The impact of higher education on entrepreneurial intention and human capital
| Published date | 08 January 2018 |
| Date | 08 January 2018 |
| Pages | 135-156 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-04-2017-0056 |
| Author | Renato Passaro,Ivana Quinto,Antonio Thomas |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Knowledge management,HR & organizational behaviour,Organizational structure/dynamics,Accounting & Finance,Accounting/accountancy,Behavioural accounting |
The impact of higher education on
entrepreneurial intention and
human capital
Renato Passaro
Department of Engineering, Parthenope University of Naples, Naples, Italy
Ivana Quinto
Online University Pegaso, Naples, Italy, and
Antonio Thomas
Department of Engineering, Parthenope University of Naples, Naples, Italy
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of higher education on the emergence of
entrepreneurial intention (EI) and human capital (HC) as a component of intellectual capital (IC) that strongly
influences the entrepreneurial process.
Design/methodology/approach –On the basis of a literature review, a theoretical model that is focused on
the theory of planned behaviour was defined to verify the impact of higher education on the development
of EI and HC. To this end, the structural equation modelling methodology was applied to two samples of
students and academics, which differ each other in terms of both education level and specific characteristics
of entrepreneurship education activities.
Findings –The main results show that there are significant differences between the two considered samples.
In particular, the level and specific characteristics of entrepreneurial education are the key factors for the
development of EI and HC.
Practical implications –The research may be of relevance for universities and policy makers. Universities
must devote more attention to training and practice-oriented entrepreneurial courses and collateral
activities (projects, initiatives, actions), both for students (first mission) and academic aspiring entrepreneurs
(third mission) to encourage the emergence of EI and HC formation. For policy makers, this study suggests
the need to define policy guidelines and frameworks to support universities’educational programmes and
activities to strengthen the entrepreneurial process, so that they can be consistent with the EU and national
entrepreneurship policies.
Originality/value –This explorative research intends to contribute to the scientific debate by filling the
knowledge gap that is due to the very limited number of studies that analyse whether and how EI can mediate
the relationship between higher education and HC as an IC component.
Keywords Intellectual capital, Entrepreneurship education, Theory of planned behaviour,
Entrepreneurial university, Third mission
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Over the last three decades, the intangible assets that are recognised as intellectual capital
(hereafter IC) have awakened an increasing interest among a range of researchers as a
fundamental driver of national economic growth and business development (e.g. Chen et al.,
2005; Zéghal and Maaloul, 2010; Buenechea-Elberdin, 2017). These scholars underscore that
firms’competitiveness and their future perspectives tend to increasingly depend on IC
assets, which, in turn, affect both ventures’capacity to advance high-tech and/or
knowledge-based activities and the possibility to acquire, cultivate and share new
knowledge (e.g. Sáenz et al., 2009; Maditinos et al., 2011; Bianchi Martini et al., 2016).
The higher education that is provided by universities and research centres plays a
significantrole in the development and reinforcement of individual and firm IC (Secundoet al.,
2010; Volery et al., 2013; Bae et al., 2014).The university system has conventionally sustained
the industrial system by filling the gap in intangible resources (Galloway and Brown, 2002;
Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 19 No. 1, 2018
pp. 135-156
© Emerald PublishingLimited
1469-1930
DOI 10.1108/JIC-04-2017-0056
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm
135
Impact
of higher
education on
EI and HC
Lockett and Wright, 2005; Rae, 2010) and by promoting technology transfer and
cross-fertilisation processes (Centobelli et al., 2016; Markman et al., 2005; Gunasekara, 2006;
Rodrigues et al., 2010).
More recently, universities are expected to support the entrepreneurship choice through
multiple initiatives that are designed to spread scientific and entrepreneurial culture to
support the creation of start-ups as part of the so-called third mission (Laredo 2007;
Franzoni and Lissoni, 2009; Fini et al., 2011).
In particular, high entrepreneurship education (henceforth EE) is meant to provide the
requisite learning initiatives (e.g. courses, training, workshops, and business plan
competition (BPC)) and the specific skills and knowledge that are needed for individuals to
successfully face managerial and financial troubles (Kolvereid and Moen, 1997; Fayolle and
Gailly, 2015). Thanks to these initiatives, EE encourages individuals by providing “the right
conditions and opportunity, to come out of the woodwork”(Thompson, 2004, p. 243),
thus leveraging on the entrepreneurial intention (henceforth EI).
EI is among the most studiedantecedents of venture creation (Krueger and Carsrud, 1993;
Kolvereid and Isaksen, 2005; Liñán and Chen, 2009; Liñán et al., 2011). One of the widesprea d
models to analyse EI is Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behaviour (henceforth TPB).
Specifically, by assuming the common breakdown of IC into human, relational and
organisational capital (e.g. Kaufmann and Schneider, 2004), several scholars claim that EE
chiefly affects the specific and composite IC component that concerns the accumulation of
personal attributes such as entrepreneurial knowledge, abilities and skills. Such a set of
personal attributes, specifically entrepreneurship-related human capital (henceforth ErHC)
(Pittaway and Cope, 2007; Martin et al., 2013), allows individuals to successfully discover,
identify, exploit and manage entrepreneurial opportunities (Politis, 2005; Davidsson, 2015).
In this view, and in line with Peña’s (2002) seminal article in this journal, we assume that
ErHC plays a critical role in the early stages of an ideal entrepreneurial process (Reynolds
and White, 1997; Hisrich et al., 2005), which is characterised by the initial formation of EI.
Given the fast diffusion of specific EE programmes worldwide, several scholars have
long considered the impact of EE on EI (e.g. Souitaris et al., 2007; Liñán et al., 2013),
as well as of EE on human capital (henceforth HC) (e.g. Von Graevenitz et al., 2010;
Volery et al., 2013) to valorise the efforts of universities as well as to support the outcomes of
entrepreneurial policies. The direct and strong relationship among the impacts of EE on EI
and HC has not yet been unquestionably demonstrated due to the presence of conflicting
results that have been underscored in the literature (e.g. Davidsson and Honig, 2003;
Souitaris et al., 2007; Volery et al., 2013; Fayolle and Gailly, 2015; Secundo, Perez, Martinaitis
and Leitner, 2017).
With reference to the increasing importance that is gained by ErHC in the early stage of
the entrepreneurial process, to the best of our knowledge, only a few studies have
specifically analysed the relationship between EE and ErHC as well as between EI
and ErHC. Furthermore, these works show some limitations. The paper of Mentoor and
Friedrich (2007) is limited by the differences in the size of the students subgroups considered
and their context-specific nature which bound the generalisability of the results. The study
of Oosterbeek et al. (2010) suffers a lack of external validity and the results are influenced
by diverse learning programme characteristics (entrepreneur team’s size, duration,
voluntary participation, credit points earned). In general, the meta-analysis of Martin et al.
(2013) underlines how the results are conflicting (the relationships are positive, negative or
absent at all) and ambiguous. Hence, there is a need to further deepen this matter and fill the
related knowledge gap.
According to these premises, by applying Ajzen’s above-mentioned model, this study
aims to investigate the impact of EE on EI to start a new business and on the formation of
individual IC, with a specific focus on ErHC.
136
JIC
19,1
To continue reading
Request your trial