Managers

DST

Department of Science and Technology

FTI

Foundation for Technological Innovation

GEM

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor

HEI

Higher Education Institutions

MIT

Massachusetts Institution of Technology

NRDS

National Research and Development Strategy

NSI

National System of Innovation

OECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

PDF

Portable Document Format

SC

Science Councils

TIA

Technology Innovation Agency

TTO

Technology Transfer Office

TYIP

Ten Year Innovation Plan

U.S.

United States

xii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction to the research problem

The entrepreneurial motivations and intentions of scientists in academia have
been well studied in Europe and the Americas (Landry, Amara and Rherrad,
2006; Morales-Gualdrón, Gutiérrez-Gracia and Dobón, 2009) where the
phenomenon of academic spinoff is mature. The development of Silicon Valley
in North California and Route 128 in Massachusetts in the vicinity of prestigious
universities such Stanford, Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology
have highlighted the role that universities and scientists can play in
entrepreneurship, economic development and job creation (Walter, Auer and
Ritter, 2006). During the past three decades spinoffs originating from
universities in the United States of America (U.S.) have had a significant impact
on the economic growth of the U.S. (Scholten, Kemp and Omta, 2004). It is
therefore because of this economic importance that it is crucial to understand
the intentions of potential academic entrepreneurs since they play a critical
opportunity identification role in the technology transfer process (Hoye and
Pries, 2009).

University spinoffs can be described as companies which are spun out from
universities through the commercialization of intellectual property (IP) and
transfer of technology emanating from academic institutions (Djokovik and
Souitaris, 2006). According to the Association of University Technology
Managers (AUTM), the changing role of universities towards commercialization
1

activities, combined with government and institutional support mechanisms has
resulted in an increase in the number of spinoffs in the U.S. and internationally
(AUTM, 2010). In the 30 years since the U.S. Congress passed the Bayh-Dole
Act, which assigned ownership of federally-funded inventions to academic
institutions, university inventions have led to over 6,000 new businesses, 4,300
new products, and 153 drugs (AUTM, 2010).

Research literature in spinoff creation has been in one of the three economic
levels namely macro, meso and micro (Djokovic and Souitaris, 2008). The
macro level studies have their focus on the macroeconomic environment in
which the spinoff exists and give a view of the role of government and industry
in the spinoff process. Furthermore the impact of policies and support
mechanisms are also studied including the impact of the spinoff on the local
economy (Djokovic and Souitaris, 2008). Meso-level studies are those that
focus on the university and the Technology Transfer Office (TTO) as the units of
analysis. Meso-level based literature explores the support mechanisms that
can be applied within the university context in order to facilitate and promote
spinoff creation (Djokovic and Souitaris, 2008). The micro-level studies are
those that analyse the firm and the individual academic entrepreneur by looking
into the networks of spinoffs, their founders and human relations and
interactions during the spin-out formation process (Djokovic and Souitaris,
2008).
This study specifically focuses on the micro-level analysis at the individual level
where the entrepreneurial intentions of academics to create spinoffs were
studied.

2

1.2 Background on the research context
Etzkowitz and Zhou’s (2007) triple helix framework states that the role of the
entrepreneurial university in societies differs according to which helix is the
leading innovation actor (Göktepe-Hultén, 2008). The U.S. exemplifies a
university-led triple helix as seen by the role played by MIT and Stanford
University in innovation and spinoff creation. In Germany, innovation is industry
led through their 107 industry clusters which are formed based on the needs of
the industry. Figure 1, indicates the typical type of partners involved in a cluster.
In this case the university would play the role of creating spinoffs that would act
as a supplier to the cluster (zu Köcker, 2009).

Figure 1: Main types of partners gathered in a German industry cluster (zu Köcker,
2009)

The situation in South Africa is different in that commercialization of university
research outputs and academic spinoff creation is government led though the

3

Department of Science and Technology (DST) and the Technology Innovation
Agency (TIA). TIA is an initiative of the DST which is mandated by government
to provide financial and non-financial support to enhance the country’s capacity
to translate research and development outputs into commercially successful
products and services that can stimulate the economy and improve the lives of
its people (TIA Corporate Plan, 2009). The idea to create an innovation agency
or Foundation for Technological Innovation (FTI) came about in the National
Research and Development Strategy of 2002 (NRDS). The FTI would operate
as a knowledge-based financing agency concentrating on innovation across the
public and private sectors, and across the value chain from concept to market–
though, with a key focus on high-cost development and market acceptance
stages through commercialisation, incubation and diffusion (Figure 2).

In 2004 the DST and its agencies were established in order promote the
establishment of a well-functioning National System of Innovation (NSI) as set
out in the Science and technology White Paper of 1996. A review of South
Africa’s NSI by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) 2007 revealed that South Africa was the leading research performer on
the African continent. Furthermore, the country was in the top 1% of the world’s
universities in fields such as ecology, social science, engineering, plant and
animal sciences and clinical medicine (DST Strategic Plan, 2011). However, it
was also found that there existed an innovation chasm/ valley of death of
publicly funded R&D outputs; the NSI had fragmented instruments; and the
innovation instruments had a narrow definition of innovation. The review thus
highlighted the urgent need to extend the policy framework applicability to the

4

private sector in order to facilitate the flow of innovations from R&D to
commercialisation (DST Strategic Plan, 2011). This formed an impetus for the
TIA act of 2008, and the establishment of the TIA.

NSI Challenges:
•Existence of innovation “Chasm”
•Fragmentation of instruments
•Narrow definition of Innovation

Foundation for
Technological Innovation (FTI)
R&D
Strategy
Technology
Foresight
Studies

2000

Creation of
DST

TIA Board
07/2009
&
CEO
01/09/2010

The “Knowledge Economy”:
•Five Grand Challenges
•Farmer to Pharma
•Space Science & Technology
• Energy Security
•S&T for Climate Change
•Human & Social Dynamics

S&T
White Paper
1996

OECD
Review

10 Year
Innovation
Plan

TIA Act
2008

2002

2004

2007

2008

2009/10

Figure 2: Innovation policy impetuses and milestones (TIA Corporate Presentation,
2011)

The major policy documents of TIA are the National Research and
Development Strategy of 2002 and the Ten Year Innovation Plan (TYIP) (2008)
of the DST. The former was formulated in order to exploit opportunities in areas
in which South Africa has geographic advantage such as astronomy, human
paleontology and biodiversity as well as in areas where South Africa has a
knowledge advantage such as indigenous knowledge and deep mining (DST
Strategic Plan, 2011). The TYIP builds upon the NRDS by including the five
5

Grand Challenges that focus on the farmer to pharma value chain in
strengthening the bio-economy, space science and technology, energy security,
climate change and human and social dynamics. Together with other
government departments and agencies TIA is tasked with the responsibility to
address these grand challenges.

1.3 Research aims and scope

This study aims to contribute to the emerging body of research in academic
entrepreneurial intentions by addressing two questions:
•

Do researchers in South Africa have intention to create spinoffs in a
country where the phenomenon is incipient and the rate of creation of
new ventures is so low?

•

Which factors play a dominant role in predicting entrepreneurial
intention? And how do these intentions compare between researchers in
technical and non-technical fields of expertise?

This work was motivated by recent studies on entrepreneurial intentions and the
study began in April 2011 and ended in October of the same year. The unit of
analysis was the academic researcher based in a South African Higher
Education Institution (HEI) or Science Council where research is funded mainly
by government. The entrepreneurial intentions of researchers in both technical
(science and engineering) and non-technical (social and behavioural) fields of
expertise were measured using an online survey questionnaire (Appendix E).
Data analysis was conducted using linear regression.

6

1.4 Research motivation

According to Prodan and Drnovsek (2010) the most important gap in the
literature on academic spinoffs concerns empirical studies on entrepreneurial
intention at the individual level. The same authors claim that there is little
empirical data on the intentions of academics from non-scientific research areas
such as social and behavioural sciences (Prodan and Drnovsek, 2010). This is
despite the fact that business creation emanating from universities and research
institutes is not limited to the technical disciplines (Arvanitis, Sydow and
Woerter, 2008; Bekkers and Bodas Freitas, 2008; Fini, Lacetera and Shane,
2002).

Finding ways to stimulate entrepreneurship in South Africa has become the
country’s Gordian knot1 (The Entrepreneurial Dialogues, 2010, p.6). South
Africa is an emerging economy where respect and recognition for the
contribution of entrepreneurs on job creation and economic development is not
sufficient (The Entrepreneurial Dialogues, 2010). Furthermore, the country’s
financial, operating, and regulatory & policy environment is not supportive of
entrepreneurs (The Entrepreneurial Dialogues, 2010). The banking system
remains the main source of capital to start and grow businesses and
entrepreneurial skills are severely lacking (The Entrepreneurial Dialogues,
2010). According to the 2010 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), an
international comparative research project that aims to benchmark the level of

1

The term is often used as a metaphor for a complicated and intricate problem. Pertaining to
Gordius in 1561, ancient king of Phrygia, who tied a knot (Gordian knot) that according to
prophecy was to be undone only by the person who was to rule Asia, and that was cut, rather
than untied, by Alexander the Great.

7

entrepreneurial activities across countries, South Africa scored below average
for all indicators of entrepreneurial attitudes and perceptions. In 2009 South
Africa ranked 27th (23rd previous year) out of 59 countries on the level of
entrepreneurial propensity. South Africa’s total entrepreneurship activity2 (TEA)
rate of 8.9% was below the average for all efficiency-driven economies (11.7%)
as well as significantly below the average for all middle- to low-income countries
(15.6%).

South African policy makers have long known of the “innovation chasm” that
has

been

preventing

research

outputs

in

South

Africa

from

being

commercialised (Du Toit, 2006; Pouris, 2008). There is an urgent need to
transfer local research outputs into local industrial products. The introduction of
the Intellectual Property Rights Act, 2008 and the Technology Innovation
Agency, 2009; are examples of how policy makers though creating the
appropriate intellectual property rights regime, financial incentives and
knowledge transfer can influence the commercial outputs of academic research.
These and other macro factors such as access to funding, government policies,
government programmes, education and training, research and development
(R&D) transfer, legal infrastructure, internal market openness, incubator
support, access to physical infrastructure, culture and social norms have been
shown to be motivators towards the creation of spinoffs in South Africa
(Herrington, Kew. P and Kew, J., 2009). What has been largely missing in
South African studies are factors that influence entrepreneurship at the
individual level. The missing link is the knowledge behind whether the
2

The TEA rate measures the proportion of working-age adults in the population who are either
involved in the process of starting-up a business or are active as owner-managers of
enterprises less than 42 months old.

8

researchers have any desire to be entrepreneurs in the first place, and if so,
what individual motivational factors influenced the decision to create spinoffs in
an emerging knowledge economy such as South Africa. Armed with this
information the Government, universities and science councils can formulate
policies and programmes geared at promoting the entrepreneurial culture in
post graduate students and researchers. The findings herein could also provide
a light as to what needs to be instituted in order to support the researchers
towards creating spinoff companies.

1.5 Novel contributions emanating from the study

The purpose of this study is to specifically identify the levels of entrepreneurial
intention among academic researchers in an emerging knowledge economy.
This is because results based on studies from developed knowledge economies
such as the U.S., Canada, Finland and Germany might not be generalisable to
countries whose universities have lower resource endowments. Furthermore, if
the valorisation3 of research results is to be considered as an engine for growth
and job creation in South Africa, it then becomes imperative on policy makers to
understand the key individuals that are involved in the creation of spinoffs.

This study contributes to the existing body of knowledge on entrepreneurial
intentions it that:
1) The entrepreneurial intentions of both technical and non technical
researchers were measured in a country where the creation of spinoffs is in its
3

The OECD defines valorisation the testing and dissemination of the results of the most innovative training
and education projects, but also the exploitation of these results and their development in new contexts
and environments.

9

infancy. Furthermore the study not only focuses on researchers from a large
variety of research fields, but also across universities of different status.

2) It has been said that individuals with intention to start a business can be
identified and studied as they progress through the entrepreneurial process
(Krueger and Carsrud, 1993). Therefore this study sets the basis for measuring
intentions over a period of time from a starting point of very low intentions in a
country attempting to build a knowledge economy.

1.6 Organisation of the dissertation

The layout of this dissertation is as follows:
Chapter 1 begins with a description of the research problem addressed by the
study, followed by an overview of the context within which the study was
performed. It outlines the aims and scope of the research, as well as the
motivation of the study.
Chapter 2 presents a literature study and theory review that span the concepts
and constructs applicable to the study. Firstly, the broad field of intentionality
and its determinants, with particular focus on the three main models of
intentionality are discussed. This is followed by topics discussing academic
entrepreneurship, the concept and formulation of a spinoff and academic
entrepreneurship specifically within the South African context.
Chapter 3 then presents an overview of the two research objectives that
defined the focus of the study and related hypothesis.

10

Chapter 4 describes the methodologies used during the study in order to
address the research objectives defined in Chapter 3. This includes descriptions
of the populations, units of analysis, sampling plans, data collection processes
and instruments, as well as the data analysis methods for each of the two
research phases. A discussion on potential research limitations inherent in the
study brings this chapter to a close.
Chapter 5 then presents the results obtained during the study which includes
the appropriate descriptive statistics, as well as reliability and validity tests for
the data collected, but also the outputs yielded by the multiple linear regression
model.
Chapter 6 critically discusses the results presented in Chapter 5 against
pertinent literature and other studies that focus on the topic of academic
entrepreneurial intentions.
Chapter 7 constitutes concluding remarks on the core findings of the study, as
well as suggestions for future research.

11

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE AND THEORY REVIEW
2.1 Intentionality and its determinants

Intention has been conceptualised as being a function of beliefs that provide a
link between those beliefs and subsequent behaviour (Boyd and Vozikis, 1994).
This means that people form attitudes towards performing a given behaviour
based on their beliefs that performing that behaviour will result in certain
consequences. Therefore it goes without saying then that there should be a
strong relationship between the intention to perform certain behaviour and the
actual performance of that behaviour (Boyd and Vozikis, 1994).
Previous research on entrepreneurial behaviour has been based on
psychological and non-psychological factors to explain who starts a new firm
and why (Scholten et al, 2004). The psychological view states that
entrepreneurship stems from need for achievement, desire for independence,
internal locus of control and self-efficacy (Scholten et al, 2004). The nonpsychological factors are based on events that happen in the individual’s life
and therefore determine behaviour. Three entrepreneurial intention based
models based on social cognitive theory have dominated literature. Shapero’s
(1975) model of entrepreneurial event argues that entrepreneurial intention is
based on perceptions of personal desirability, feasibility and propensity to act.
Shapero’s model states that a person’s behaviour is affected by events that
occur in the person’s life. The events change the behaviour, norms and values
in which decisions are made. Shapero’s model assumes that the individual
inherently possesses the potential to be an entrepreneur, but a displacing event
is necessary for the potential to surface (Scholten et al, 2004).
12

In contrast, Azjen’s theory of planned behaviour states that intentions are
dependent on perceptions of personal attractiveness, social norms and
feasibility (Fishbein and Azjen, 1975). This model argues that entrepreneurial
intention is based on an individual’s perceived ability to execute the intended
behaviour of entering entrepreneurship, the individual’s attitudes towards the
desirability of an entrepreneurial career and subjective norms.
Intentions are said to be the single best predictor of any planned behaviour
(Fishbein and Azjen, 1975), and since venture creation takes time and involves
considerable planning and effort, entrepreneurship is also a type of planned
behaviour (Bird, 1988). In this context, intention is defined as the search for
information that can help fulfil the goal of venture creation (Katz and Gartner,
1988). The relationship between entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial
behaviour has been studied and supported by other authors (Arenius and
Minniti, 2005, Kolvereid and Isaksen, 2006).
The resource based theory of the firm (Krueger and Carsrud, 1993) is less
popular and stipulates that that the likelihood of spinoff creation by researchers
depends on the researcher’s knowledge and skills to utilise the resources
available to them better than others. The entrepreneurial intention model by
Krueger and Carsrud (1993) and; Krueger, Reilly and Carsrud (2000)
recognises that starting a business is an intentional act in accordance with
Azjen’s theory of planned behaviour and acknowledges that the entrepreneurial
event is as a result of interaction with the environment (Prodan and Drnovsek,
2010).

13

This study proceeds with a model based on Azjen’s theory of planned behaviour
as it aims to analyse the intention before the actual entrepreneurial event takes
place. Accordingly this theory postulates that personal and situational variables
have an indirect influence on entrepreneurship by influencing key attitudes and
general motivation to act (Krueger et al, 2000).

As mentioned previously, formation of entrepreneurial intention is dependent on
(1) an individual’s perceived ability to execute the intended behaviour of
entering entrepreneurship. This is expressed through entrepreneurial selfefficacy; (2) attitudes toward the desirability of an entrepreneurial career which
is expressed through perceived role models, and (3) subjective norms that are
formed through interactions in one’s personal networks. In addition to these
three determinants of entrepreneurial intention, prior studies have highlighted
importance of prior academic experience (herein expressed as the number of
years spent in the academic institution), experience with patenting activity
(expressed as number of patents/ copyrights/ designs taking into account other
means of IP protection such as trademarks, copyrights and plant breeder’s
rights).

Furthermore,

interaction

with

industry

(expressed

as

industry

cooperation) and overall research focus (type of research) have also been
identified

as

important

determinants

in

the

emergence

of

academic

entrepreneurial intentions. In what follows, a brief theory review of the
determinants highlighted above and used in the study is provided.

14

2.1.1 Entrepreneurial self-efficacy

Entrepreneurial self-efficacy is positively related to the intention to set up one’s
own business and it refers to the strength of a person’s belief that he or she is
capable

of

successfully

performing

the

various

roles

and

tasks

of

entrepreneurship such as marketing, innovation, management, risk taking and
financial control (Chen, Greene and Crick, 1998, p295). Thus identification of
key efficacy perceptions may be useful in determining the future performance
levels of individuals engaged in the process of new venture creation since a
person’s conviction that he or she can master new situations may affect future
performance (Boyd and Vozikis, 1994, p.73). In a various studies that measured
entrepreneurial intention in school children (Peterman and Kennedy, 2003) and
university students (Chen et al, 1998) it was found that exposure to enterprise
or entrepreneurial education lead to increased self-efficacy which was positively
related to the intention to set up one’s own business.

2.1.2 Perceived role models
Role models positively affect entrepreneurial intentions because they affect
attitudes and beliefs such as perceived self-efficacy (Krueger et al, 2000). It has
been said that academic-peer role models who have started their own
companies may significantly affect other academic’s entrepreneurial activities
(Prodan & Drnovsek, 2010). In a study conducted by Davidsson (1995) it was
found that 40 % (N4 = 1500) of small business owner-managers had a selfemployed parent, compared with about 15 % whose parents were employed
4

N denotes the sample size

15

elsewhere. In another study by Bosma, Hessels, Schutjens, Praag and Verheul
(2011) which measured the impact of the presence of role models before and
shortly after firm start-up, the function of these role models and the relationship
and similarity of characteristics between the entrepreneur and his/her role
model it was found that role models matter for pursuing an entrepreneurial
career. The authours found that the great majority of entrepreneurs had a role
model in the pre- and/or post-start-up phase of their ventures. They also found
that role models are viewed as influential people by a significant proportion of
the entrepreneurs who use them in the start-up phase of their venture.
Furthermore, one third of the entrepreneurs with a role model at the time of
start-up claimed that they would not have started up their venture had they not
had a role model. These findings suggest that role models play an important
role for entrepreneurs in young firms (Bosma et al, 2011). Therefore it is
postulated that role models positively influence entrepreneurial intentions and,
ultimately, entrepreneurial activity (Krueger et al., 2000).

2.1.3 Personal networks

Interpersonal and interorganisational networks are viewed as the media through
which an entrepreneur can gain access to a variety of resources held by others
such as financial and physical resources, information and advice (Hoang and
Antoncic, 2003).

It has been established that networks and peer groups

influence the decision to become an entrepreneur while it is assumed that
networks and peer groups may provide role models (Bosma et al, 2011). In a
study that analysed the extent to which an entrepreneur interacts with the

16

networks in his or her local environment during the process of starting a new
firm, it was found that these interactions would positively influence the eventual
creation and the nature of the firm (Birley, 1985). The premise of this postulation
is that during the start-up process, the entrepreneur will seek resources such as
space, money, information as well as advice from both formal networks (banks,
lawyers, etc) and informal networks (family, friends and business contacts)
(Nicolaou and Birley, 2003a, 2003b). In a study that investigated the effects of
three social sources of opportunity-related information (mentors, informal
industry networks, participation in professional forums) on opportunity
recognition, it was found that all three sources had direct, positive effects on
opportunity recognition by entrepreneurs (Ozgen and Baron, 2007). In addition
informal industry networks were found to be an important predictor of
entrepreneurial self-efficacy.

2.1.4 Number of years spent at the academic institution

According to Prodan and Drnovsek (2010) the job stability and reputation of
academics is normally dependent on teaching and publications. However
entrepreneurship involves a high amount of risk, which may compromise the
academic’s career path by creating spinoffs at the expense of other research
responsibilities. Other authours have also observed that as people get older,
they become less likely to engage in risky activities (Lavesque and Minniti,
2006). Hence following on this logic, Prodan and Drnovsek predict that the
number of years spent at the academic institution (which correlates with age)
should have a negative effect on academic entrepreneurial intentions.

17

2.1.5 Intellectual Property

While patents are considered the indicator that is the most frequently used to
reflect entrepreneurial activities of university researchers (Landry et al, 2006),
this study also takes into account other means of IP protection such as
trademarks, copyrights and plant breeder’s rights as patents might not be the
most appropriate protection of IP from non-technical fields of research. Landry
et al (2006) found that the greater the effort made by researchers in activities
related to the protection of intellectual property (such as filling out patent
applications, registrations of copyrights for computer software or educational
material, registration of process designs etc) the higher was their likelihood to
create spinoffs compared to those of researchers who had not carried out such
activities. Also it has been shown that the higher the value of the patent in terms
of its coverage (domestic and international) and patent citations, which in turn
increases the probability that technology transfer will occur via the formation of
a start-up (Shane, 2001a). In a study conducted in MIT over a period of 16
years, it was shown that the number of patents applied for or granted was found
to be positively related to entrepreneurial intentions (Prodan and Drnovsek,
2010; Shane 2001b).

18

2.1.6 Industry cooperation and type of research

Historically relations between universities and industrial partners, has been
viewed primarily from the point of view that universities served as a source of
human capital and knowledge useful to the firm (Etzkowitz, 1998). A vast
literature has emerged on the type and impact of university-industry cooperation
with specific focus on understanding the forms of university-industry
interactions, co-patenting and co-publication, and the optimal conditions for
creating spinoffs (Kruss, 2009). Various authours have found that in universities
where researchers have industry links through funding, consulting or project
related work, these researchers where more likely to spend most of their time
conducting applied research and exhibited more entrepreneurial activity such as
patenting, introducing products to markets and creating start up companies
(Bluementhal, Campbell, Causino and Louis; Landry et al, 2006; Prodan and
Drnovsek, 2010). Furthermore, it has also been shown that researchers who
spent the majority of their time performing applied research rather than basic
research generally paid more attention to industry requirements and
understanding the potential market applications of their research outputs
(Grandi and Grimaldi, 2005). It is on this premise that it is formulated that
cooperation with industry is positively related to the number of patents, the type
of research (specifically applied research) and to academic entrepreneurial
intentions.

19

2.2 Academic entrepreneurship

Universities and science councils as producers of innovation have had to evolve
in the way they see research outputs (Ndonzuau, Pirnay and Surlemont, 2002).
There has been a transformation from discipline based, pure science which is
curiosity driven to an emphasis on application and commercialisation of
research outputs (Duberly, Cohen, and Leeson, 2007). New university policies,
national policies and funding instruments offered by government have meant
that researchers must now look at their research outputs from a dual
perspective. Firstly from the traditional research perspective in which research
outputs are published in peer reviewed journals where the reward is respect
and recognition. Secondly from an entrepreneurial perspective in which
research outputs are evaluated for their intellectual potential (patentability) as
well as commercial potential where rewards could be financial (Duberly et al,
2007). Academic engagement now means that there has to be collaboration
across disciplines and partnerships with the community in order to produce
solutions to society’s most important and urgent problems (Hildebrand, 2005).
Academic entrepreneurs have the possibility of three different types of career
transition options available to them, i.e. transition to government-sponsored
entrepreneurship programs, to young entrepreneurial companies and to R&D
departments in established organisations (Duberly et al, 2007). This paper
measures entrepreneurial intentions at a priori to the establishment of a firm
regardless of the final career choice of the academic entrepreneur.

20

The academic entrepreneurial intentions have been previously studied on final
year students (Kroll and Liefner, 2008; Ochaeta, 2007) as this group was
considered to be a sample that possesses a broad spectrum of intentions and
attitudes towards entrepreneurship. At this stage of the student’s lives details of
a business may not have yet coalesced in their minds, but global career
intentions should have (Krueger et al, 2000). It will be interesting to see how the
model performs in a sample made up of academics, as these people have
already made a career decision, as it has previously been found that the more a
researcher is entrenched and deeply anchored in the institution in which they
work, the more difficult it will be for them to launch an entrepreneurial project
(Udell, 1990).

2.3 The spinoff

A university spinoff refers to the creation of a new company established in order
to commercially exploit research knowledge created by university researchers
(Landry et al, 2006, p.1603). Geenhuizen and Soetanto (2009) define the
academic spinoff as a venture created for the purpose of commercially
exploiting a new technology or research results developed within a university,
whereby the transfer of knowledge from university to company is direct; and the
firm founders have their origin in the university. Due to the definitional
inconsistencies in the definition of the spinoff, Nicolaou and Birley (2003a)
proposed a trichotomous categorisation of spinoffs based on three categories;
(1) orthodox in which the academic forms a new company outside the
university; (2) hybrid where the academic maintains employment within the
21

university but the new company is formed outside the university and the
academic holds a directorship role within the spinoff company; and

(3)

technology where the spinoff occurs outside the university and the academic
having no connection with the newly established firm.

The commercialisation of knowledge emanating from research can be through
consulting services, research contracts with industry, patenting and new venture
creation

through

spinoffs.

The

latter

is

the

most

visible

commercialisation of university research (Landry et al, 2006).

form

of

University

spinoffs differ from industrial firms (corporate spinoffs), in that the former
encourages the transfer of knowledge to be used outside the university and the
latter often tries to keep research and technology within the firm (Péréz Péréz
and Sánchez, 2003).

According to Ndonzuau et al, (2002) the transformation of research results into
a spinoff occurs in four successive stages interacting in a sequential manner
where;
•

Stage 1: involves generating business ideas from research.

•

Stage 2: involves finalising of new venture projects out of ideas.

•

Stage 3: entails launching spinoff firms from projects.

•

Stage 4: is aimed at strengthening the creation of economic value by
spinoff firms.

In a paper that examined the influence of network structures in the generation of
the university spinoffs (Walter et al, 2006) it was found that the type of
exoinstitutional and endoinstitutional network ties formed by the academics
22

influences the type of spinout initiated as described previously by Nicolaou and
Birley (2003b).

In Canada and the US it was found that the competitive advantage of spinoffs
was likely to be based on the entrepreneurial intentions of the researchers
(Landry et al, 2006). The same study showed that those researchers who were
determined to create enterprises were more likely to create successful spinoffs
than those who created spinoffs as a funding requirement. However, Autio and
Kauranen (1994) in their study of Finnish academic entrepreneurs found that
while intentions were responsible for new venture creation, they did not play a
role in the success of a spinoff firm.

2.4 Research fields
Literature has shown that business creation emanating from universities and
research institutes is not limited to the technical disciplines (Arvanitis, Sydow
and Woerter, 2008; Bekkers and Bodas Freitas, 2008; Fini, Lacetera and
Shane, 2002). Previous studies on spinoff creation have shown that the
research field in which the academic is involved influences the propensity
towards spinoff creation (Landry, Amara and Ouimet, 2007). The age of the
technical field within which the patent is registered was also found to influence
the likelihood of a new technology being exploited through firm formation
(Prodan & Drnovsek, 2010; Shane, 2001b).

23

2.5 The South African context
While the notion of an entrepreneurial university came to the fore in the 1990s
in South Africa (Kruss, 2009) most universities adopted a narrow view of
entrepreneurship in terms of short term, market driven goals to raise income for
the university in the face of declining funding from the government (Kruss,
2009). Furthermore in South Africa the focus has been less on creating
academic spinoffs and more on technology diffusion (Phaho, 2007) where basic
understanding, information and innovations move from universities or research
councils to individuals or firms in the private sector (Phaho, 2007). In Canada,
this type of industry-university partnerships were found to have a negative
impact on spinoff creation as it encouraged the researchers to transfer
knowledge directly to their industry partner rather than to independently create a
spinoff (Landry et al, 2006). In addition to these challenges, the fragmented and
unequal higher education system in South Africa means that very few
universities have the capabilities required for launching successful high
technology start-ups and commercial ventures (Kruss, 2009, p19).

24

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESIS

3.1 Introduction

The following sections detail the study’s research objectives, with associated
research hypothesis.
3.2 Research objectives

The study was quantitative in nature as it aimed to measure the level of known
predictors of entrepreneurial intentionality amongst academics. Intention
indicators described by Prodan & Drnovsek (2010) were measured in a South
African context, and the entrepreneurial intentions of researchers from technical
fields were compared to those from non-technical fields. This model was
chosen as it has been tested across different cultures and showed that
individual cultural differences have no impact on the results (Prodan &
Drnovsek, 2010). Furthermore the model tests both psychological (traits
perspective) and non-psychological (event based & behavioural) factors to
explain who starts and new firm and why.
•

Research objective 1: To measure entrepreneurial intentions among
academics in HEIs and SCs

•

Research objective 2: To compare intentions between researchers in
technical and non-technical fields of expertise and;

•

Research objective 3: To explore the underlying reasons should there
be significant differences between the two groups.

25

3.3 Research hypothesis

The literature sources, data collection tools and methods of analysis relating to
the hypothesis below are summarised in the consistency matrix (Appendix A).

Part 1: To measure entrepreneurial intentions among academics in HEIs and
SCs
H1: The entrepreneurial intentions of South African researchers are low.

The model for measuring entrepreneurial intentions of academics (Prodan &
Drnovsek, 2010) was used to measure the entrepreneurial intentions of the
researchers. The model is based on the following hypothesis:

H1.1:

Entrepreneurial

self-efficacy

is

positively

related

to

academic

entrepreneurial intentions.

H1.2: Academic’s personal networks are positively related to the academic
entrepreneurial self-efficacy and academic entrepreneurial intentions.

H1.3: The extent of perceived role models is positively related to the extent of
entrepreneurial self-efficacy and the intensity of academic entrepreneurial
intentions

H1.4: The number of years spent at the academic institution is negatively
related to academic-entrepreneurial intentions

26

H1.5: The number of patents/copyrights/ designs (applied/granted) is positively
related to academic-entrepreneurial intentions

H1.6: The prevalence of applied research (type of research) is positively related
to academic entrepreneurial intentions

H1.7: Cooperation with industry is positively related to the number of patents/
copyrights/ designs (applied/granted) and type of research and to academicentrepreneurial intentions

Part 2: To determine if the entrepreneurial intentions of researchers in technical
fields differ from those of researchers in social fields of discipline.

H2: There is a significant difference between the entrepreneurial intention level
of academics in technical fields and academic in social fields. If this
hypothesis proved to be true then Part 3 of the study would be conducted
as described below.

Part 3: To determine the underlying determinants for observed differences in
the data through exploratory research.

Research Question 1: What are the underlying reasons for the observed
differences between entrepreneurial intentions in social and technical fields?

Note: The initial plan was to conduct this part of the study only if the results
obtained for Part 2 showed that there was a statistically significant difference in
the intentions between the two groups. The results of part 2 revealed that there
27

was no statistical difference in intentions of the two groups (Section 5.2.9),
therefore Part 3 was not performed. However, below is a description of the
methodology and analysis that would have been followed had the results been
otherwise.
A qualitative approach would have been pursued in order to explore the
underlying determinants behind the differences in intentions between the two
groups. According to Marshall (1996) a qualitative approach is best suited when
a study aims to provide illumination and understanding of complex psychosocial
issues and is most useful for answering humanistic 'why?' and 'how?' questions.
A convenience sampling technique would have been used involving the
selection of the most accessible subjects. Convenience sampling in this case
would have been the most appropriate as the issue under investigation was
intentionality at the individual level and all respondents were considered
sufficiently qualified to give expect opinion as they were experts within their
research fields. Furthermore this sampling method is the least costly method to
the researcher, in terms of time, effort and money (Marshall, 1996) since the
method of interview will be face to face.
A sample size of 10 respondents (five from each group) selected from Science
Councils and Universities in Gauteng would have been used for in-depth
analysis. A review of literature by Staphorst, 2010 has shown that, according to
the consistency theory, when interviewing experts a sample size of as small as
four respondents can be adequate (Staphorst, 2010). However there are other
factors that influence the choice of sample size such as the number of theme
definitions, size and complexity of the data, researcher experience and level of

28

fatigue and the number of researchers processing the data. The data would
have been collected until a point of data saturation is reached. Data saturation
occurs when there is no longer new information or themes observed in the data
(Guest, Bunce & Johnson, 2006). This would require constant analysis of the
data throughout the data collection phase without waiting for all the data to be
collected before analysis could proceed. Just like any other technique this
methodology does have its disadvantages (Mason, 2010).
Three questions would have been posed to the respondents during the in-depth
analysis using an open ended questionnaire (Leedy, 2001) (Table 1). The
informed consent (Appendix 3 A) and Screening questions would be the same
as those used in Part 1 of the study.
Table 1: Open ended questionnaire to discover underlying determinants of
differences between researches in social and technical fields
Research Question

1. What are the underlying
determinants
observed
to
explain the differences between
the entrepreneurial intentionality
between academia in social and
technical fields of discipline

Open ended questions

1. What are your thoughts on
academic spinoffs?
2. In your opinion what is the
general feeling towards creating
spinoffs
in
your
current
environment?
3. What support mechanisms do
you think needs to be in place
to promote the creation of
spinoffs?

To analyse the results of Part 3, the obtained interview transcripts would be
analysed using combination of Theme Extraction, Constant Comparative

29

Method and Weighted Frequency Analysis (Staphorst, 2010). The methodical
triangulation approach will be used to test for the reliability and validity of the
qualitative questionnaire (Staphorst, 2010). From here on, the dissertation
continues with a presentation of the results obtained for Parts 1 and 2 of the
study.

30

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN

4.1 Introduction

This chapter details the research study’s two-part process that investigated the
entrepreneurial intentions of researchers based on known models, including a
comparison of intentions of researchers from scientific disciplines versus those
from non-scientific fields. The study did not aim to find new determinants of
entrepreneurial intentions, but measured those already defined by other
authors; therefore the study was quantitative in nature. The intention was that
should the intentions between the two groups be found to be statistically
different then, a third part of the study would focus on finding the underlying
reasons through unstructured interviews. Part 3 of the study was not conducted
as it was found that there was no statistically significant difference between the
intentions of the two groups under observation (see Chapter 5).

This chapter describes the study population, unit of analysis, sampling plan and
data collection tools for the study and concludes with potential research
limitations inherent in the study’s methodology.

4.2 Part 1: To measure entrepreneurial intentions among academics in HEIs
and SCs

4.2.1 Scope

Technical fields were defined as those falling within the realm of technology as
defined by the Oxford dictionary (the branch of knowledge dealing with
31

engineering or applied sciences such as engineering, chemistry and physics.
Non-technical fields were defined as those fields dealing with the scientific study
of human society and social relationships such as Economics, Hospitality and
Catering, Sport, Travel and Tourism (Oxford Dictionary, 2010). The research
was conducted over a period of seven months (April-November 2011). For a
detailed list of activities see Appendix B.

4.2.2 Population and sampling

The study population consisted of researchers from South African universities,
universities of technology and SCs in technical and non-technical disciplines.
Purposive sampling was conducted in order to only select those researchers
who had not yet created a spinoff. This was necessary as sampling current or
successful entrepreneurs introduces biases that censor data unpredictably
(Krueger et al, 2000, p420). This is because human beings behave
inconsistently in different times and situations and it is likely that the experience
from the entrepreneurial event may affect the individual’s behaviour. (Sholten et
al, 2004). A sample frame of 2286 researchers was obtained from National
Research Foundation’s (NRF) database which contained a list of both rated and
non-rated researchers. The sample frame was in the form of an Excel
spreadsheet with the following fields: surname, initials, title, current affiliation
(institute), rating category, specialisation, email. Appendix C contains a list of
the HEIs and SCs represented in the sample. A sample of 700 researchers
were selected using stratified random sampling to ensure equal representation
of scientists from the two strata, with strata comprising 350 members. Stratum 1

32

was comprised of researchers from technical fields of expertise while stratum 2
comprised those from the non-technical fields. The entire population could not
be pursued as the sample frame contained units without email addresses, units
from institutions other than higher education institutes and science councils for
example

private

companies,

museums

and

government

departments.

Furthermore some units in the sample frame were retired from academia.

4.2.3 Data Collection Processes and Research Instruments
Building on the theory of planned behaviour and the findings of Bird (1988)
Krueger and Carsrud (1993) the hypothesis investigated in this study were
based on an academic entrepreneurial intentions model by Prodan and
Drnovsek (2010). The model builds upon existing findings on characteristics of
planned behaviour; and measures academic entrepreneurial intentions (AEI) as
the dependent variable. The independent variables are entrepreneurial selfefficacy, personal networks, perceived role models, number of years spent at
the academic institution, number of patents/ copyrights/ designs, type of
research conducted and perceived role models (Prodan and Drnovsek, 2010).
This test included a seventh factor, cooperation with industry, however their
results showed that there is no direct influence of industry cooperation on
entrepreneurial intentions. This test has been chosen for the South African
context as it has been shown that the independent variables are significantly
related to AEI regardless of cultural context (Prodan and Drnovsek, 2010).
The information on intentions was collected via an email questionnaire which
provided a link to an online questionnaire. This approach was chosen as it was
assumed that the complete population had internet access since they had an
33

email address. The advantage of an online questionnaire is that it allows the
respondents to fill out part of the questionnaire and complete the questions
later. The SurveyMonkey, a web based survey solution, was used to create the
online

questionnaire

and

for

data

collection

(SurveyMonkey,

2011).

SurveyMonkey was chosen as the preferred online survey tool over other
solutions such as Google Forms (Google Forms, 2011) for the following
reasons:
-

It was found to be more user-friendly and easier to learn by the author.

-

All responses are immediately recorded in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet
that can be easily downloaded and printed in portable document format.
(PDF).

-

The questionnaire can be sent via email, Twitter and Facebook.

-

It also allows for the tracing of individuals that had partially completed the
questionnaire so that reminders can be sent to those that have partially
completed and those that have not completed the questionnaire.

The email invitation to participate in the study (Appendix D) and questionnaire
(Appendix E) were prepared in English, as this is the medium of business
communication in South Africa. The questionnaire was comprised of four
sections; the consent form, screening questions, demographic data section and
the survey questions. The purpose of the demographic data was to increase the
fidelity of the collected data for future studies that might use the data as
secondary information.
In order to measure AEI (Prodan & Drnovsek, 2010), six items were measured
(1) the researcher’s interest in setting up a business; (2) the researchers

34

determination in having their own company; (3) the propensity to turn identified
opportunities to commercialisation of research outputs; (4) the researcher’s
probability that they will start a business in the next five years; (5) the
researcher’s probability that they will start a business within the next two years;
and (6) the number of activities undertaken in the past year related to starting a
business. The questionnaire was based on a five point Likert scale with the
following answers for the questions above (Prodan & Drnovsek, 2010): (1) Not
interested at all to very interested, (2) Not determined at all to very determined,
(3) Strongly agree to strongly disagree, (4) Scale of 0-100%, (5) Scale of 0100%, (6) See Table 2 for list of activities related to starting a business:

Table 2: List of activities related to starting a business (Prodan & Drnovsek,
2010):

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Activity
Gathering information on competitors
Gathering information on substitute products
Gathering information on industry and customers
Gathering information on potential suppliers
Gathering information on the cost of raw materials and labour costs
Gathering information on costs of rents, leases and equipment
Establishing a price for the product/service offering
Making sales/revenues projections
Refining/ improving the business idea
Seeking financing
Gathering information on legal requirements (permits, licences and so
forth)
Developing goals and objectives (business plan, organisation structure,
strategic plan)
Choosing a business name, legal status
Finding a location for the business

35

The questionnaire measured academic entrepreneurial intentions using seven
predictors (Prodan & Drnovsek, 2010) and the questions thereof as shown in
the table below:
Table 3: Academic entrepreneurial predictors and questions to be used in
questionnaire (Prodan & Drnovsek, 2010).
Predictors
Questions
1. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy
Roles/tasks
Control costs
Define organisational ROLESA
Respondents will be asked to Define responsibilities
indicate their degree of certainty
Develop new ideas
in performing 11 roles/tasks on
Develop new products
a five point Likert scale ranging
Develop new services
from 1 (completely unsure) to 5
Establish product’s market position
(completely sure) (Prodan &
Expand business
Drnovsek, 2010)
Set and attain profit goals
Set and attain market share goals
Set and attain set goals
2. Personal networks
Measurement item

Number of average hours per week spent on
maintaining contacts (via face to face, email,
telephone) with people with whom business
matters are discussed
Personal networks will be
(e.g. commercialisation, marketing, finance)
assessed with three items
(Prodan & Drnovsek, 2010)
Number of average hours per week spent on
developing new contacts with people to
discuss business matters
Total number of people with who business
matters were discussed during the previous
week
3. Type of research
Measurement item
Numbers of hours per week spent on applied
Type of research will be research divided by (÷)
assessed with two items Number of hours per week spent on basic
research
Numbers of hours per week spent on applied
research
36

4. Number of years spent at the academic institution
Number of years spent at the Measurement item
academic institution will be
assessed with one item (Prodan Total years spent at the academic institution
& Drnovsek, 2010)
5. Intellectual property (patents/ copyrights/ designs)
Measurement item
Number of patents/ copyrights/ designs
Intellectual property (patents/,
granted to academic during the last three
copyrights/ designs) will be
years
assessed with two items
Number of patents/ copyrights/ designs the
academic applied for during the last three
years
6. Cooperation with industry
Measurement item
Cooperation with industry be
Number of hours per week spent on industryassessed with one item (Prodan
ordered projects
& Drnovsek, 2010)
7. Perceived role models
Measurement item
Perceived role models will be
The number of academic entrepreneurs
assessed with one item (Prodan
known by the respondents personally (has
& Drnovsek, 2010)
met and spoken with)

Prior to data collection the ease of use of the questionnaire was tested on ten
researchers with similar characteristics to the study sample. Their feedback was
used to make improvements to the questionnaire. Data collection occurred over
a period of seven weeks. Three reminders were sent to remind respondents to
answer the questionnaire, the first one after a week, and the others after every
two weeks. Collection stopped seven weeks from the date of the first
questionnaire sent.
Part 2: To determine if the entrepreneurial intentions of researchers in technical
fields differ from those of researchers in social fields of discipline.
See section 4.2.4c

37

4.2.4 Data analysis

Part 1: To measure entrepreneurial intentions among academics in HEIs and
SCs
4.2.4a Analysis of the factors that explain whether the respondents
have intentions or not

For quantitative statistics analysis Widows Microsoft Excel was used to analyse
the data. A Multiple Linear Regression Model that evaluates academic
entrepreneurial intentions as the target variable was used. The inputs of the
model were the seven factors of academic entrepreneurial intentions described
in Prodan & Drnovsek (2010). These are:
•

X1 – Entrepreneurial self-efficacy

•

X2 – Personal networks

•

X3 – Perceived role models

•

X4 – Number of years spent at the academic institution

•

X5 – Number of patents/ copyrights/ designs

•

X6 – Type of research conducted

•

X7 – Perceived role models.

The dependent variable for each respondent was then evaluated to generate n
values of academic entrepreneurial intention. The Multiple Linear Regression
Model is widely used in behavioral and social sciences to describe possible
relationships between variables. What makes this the model of choice is that it
is easy to setup and it allows for a simple analysis and interpretation of results

38

that does not require advanced statistics. The model is subject to the following
basic requirements:
1. The relationship between all the variables must be linear
2. The residuals (predicted minus observed values) must follow the
normal distribution
The linearity requirement was confirmed through a bivariate scatter plot
between each variable and the corresponding residuals. Normality was
confirmed through the Anderson-Darling normality test, which is one of the most
powerful tests for normality (Razali and Wah, 2011).

The Multiple Linear Regression model was then set up as follows:
Y1j = β1JX1j + β2JX2j + β3JX3j + β4JX4J + β5JX5J + β6JX6J + β7JX7J

Where:
β1J, β2J… β5J are the regression coefficients for the predictor variables X1j, X2j…
X7j and Y1j is the measured entrepreneurial intention for the jth respondent.
Where j ranges from 1 to n and where n is the sample size.
The level of significance used throughout this study was α = 0.05. The following
validity/reliability tests were conducted on the model, using 0.05 as a cutoff
point:
1. The F test for significance of regression - this test checks the significance
of the whole regression model. If this test returns a significance level
greater than the preferred α value (0.05 in the case of this study), the
model can be considered unreliable.

39

2. The t test - this test checks the significance of individual regression
coefficients. The model calculates p values for each of the coefficients.
All coefficients whose p values are greater than the preferred α value of
0.05 can be considered statistically insignificant and thus unreliable.

Once the above tests were conducted, the model was accepted as reliable and
was then used to evaluate academic entrepreneurial intentions. The predicted
variable was scored using the Likert scale such that the value of intention could
be assessed using the following ranking: 1= no intention, 2= low intention, 3 =
moderate intention, 4= high intention and 5 = very high intention.

4.2.4b Analysis of factors associated with the higher levels of
intention
A regression analysis was used to assess the influence of the different factors
on academic entrepreneurial intentions (Scholten et al, 2004).
4.2.4c Comparison of intentions from the two groups
Since the data sample per group was less than 30, a non parametric Mann
Whitney U test (Fay and Proscan, 2010) was used to measure if there is a
significant difference between the two groups.

4.3 Handling of non responses and response bias
Bouncing emails and including those where the email account holder has opted
out of online surveys were considered as undelivered. Potential non-response
bias and missing items were assessed using the methods described in Prodan

40

and Drnovsek, 2010. A single factor test was used to examine whether a
significant amount of common method bias existed in the data (Prodan and
Drnovsek, 2010).

4.4 Reliability and validity
Cronbach’s alpha of internal consistency (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994) was
used to test the reliability of the quantitative questionnaire. An alpha value with
a lower limit of 0.7 and upper limit of 0.9 was considered acceptable (Hair,
Black, Babin and Anderson, 2010; Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994).

4.5 Research limitations
1. The variables used in this study are, according to prior literature, the most
probable determinants of intentions and motivations. There are other variables
that could be considered for inclusion (Prodan & Drnovsek, 2010).
2. The study was conducted in various universities across the country where
specific corporate or social cultural determinants exist that may affect the
results (Prodan & Drnovsek, 2010)
3. Since this research sample only considers scientists and engineers employed
at universities and science councils, research findings cannot be generalized to
academics from all research areas (Prodan & Drnovsek, 2010).
4. The cross-sectional nature of this study cannot prove causality.

41

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS
5.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the results obtained for the methodology employed in this
study. The results section starts with a presentation of sample characteristics,
followed by a summary of the descriptive statistics for the data captured through
the online survey questionnaire (Appendix E) and the linear regression model
results. The reliability and internal consistency confirmation results are also
presented here.
5.2 Results of Part 1: To measure entrepreneurial intentions among academics
in HEIs and SCs

5.2.1. Sample characteristics

The questionnaire was sent to 700 respondents (350 technical, 350 nontechnical) using random stratified sampling technique. There were 17 emails
that bounced and one respondent had opted out of Survey Monkey surveys.
These were considered as undelivered thus making the total of sent emails
equal to 682. Of the 682 only 96 were completed making the response rate
14%. Two respondents answered “No” to the consent statement and were
excluded from the study. Thirty-three respondents said that they had founded or
were part of a business and were excluded from the study. Fifteen
questionnaires with a high proportion (more than 20%) of missing data were
excluded

(Prodan

and

Drnovsek,

2010).

Two

questionnaires

had

unrealistic/unreliable answers and were also excluded. Therefore the total

43

number of surveyed respondents was thus 44 in total. At the end only 7
respondents were from the non-technical and 37 from the technical fields of
research.
5.2.2 Biographical data

When asked to indicate the type of institution where the respondents worked,
58.4% of respondents said they were employed at the universities, 40.4% at
Research Councils and 1.1% at universities of technology. An analysis of the
responses revealed that 21.5% respondents were in non-technical fields of
research while 78.5% were in scientific and engineering professions. On
average the respondents spent 13.2 years in academia ranging from one to 40
years. The average age of the respondents was 44, ranging from 28 to 64 years
old. When respondents were asked to indicate the highest qualification they had
obtained 1.1% indicated a Bachelor Degree, 2.3% an Honours Degree, 23.0%
Masters Degree and 73.6% indicated a PhD.

5.2.3 Test for non-response bias
An analysis of missing items (i.e. non response) was conducted to test for non
response bias. A summary of the proportions of missing values is shown in
Table 4 below.

44

Table 4: Analysis of missing items from the questionnaire
Total of excluded respondents due to
missing data

15
% Deleted
due to
missing data

TOTAL
No of universities (includes 1 university of
technology)
No of research institutes
No of technical respondents deleted for
missing data
No of non-technical respondents deleted for
missing data
Total No of respondents
Total missing data
No of "Unidentified" institutions

53
36

15%
14%

16

19%

2
96
19
7

17%
N/A
20%
N/A

5.2.4 Reliability and internal consistency
Cronbach’s alpha of internal consistency was used to test the reliability of the
questionnaire for variables having more than one item.

Table 5: Test for Internal consistency
Variables
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy
Personal networks
Number of
patents/ copyrights/
designs
Cooperation with Industry
Academic entrepreneurial intentions

Cronbach’s alpha
0.95
0.53
0.67

-1.12
0.91

45

5.2.5 Linearity
The residual plots below were generated to check for linearity between the
predicted variable (YAEI) and each of the predictor Variables X1-X6.

Entrepreneurial self-efficacy
2

Residuals

1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

-1
-1.5

X1

Figure 3: Residual plot for linearity between YAEI and Entrepreneurial self-efficacy (X1)

Personal networks
2

Residuals

1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5 0
-1
-1.5

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

X2

Figure 4: Residual plot for linearity between YAEI and Personal networks (X2)

46

Perceived role models
2

Residuals

1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

-1
-1.5

X3

Figure 5: Residual plot for linearity between YAEI and Perceived role models (X3)

Cooperation with industry
2

Residuals

1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

-1
-1.5

X4

Figure 6: Residual plot for linearity between YAEI and Cooperation with industry (X4)

47

Number of years spent at academic
institution
2

Residuals

1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

-1
-1.5

X5

Figure 7: Residual plot for linearity between YAEI and Number of years spent at
academic institution (X5)

Number of patents/ copyrights/ designs (X6)
2

Residuals

1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

-1
-1.5

X6

Figure 8: Residual plot for linearity between YAEI and number of patents/ copyrights/
designs (X6)

48

5.2.6 Normality (Anderson-Darling test)
The Anderson-Darling normality test was conducted on the residuals as is the
requirement for a linear regression model. The results of the test are
summarized in the graph below (Figure 9). The test calculates the p-values of
the residuals and compares it to the selected alpha value (alpha= 0.05 was
used throughout the study). If the calculated p-value for the residuals is greater
than alpha, then the data is considered to have come from a normally
distributed sample. In this case the calculated p-value was found to be 0.813.

Normal

Pr

Data

-7

0.999
0.99
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.01
0.001

-2

3

8

13

Data

Figure 9: Normal Probability Plot

49

5.2.7 Analysis of the factors that explain whether the respondents
have intentions or not
A multiple linear regression model was used to predict entrepreneurial intention
using the seven predictor variables namely (1) Entrepreneurial efficacy, (2)
Personal networks, (3) Type of research, (4) Number of years spent at
academic institution, (5) Number of patents/ copyrights/ designs, (6)
Cooperation with industry and (7) Perceived role models. The variable “type of
research” was omitted from the analysis due to an error which was detected in
the survey instrument after the data was collected. Those variables whose
coefficients were statistically insignificant (p>0.05) were deleted in a step by
step iteration (Scholten et al, 2004) where those whose coefficients had the
greatest p-value were deleted first, keeping an eye on the effect of the deletion
on the adjusted R2 value to make sure there was improvement each time a
variable was deleted. According to Scholten et al (2004) when using the linear
regression model, the less variables one has, the better as too many variables
could make the model unstable. This process was repeated until further deletion
of variables led to the deterioration of the adjusted R2 value. Table 6 below
shows the first results obtained before the deletion where X1 = Entrepreneurial
efficacy, X2 = Personal Networks, X3 = Perceived role models, X4 = Cooperation
with industry, X5 = Number of years spent at academic institution, X6 = Number
of patents/ copyrights/ designs. The deletion of the variables was X5 and X2
resulted in an improvement in the adjusted R2 value from 0.810 to 0.815 (Table
7). Further deletion of subsequent variables led to the deterioration of the R2
value hence the deletions were stopped. From this model the average predicted

50

YAEI = 1.65 and average observed YAIE = 1.69. The 95% confidence interval was
found to be (1.45, 1.85).

51

Table 6: Linear regression results for all six variables X1- X6
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.925145769
R Square
0.855894693
Adjusted R2
0.810617679
Standard Error
0.788276253
Observations
44
ANOVA
SS
MS
140.242887 23.37381449
23.61241917 0.621379452
163.8553061

F
37.61600811

Significance F
2.67941E-14

Coefficients Standard Error
t Stat
0
#N/A
#N/A
0.538377846
0.072086294 7.468518864
0.148976425
0.151476195 0.983497275
-0.401027342
0.229097034 1.750469373
0.12768067
0.113155115 1.128368521
-0.046757625
0.104849063 0.445951766
0.393753374
0.183804264 2.142242874

P-value
#N/A
5.76489E-09
0.331583552

Lower 95%
#N/A
0.392446775
-0.157671097

0.088108215
0.266238105

-0.864810038
-0.101389883

0.658162799
0.038643511

-0.259013453
0.021661099

Df
Regression
Residual
Total

Intercept
Efficacy (X1)
Networks (X2)
Rmodels (X3)
IndCo-op (X4)
Yrs at isnt (X5)
IP (X6)

6
38
44

46

Table 7: Linear regression results for five variables X1, X3, X4 and X6
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.922946191
R Square
0.851829672
Adjusted R2
0.815716897
Standard Error
0.779077892
Observations
44
ANOVA
Df
Regression
Residual
Total

Intercept
Efficacy (X1)
Rmodels (X3)
IndCo-op (X4)
IP (X6)

SS
MS
139.5768117 34.89420292
24.27849445 0.606962361
163.8553061

F
57.48989584

Significance F
7.83717E-16

Coefficients Standard Error
t Stat
0
#N/A
#N/A
0.538874214
0.050608056 10.64799286
-0.415177417
0.214993866 -1.93111285
0.16356685
0.106387858 1.537457878
0.421252
0.179752729 2.343508231

P-value
#N/A
3.06248E-13
0.06057736
0.132054848
0.024160472

Lower 95%
#N/A
0.43659152
-0.849696223
-0.051451029
0.057958187

4
40
44

47

5.2.8. Analysis of factors associated with the higher levels of
intention

Table 8: Coefficients of X1-X6
Predictor Variables
X1
X2
X3
X4
X6

Coefficients
0.510354343
0.16207025
-0.42689292
0.121120946
0.199086966

5.2.9 Comparison of intentions from the two groups
A Mann Whitney U-test was used to determine the difference between the two
groups (non-technical and technical researchers) and the results showed that
there was no significant difference between the two groups.

5.2.10 Handling of non responses and response bias
Of the study sample 18 questionnaires were found to have less than 20%
missing data. However, the 18 missing data was distributed almost evenly
across all groups (between universities & research councils and also between
technical and non technical respondents. Since no pattern was observed in
missing values, this suggests that the missing data is missing at random and
should therefore not introduce any missing data bias.

48

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

6.1 Introduction
In this chapter the results of the study are discussed in more detail.
6.2 Handling of non responses and response bias
Since no pattern was observed in missing values, this suggests that the missing
data is missing at random and should therefore not introduce any missing data
bias.
6.3 Reliability and internal consistency
Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency for
predictor variables with more than a single item. Cronbach’s alpha values
obtained were: 0.95 for Entrepreneurial self-efficacy, 0.67 for Number of
patents/ copyrights/ designs and 0.91 for Academic entrepreneurial intention.
The alpha values for Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and Academic entrepreneurial
intentions were greater than the lower limit of 0.7 (Hair et al, 1998). The alpha
value of 0.67 for Number of patents/ copyrights/ designs is slightly below 0.7
and thus may be considered questionable. However, Cronbach’s alpha value
above 0.6 although questionable, may still be considered acceptable (Gliem
and Gliem, 2003). For the variables Personal networks and Cooperation with
industry the alpha-values returned were 0.54 and -1.12 respectively. Although
an alpha value above 0.5 may still be considered acceptable, all alpha values
below 0.5 are unacceptable (Gliem and Gliem, 2003; George and Mallery,
2003). This therefore means that there is poor intercorrelation amongst the test
items for the variable Personal Networks. For the variable Cooperation with
industry, a negative Cronbach's alpha was found which could indicate
49

inconsistent coding or a mixture of items measuring different dimensions,
leading to negative inter-item correlations. According to Yu (2011), a low or
negative alpha may result from random guessing by respondents when they
have not been exposed to the items of the test. In this case the questions for
personal networks asked for three items namely; (1) the number of hours per
week the respondents spent maintaining contacts with people whom business
matters were discussed, (2) the number of hours per week the respondents
spent developing new contacts with people to discuss business matters and (3)
the total number of people with whom the respondents discussed business
matters during the previous week. An analysis of the questions show that they
demanded exact figures on average hours spent and on number of people
communicated with. It is quite plausible that in the South African academic
context researchers are not used to or required to keep a time sheet on hours
spent on personal networking and hence when they were posed with the
question they simply gave a guess, or gave the actual number of hours spent
rather than the average per week. The negative alpha for Cooperation with
industry might be explained by the fact that Prodan & Drnovsek (2010) found in
their empirical results that Cooperation with industry is not directly, significantly
related to the academic entrepreneurial intentions. However it was included in
this study as it is related to academic entrepreneurial intentions indirectly,
through Number of patents/ copyrights/ designs and Type of research.

50

6.4 Linearity
Before proceeding with the linear regression, linearity of the predictor variables
X1 to X6 was assessed and the results are depicted in the residual plots in
section 5.2.5 of the results. In all cases the scatter plots show symmetry about
the x-axis, although not perfect. There is no evidence that the relationships are
not linear in all the plots therefore the data satisfies first requirement of the
multiple linear regression model.
6.5 Normality
The second requirement of the linear regression model is that the residuals
must be normally distributed. To test for normality we used the Anderson
Darling normality test. The test calculates the p value for the data and compares
it to the significance level α (α = 0.05 in this case). If the p value is greater than
the α value, the data may be considered to be from a normal distribution. The p
value was found to be 0.81 which is a value greater than α of 0.05. This means
that the sample follows a normal distribution and therefore it was appropriate to
use linear regression to predict YAEI. Furthermore from hereon inferences to the
study’s target population can be made from the results and the findings can be
generalised to reflect the South African situation.
6.6 Analysis of the factors that explain whether the respondents have
intentions or not
The results obtained where the average predicted YAEI = 1.64 and average for
the observed YAEI = 1.69. Using the Likert scale ranking where 1= No intention,
2= low intention, 3 = moderate Intention, 4= high intention and 5 = Very high
intention, the results of the study show that the academic entrepreneurial

51

intentions of researchers in South Africa’s HEIs and SCs are none to low or
very low.
6.7 Analysis of factors associated with the higher levels of intention
Since intentions are the single best predictor of any planned behavior, including
entrepreneurship, then understanding the antecedents of intentions increases
the understanding of the intended behaviour of spinoff creation. The variable
entrepreneurial self-efficacy (X1) was found to be the strongest predictor of AEI.
This is in line with findings of other authours in a different cultural context to that
of South Africa (Prodan and Drnovsek, 2010). From this result important
implications can be drawn on entrepreneurial assessment, education and
support intervention. According to Chen et al (1998) entrepreneurial selfefficacy can be used to identify reasons for entrepreneurial avoidance since
there may be individuals who avoid entrepreneurial activity not because they
actually lack the necessary skills but because they believe that they do.
Furthermore the same authours believe that through systematic and continuous
efforts, entrepreneurial self-efficacy of individuals can be improved thus
enabling the entrepreneur to be actively engaged in entrepreneurial tasks, more
persistent and confident in the face of difficulty and setbacks (Chen et al, 1998).
Scholten et al (2004) using a measuring tool based on the theory of planned
behavior albeit with different predictors found “attitude” as the most important
factor to explain academic’s entrepreneurial intentions. Although the results of
the regression model seemed to suggest that Number of patents/ copyrights/
designs (X6) is the second strongest predictor of AEI, this result is viewed with
caution. The reason for this is that only seven respondents from the entire

52

sample answered that they had patents or filed for patents or other form of
intellectual property in the past three years. Furthermore in South Africa, unlike
in Europe and the United States, the Companies and Intellectual Property
Commission (CIPC) formerly known as Companies and Intellectual Properly
Registration Office (CIPRO) is not a patent examining body (Dell, 2011) which
means that whilst patents may be registered and granted, they may be of no
commercial value due lack of novelty and freedom to operate. On the other
hand the fact that the great majority of the respondents reported that they had
zero patents filed or registered, supports the findings that the academic
entrepreneurial intentions are indeed low.
6.8 Suggestion for future research

•

A study that determines the underlying reasons for the low intensions
observed in this research by identifying the sources of entrepreneurial
avoidance

•

A cross sectional study that needs to ultimately examine the relationship
between the entrepreneurial attitudes, intentions and entrepreneurial
behaviours over time

53

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION

The intentions model used in this study asserts that in that order to encourage
economic development in the form of new enterprises, then the perceptions of
feasibility and desirability (self-efficacy) thereof must be increased. This means
that interventions aimed at promoting spinoff creation will only increase
business formation if those initiatives positively influence intentions. Policy
makers, university authorities and entrepreneurship support programmes could
benefit from identifying sources of entrepreneurial avoidance by offering
interventions in entrepreneurial education that are aimed at enhancing the
entrepreneurial self-efficacy of academic researchers.

The role of researchers as the actual initiators of entrepreneurial activities within
universities is well understood. Entrepreneurial activities have resulted from
researcher’s interactions with their role models and personal networks with
industry partners and other’s with whom they wish to do business. Currently in
order to have high rankings as a researcher and to be promoted to the
university’s upper echelons researchers have to publish in prestigious
publications and present their work in international conferences. Those that do,
become role models for others to follow in their footsteps. Appendix F gives a
summary of the NRF’s ranking requirements.

As can be envisaged, these

incentives for high rating by encouraging researchers to publish research
results extensively have adverse effects from the standpoint of economical
exploitation of those results. This is because a single publication is known as “a
disclosure in the public domain” and is sufficient to remove all the originality
54

value of the results hence there can be no benefit from legal protection such as
patents which are usually key in spinoff creation.

From this study one can deduce that until interventions that trigger the intent to
enter into entrepreneurial activity are put in place as a support mechanism for
researchers then the prospects for creating a knowledge economy in South
Africa are very bleak.

A concerted effort by government, their funding agencies, university authorities,
and private organisations will be key in strengthening university industry
relationships since the role of cooperation with industry has been shown to
induce entrepreneurial activity and improve entrepreneurial self-efficacy. The
government has a role to play through policy frameworks that promote a
industry-led or university-led type of triple helix as seen with their success U.S.
and Germany. Funding Agencies also have a responsibility in promoting a
culture of entrepreneurship. The NFR and the universities should consider
revising incentives for rating and performance so that they are aligned to the
National goal of creating a knowledge economy by 2018 as planned in the
DST’s NRDS and TYIP. The universities and science councils will need to have
skills in opportunity identification, so that they can be able to differentiate those
research results that would hold commercial value and whose IP is worth
protecting from those that promote the dissemination of knowledge through
publications.

55

The major contribution of this research is that it has predicted that the level of
spinoff creation from South African HEIs and SCs is very low based on
empirical findings. From this base, cross sectional studies can be conducted to
measure the intentionality of researchers over time. The results and insights
gained in this study will guide policymakers, university authorities and funding
agencies to formulate spinoff policies, financial and non-financial support
structures that are aimed at improving intentionality and take into account the
fact that academic entrepreneurial intentions are low.

56

Appendix A: Consistency matrix

Title: The entrepreneurial intentions of researchers in academia in an emerging knowledge economy
Hypothesis
Literature review
H1
• Entrepreneurial
The entrepreneurial
Dialogues, 2010
intentions of South African
• Global
researchers are low.
Entrepreneurshi
.
p Monitor, 2010
• Kruss, 2009
• Phaho, 2007

H1.1
Entrepreneurial self
efficacy is positively
related to academic –
entrepreneurial
intentions

•
•
•

H1.2
Academic’s personal
networks are
positively related to
the academic-

•
•

•

•

Data Collection tool
Questionnaire 1 (A1-5;
B1-14).

Boyd et al, 1994
Chen et al, 1998
Peterman &
Kennedy, 2000
Prodan &
Drnovsek, 2010

Questionnaire 1 (C111)

Birley, 1985
Bosma et al,
2011
Hoang and
Antoncic, 2003

Questionnaire 1 (D1-3)

Analysis
Validity and Reliability
Linear
Model
to Cronbach’s Alpha
measure
academic
entrepreneurial
intentions
Regression Analysis to
determine which of the
seven predictors is
highest contributor to
academic
entrepreneurial
intentions
Same as above
Same as above

Same as above

Same as above

57

•

entrepreneurial selfefficacy and academicentrepreneurial
intentions

•
•
•

H1.3
The extent of perceived
role models is positively
related to the extent of
entrepreneurial self
efficacy and the
intensity of academic
entrepreneurial
intentions

•

•
•
•

Nicolaou and
Birley, 2003a
Nicolaou and
Birley, 2003b
Ozgen & Baron,
2007
Prodan &
Drnovsek, 2010
Bosma et al,
2011
Davidsson, 1995
Krueger et al,
2000
Prodan &
Drnovsek, 2010

Questionnaire 1 (E1)

Same as above

Same as above

Lavesque and
Minniti, 2006
Prodan &
Drnovsek, 2010

Questionnaire 1 (F1)

Same as above

Same as above

Landry et al,
2006
Prodan &

Questionnaire 1 (G1-2)

Same as above

Same as above

,

H1.4
The number of years
spent at the academic
institution is negatively
related to academicentrepreneurial
intentions

•

H1.5
The number of patents
(applied for/granted) is

•

•

•

58

academic-entrepreneurial
intentions
H1.6
The prevalence of
applied research (type
of research) is
academicentrepreneurial
intentions

H1.7
Cooperation with the
industry is positively
related to the number
of patents/ copyrights/
designs (applied
for/granted)
type of
research) and
academic
entrepreneurial
intentions
H2
There is a significant
difference between the
entrepreneurial intention

•
•
•

Drnovsek, 2010
Shane, 2001a
Shane, 2001b
Bluemental et al,
2006
Etzkowitz, 1998
Grandi &
Grimaldi, 2005
Kruss, 2009
Prodan &
Drnovsek, 2010

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•

•

Same as above

Same as above

Questionnaire 1 (I 1)

•
•

Questionnaire 1 (H1-2)

Same as above

Same as above

Complete data obtained
from all sections of
Questionnaire 1 be
compared
for

A Mann-Whitney U-test Not applicable
to measure if there is a
significant
difference
between
the
two

Bluemental et al,
2006
Etzkowitz, 1998
Grandi &
Grimaldi, 2005
Kruss, 2009
Prodan &
Drnovsek, 2010

Arvanitis et al,
2008
Bekkers &
Bodas Freitas,

59

level of academics in
technical fields and
academic in social fields

Research question 1
What are the underlying
determinants observed to
explain the differences
between the
entrepreneurial
intentionality between
academia in social and
technical fields of
discipline

•
•
•
•
•

2008
Fini et al, 2008
Landry, 2001b
Landry, 2007
Shane, 2002
Prodan &
Drnovsek, 2010

Guest et al, 2006
Marshal, 1996
Mason, 2010

differences between the groups.
two groups

Questionnaire 2 (1-3)

Theme
Extraction, Methodical triangulation
Constant Comparative (Staphorst, 2010)
Method and Weighted
Frequency Analysis
(Staphorst, 2010)

60

Appendix B: Timeline

Date
07 January
23 February
10 April

21 April
27 April
May: Chapters 1-4
01 May-31May
3 May

Activity
Project topic submitted
7 Page research proposal submitted
Workshop in preparation of Research
Proposal hand-in
Submit draft proposal to supervisor
Submit 20 page research proposal

Chapters 1-4
Supervisor completes marking of
proposal
31 May
Submit chapter 1-4 to supervisor for
review
June: Correction of Proposal and Questionnaire design
01June -30 June
Improvements on Proposal after
feedback from supervisor
01June-15June
Questionnaire design
July: Application for ethical Clearance
02 July
Submit questionnaire to supervisor for
review
08 July
Application for ethical clearance
11 July
1st Research workshop: Chapters 1-4
25 July
Latest date for Supervisors to sign off
on chapters 1-4
25 July
Ethical clearance ends
August: Chapter 5, Data collection and analysis
01-31 August
Data collection and analysis
22 August
2nd Research Workshop - Chapters 4
and 5
September: Chapter 6&7, Discussion of results
01 September -30 September
Data analysis and Chapter 6 and 7
22 September
3rd Research Workshop - Chapters 5,
6 and 7
October: Final draft and corrections
30 October
Submit research draft to supervisor for
review
31 October
4th Research Workshop – recap and
wrap up of entire project
November: Submission
09 November
Research Project Submission Date
December: Blissful existence
Note: GIBS deadlines in italics

49

Appendix C: List of HEIs and SCs represented in the sample frame
Universities
University of the Witwatersrand

Science Councils
Agricultural
Research
Council
(ARC)
University of Cape Town
South African National Biodiversity
Institute (SANBI)
Nelson
Mandela
Metropolitan Nuclear Energy Cooperation of
University
South Africa (NECSA)
University of Johannesburg
Council for Geosciences
University of South Africa
Council for Scientific and Industrial
Research (CSIR)
Fort Hare University
Medical Research Council (MRC)
University of Pretoria
South African Institute for Aquatic
Biodiversity (SAIB)
University of the Western Cape
National Institute for Communicable
Diseases
Stellenbosch University
National Institute for Occupational
Health
Vaal University of Technology
iThemba Laboratory for Accelerated
Based Sciences
University of Kwazulu Natal
South
African
Environmental
Observation Network
Rhodes University
Hermanus Magnetic Observatory
Tshwane University of Technology
Mintek
North West University
South
African
Astronomical
observatory (SAAO)
Cape Peninsula University of Human Sciences Research Council
Technology
(HSRC)
Durban University of Technology
National Health Laboratory Services
(NHLS)
University of Venda
Oceanographic Research Institute
Central University of Technology, National Metrology Institute of
Free State
South Africa

50

Appendix D: Survey email invitation
June 2011
Dear Sir / Madam

I am a final year student at the Gordon Institute of Business Science (GIBS). As
part of the research component of my MBA, I am conducting research aimed at
measuring the entrepreneurial intentions of researchers in South African
Universities, Universities of technology and Science Councils.

The entrepreneurial motivations and intentions of scientists in academia have
been well studied in Europe and the USA where the phenomenon of academic
spinoff is mature. The development of Silicon Valley in North California and
Route 128 in Massachusetts in the vicinity of prestigious universities such
Stanford, Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology have highlighted
the role that universities and scientists can play in entrepreneurship, economic
development and job creation. It is therefore because of this economic
importance that it is important to understand the intentions of academic
entrepreneurs since they play a critical opportunity identification role in the
technology transfer process.

As a valued survey participant, you are assured of confidentiality and at no point
will your personal information be collected. To participate in the survey, please
click on the following link:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=GSnlsmIKPU5_2bsMeyVpFJJA_3d_3d

The survey should not take more than 10 minutes to complete. The closing date
for responses is 15 July 2011.
51

Thank you for taking time to assist in the study. Should you have any questions
please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards,

Joy Sixholo
GIBS MBA 2010/11
Tel: +27 12 472 2734
Mobile: +27 74 337 8500
E-mail: sixholoj@tia.org.za

Leon Staphorst (Pr.Eng, M.Eng, MBA, SMIEEE, SMSAIEE)
Study Leader
Tel: +27 12 841 3236
Mobile: +27 82 857 1135
Email: leon.staphorst@gmail.com

52

Appendix E: Questionnaire
A. Informed Consent
As a valued survey participant, you are assured of confidentiality and at no point
will your personal information be collected. Kindly confirm by ticking the
appropriate box below that your participation in the survey is voluntary and
should you wish not to take part in the study you will suffer no penalties

I am aware that participation in the survey is voluntary Yes

No

and should I chose not to participate I will suffer no
penalties

Note that the information you provide will only be used in combination with all
the others respondents’ information to determine the general level of
entrepreneurial intention among researchers in South Africa.
B. Screening questions
Please tick the appropriate block:
Type of Institution
University

University of
Technology

Research
Council

Entrepreneurial status
I have founded / am part of a
personal business venture/
university spinoff

I have NOT founded / am part
of a personal business venture/
university spinoff

60

C. Demographical Details
Please provide the requested information:
Demographic information
Age

Highest qualification
obtained

Field of research

Name of institution

D. Survey questions
In the following section some statements and questions about entrepreneurial
intentions and behaviour will be presented to you. Please answer all the
questions.
Please tick the appropriate block:
A. Entrepreneurial intentions
1.
2.
3.

4.

5.

I am interested in setting
up my own business
I am determined to have
my own company
If you identified
possibilities for a
commercial application for
one or more of your
inventions, you would
seriously consider
becoming an entrepreneur
to commercialize the
opportunity
What is the probability that
you will start your own
business in the next two
years?
What is the probability that
you will start your own
business in the next five
years?

B. List of activities related to
starting a business

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Neutral Agree

Strongly
agree

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Please indicate which of the following activities related to
starting a business you have undertaken during the past
year
61

1.

Gathering information on
competitors

2.

substitute products

3.

industry and customers

4.

potential suppliers

5.

the cost of raw materials
and labour costs

6.

costs of rents, leases and
equipment

7.

Establishing a price for
the product/service
offering

8.

Making sales/revenues
projections

9.

Refining/ improving the
business idea

10. Seeking financing
11. Gathering information on
legal requirements
(permits, licences and so
forth)
12. Developing goals and
objectives (business plan,
organisation structure,
strategic plan)
13. Choosing a business
name, legal status
14. Finding a location for the
business
C. H1.1: Self-efficacy Completely Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Completely
Unsure
sure
sure
Please indicate your degree of unsure

certainty in performing the
following
1.
Control costs
2.
Define
organisational
62

3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

roles
Define responsibilities
Develop new ideas
Develop new products
Develop new services
Establish
product’s
market position
Expand business
Set and attain profit
goals
Set and attain market
share goals
Set and attain set goals

11.
D. H1.2: Personal networks
1.
Number of average

hours per week spent
on maintaining contacts
(via face to face, email,
telephone) with people
with whom business
matters are discussed
(e.g. commercialisation,
marketing, finance)
2.
Number of average
hours per week spent
on
developing
new
contacts with people to
discuss
business
matters
3.
Total number of people
with
who
business
matters were discussed
during the previous
week
E. H1.3: Perceived role models Please provide the requested information:
1.

Number of academic
entrepreneurs you know
personally (i.e. have
met and spoken with)

F. H1.4: Number of years spent at
the academic institution

1.

Total years spent at the
academic institution

G. H1.5: Intellectual property
(patents/copyrights/ designs)

1.



Number of patents/
copyrights/
designs
granted to academic
during the last three
63

2.

years
Number of patents/
copyrights/ designs the
academic applied for
during the last three
years

H. H1.3: Type of research
1.
Numbers of hours per

week spent on applied
research divided by (÷)
Number of hours per
week spent on basic
research
2.
Numbers of hours per
week spent on applied
research
I. H1.6: Cooperation with Please provide the requested information:
industry
1.
Number of hours per
week spent on industryordered projects

64

Appendix F: NRF Researcher rating requirement summary

There are broad categories (with sub-categories where applicable) based on
researcher performance, within which the NRF awards rating for researchers in
South Africa. In order of the lowest to highest, these ratings are:
•

Late entrant into research (Y)

•

Promising young researcher (P)

•

Established researcher (C)

•

Internationally acclaimed researcher (B)

•

Leading international researcher (A)

•

President’s Awardee

A synopsis of each category is available on the website of The NRF’s
evaluation centre.

The NRF’s evaluation centre’s Guidelines for Key Research Areas and Types of
Research (KRAT) document (2011) outlines intellectual property (patents,
trademarks, etc) as an expected primary output in only four fields of research
out of 22 namely (1) Engineering, Information Technology and Library Services,
Mathematics and Animal & Veterinary Sciences. For all others, including the
four listed above, the most important research outputs are:
•

Publications of original research in peer-reviewed journals and peer
reviewed electronic publications;

•

Reviews in recognised scientific journals;

•

Peer-reviewed conference proceedings (excluding abstracts);

65

•

Scientific monographs;

•

Computational research tools; and

•

Public biological databases.

66

REFERENCES
Arenius, P., & Minniti, M. (2005). Perceptual variables and nascent
entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 24(2), 233-247.

Arvanitis, S.,Sydow, N., & Woerter, M. (2008). Do specific forms of universityindustry knowledge transfer have different impacts on the performance of
private enterprises? An empirical analysis based on Swiss firm data. The
Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(5), 504-533.

Autio, E., & Kauranen, I. (1994). Technologist-entrepreneurs versus nonentrepreneurial technologists: analysis of motivational triggering factors.
Entrepreneurship y Regional Development, 6, 315–328.

Association of University Technology Managers Licensing Survey (2010).
Retrived from http://www.autm.net/Licensing_Surveys_AUTM.htm

Bekkers, R., & Bodas Freitas, I.M. (2008). Analysing knowledge transfer
channels between universities and industry: to what degree do sectors
also matter?. Research Policy, 37(10), 1837-1853.

Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intention.
Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 21-29.

Birley, S. (1985). The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of
Business Venturing, 1(1), 107-117.

Bosma, N., Hessels, J., Schutjens, V., van Praag, M., & Verheul, I. (2011).
Entrepreneurship and role models. Journal of Economic Psychology, 1(3),
1-30.

67

Boyd, N.G., & Vozikis, G.S. (1994). The influence of self-efficacy on the
development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship:
Theory & Practice, 18(4), 63-77.

Chen, C.C., Greene, P.G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy
distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing,
13 (4), 295-316.

Davidsson, P. (1995). Deterninants of entrepreneurial intentions. Paper
prepared for the RENT IX Workshop, Piacenza, Italy, Nov. 23-24.
Retrieved 09 November from
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/2076/1/RENT_IX.pdf

Dell, S. (2011). South Africa: Intellectual property rights failing. Retrieved 07
November from
http://www.universityworldnews.com/articlephp?story=2011071516593964
8&mode=print

Department of Science and Technology National Research and Development
Strategy (2002). Retrieved 09 November from
http://www.dst.gov.za/publications-policies/strategies-reports

Department of Science and Technology Strategic Plan for the Fiscal Years
2011-2016. (2011). Retrieved 09 November from

Department of Science and Technology Ten Year Innovation Plan. (2008, 09
November). Retrieved 09 November from

Djokovic, D., & Souitaris, V. (2008). Spinouts from academic institutions: a
literature review with suggestions for further research. Journal of
Technology Transfer, 33 (3), 225-247.

68

Druilhe, C., & Garnsey, E. (2004). Do academic spin-outs differ and does it
matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 29 (3-4), 269-285.

Duberley, J., Cohen, L., & Leeson, E. (2007). Entrepreneurial academics:
Developing scientific careers in changing university settings. Higher
Education Quarterly, 61(4), 479-497.

du Toit, D. (2006). Bridging the innovation chasm: Innovation policy challenges
in Africa and Opportunities for Partnership with Europe. Available:
http://www.africanaxis.org/Presentations/innovation%20seminar/daan%20
du%20toit.pdf

Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of
the new university-industry linkages. Research Policy, 27(8), 823-833.

Etzkowitz, H.,& Zhou, C. (2008). Building the entrepreneurial university: a global
perspective. Science Public Policy, 35(9), 627-635.

Fay, M, P., &Proschan, M, A. (2010). Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney or t-test? On
assumptions for hypothesis tests and multiple interpretations of decision
rules. Statistics Surveys, 4, 1-39.

Fini, R., Lacetera, N., & Shane, S.A. (2008). Inside or outside the IP system?
Business Creation in Academia. Research Policy, 39(8), 1060-1069.

First

National

Bank

Entrepreneurial

Dialogues.

(2010).

The

state

of

entrepreneurship in South Africa. (FNB Publication). Retrieved 18 April
from
http://www.endeavor.co.za/Portals/74/docs/White%20paper/FINAL_GEW_
WhitePaper_18March.pdf

69

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, intention and behaviour: an
introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple
guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Göktepe-Hultén, D. (2008). Academic inventors and research groups:
entrepreneurial cultures at universities. Science and Public Policy, 35(9),
657-667.

Grandi, A., & Grimaldi, R. (2005) Academic’s organisational characteristics and
the generation of successful business ideas. Journal of Business
Venturing, 20(6), 821-845.

Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006).How Many Interviews Are Enough?
An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability. Field Methods, 18(59),
59-82.

Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J.C. (2005). Industry funding and University
professor’s research performance. Research Policy, 34(6), 932-950.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2010) Multivariate data
analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education,.

Herrington, M., Kew, J. & Kew, P. (2010). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor:
2009 South African Report. Graduate School of Business, University of
Cape Town, South Africa.

Hildebrand, D. L. (2005). Academics are intellectual entrepreneurs. Retrieved
10 October from
http://www.davidhildebrand.org/research/articles-and-shorter-writings/articleacademics-are-intellectual-entrepreneurs/

70

Hoang, H., Antoncic, B. (2003). Network-based research in entrepreneurship: a
critical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 165-187.
Hoye, K., & Pries, F. (2009). ‘Repeat commercializers’, the ‘habitual
entrepreneurs’ of university-industry technology transfer. Technovation,
29(10), 682-689.

Katz, J., & Gartner, W.B. (1988). Properties of emerging organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 13(3): 429-441.

Kolvereid, L., & Isaksen, E. (2006). New business start-up and subsequent
entry into self employment. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(6), 866-885.

Kroll, H., & Liefner, I. (2008). Spinoff enterprises as a means of technology
commercialisation in a transforming economy-evidence from three
universities in China. Technovation, 28(5), 298-313.

Krueger, N. F., & Carsrud, A. L. (1993). Entrepreneurial intentions: applying the
theory of planned behavior. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,
5(4), 315-330.

Krueger, N.F., Reilly, M.D., & Carsrud, A.L. (2000). Competing models of
entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 411–432.

Kruss, G. Human Sciences Research Council. (2009). Knowledge-based
development: the contribution of university-firm interaction in South Africa.
(HSRC Publication). Retrieved 16 June from
www.globelics2009dakar.merit.unu.edu/papers/1238484527_GK.pd

Landry, R., Amara, N., & Ouimet, M. (2007). Determinants of knowledge
transfer: evidence from Canadian university researchers in natural
sciences and engineering. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(6), 561592.

71

Landry, R., Amara, N., & Rherrad, I. (2006). Why are some university
researchers more likely to create spinoffs than others? evidence from
canadian universities. Research Policy, 35(10), 1599-1615.

Lavesque, M., & Minniti, M. (2006). The effect of aging on entrepreneurial
behaviour. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(2), 177-194.

Marshal, N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 13(6),
522-525.

Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative
interviews. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(3). Retrieved 03 May
from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs100387

Morales-Gualdrón, S.T., Gutiérrez-Gracia, A., & Dobón, S.R. (2009). The
entrepreneurial motivation in academia: a multidimensional construct.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 5(3), 301-317.

National Research Foundation’ evaluation centre’s Guidelines for Key Research
Areas and Types of Research (KRAT) document (2011). Retrieved 09
November from http://evaluation.nrf.ac.za/index.htm

Ndonzuau, F, N., Pirnay, F., & Surlemont, B. (2002). A stage model of
academic spinoff creation. Technovation, 22(5), 281-289.

Nicolaou N., & Birley, S. (2003a). Academic networks in a trichotomous
categorisation of university spinouts. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3),
333-359.

Nicolaou, N., & Birley, S. (2003b). Social networks in organisational emergence:
the university spinout phenomenon. Management Science, 49(12), 17021725.

72

Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometry theory (3rd ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.

Ochaeta, K. (2007). Comparison of entrepreneurial intention level between
overseas scholarship recipients and local Students in Taiwan. Retrieved
06 May from
140.114.53.170:8080/.../Projects%5CMR(Special%20Topics%20in%20Ma
rketing%20Research)%5C….

OECD (2007). Review of the South African Innovation Policy. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/publishing.

Ozgen, E., & Baron, R, A. (2007). Social sources of information in opportunity
recognition: effects of mentors, industry networks, and professional
forums. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(2), 174-192.

New Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed.). (2010). Hinsdale, IL: Oxford University
Press.

Péréz Péréz, M., & Sánchez, A.M. ( 2003). The development of university
spinoffs:

early

dynamics

of

technology

transfer

and

networking.

Technovation, 23(10), 823-831.

Peterman, N, E., & Kennedy, J. (2003). Enterprise education: Influencing
students' perceptions of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and
Practice, 28(2), 129-144

Phaho, D. (2007). Assisting entrepreneurs through technology Intelligence and
diffusion. Poster session presented at the meeting of University of
Johannesburg’s FROM IDEA TO PRODUCT SEMINAR, Auckland Park,
South Africa.

73

Pouris, A. (2008). Science-industry relations and the SA innovation chasm:
searching for lost technologies.
Retrieved

06

May

from

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/74383191/NEPAD-

OECD-Agenda---THE-2008-HIGH-LEVEL-MEETING-AND-EXPERTS-

Prodan, I., & Drnovsek, M. (2010). Conceptualizing academic-entrepreneurial
intentions: An empirical test. Technovation, 30(5-6), 332-347.

Razali, N, M., & Wah, Y., B. (2011). Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk,
Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lillifors and Anderson-Darling tests. Journal of
Statistical Modelling and Analytics, 2(1), 21-33.

Scherer, R.F., Adams, J.S., Carly, S.S., & Wiebe, F.A. (1989). Role model
performance effects on development of entrepreneurial career preference.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 13(3), 53-71.

Scholten, V, R., Kemp, & Omta, S. (2004) Entrepreneurship for Life.
Entrepreneurial intention among academics in the Life Sciences, 2nd ESU
Conference, Enschede, September 20-22.

Shane, S.A. (2001a). Technological opportunities and new firm creation.
Management Science, 47(2), 205-220.

Shane,

S.A.

(2001b).

Technology

regimes

and

new

firm

formation.

Management Science, 47(9), 1173-1190.

Shane, S.A., & Stuart, T. (2002). Organisational endowments and the
performance of university start-ups. Management Science, 48(1), 154-170.

Shapero, A. (1975). The displaced, uncomfortable entrepreneur. Psychology
Today, 9(6), 83-88.

Staphorst, L. (2010). The impact of intellectual property rights from publicly

74

financed research and development on governance mode decisions for
research alliances (Master’s thesis). Available from Gordon Istitute of
Business Science.

SurveyMonkey (2011). SurveyMonkey Home Page. Retrieved 15 May from
http://www.surveymonkey.com/

Technology Innovation Agency Corporate Plan (2009). Retrieved 01 November
from http://www.tia.org.za

Technology Innovation Agency Corporate Presentation (2011). Retrieved 01
November from http://www.tia.org.za

Udell, G. (1990). Academe and the goose that lays its goldern eggs. Business
Horizon, 33(2), 29-37.

Walter, A., Auer, M., & Ritter, T.(2006). The impact of network capabilities and
entrepreneurial orientation on university spinoff performance. Journal of
Business Venturing, 21(4), 541-567.

Zhao, H., Seibert, S.E., & Hills, G.E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy
in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(6), 1265-1272.

zu Köcker, G, M. (2009). Clusters in Germany: An empirical based insight view
on emergence, financing, management and competitiveness of the most
innovative

clusters

in

Germany.

Retrieved

01

November

from

http://www.vdivde-it.de/publications/studies/an-empirical-based-insightview-on-emergence-financing-management-and-competitiveness-of-themost-innovative-clusters-in-germany

75

Dissertation

More Related Content

Similar to Dissertation (20)

Dissertation