University Sports Partnerships As Collaborative Entrepreneurship

Abstract

The main objective of this study is to determine the role of partnerships in the university sport sector as a mechanism of collaborative entrepreneurship. To reach this goal, a qualitative approach was adopted, with the case study being a Portuguese Institute of Higher Education—University of Beira Interior. As data collecting instruments, interviews and documentary analysis were used, and the data-treatment technique was content analysis. The results obtained lead to the conclusion that university sports partnerships can be understood as collaborative entrepreneurship, in that they join the interests of different institutions in carrying out common projects of social value and intervention, helping universities to integrate with, and open up to society, and both internal and external stakeholders. In light of these insights, this article is a contribution to understanding the importance of partnerships as a form of collaborative entrepreneurship in the university sport sector. Some theoretical and practical implications are also presented.

Keywords

partnerships sport stakeholders public university collaborative entrepre-neurship Portugal

Introduction

In a world of constant economic and social change, organizations face challenges that force them to carry out self-analysis and develop a set of activities. These actions allow organizations to be more competitive in their operating environment, able to compete more effectively, and consequently strengthen their market position.

To incorporate the rapid changes at this time, organizations should adopt an entrepreneurial stance. As Filion (1999) mentions, in the 1980s, entrepreneurship developed and spread over several areas, forcing organizations and societies to look for new strategies. For Stevenson and Jarillo (1990), entrepreneurship is observed as a process whereby entrepreneurs look for opportunities without considering the resources they control. Recognition of these opportunities extends to exploring the outside environment for different markets, existing difficulties in work methods, unmet needs, and new product/service ideas (Sandberg, 1991; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Therefore, entrepreneurship can be seen as a tool organizations should develop continuously (Dess, Lumpkin, & Eisner, 2008).

In this context, organizations are considered entrepreneurial if they show themselves to be innovative and proactive in forming partnerships (Antoncic, 2007; Franco & Haase, 2012). This organizational vision is referred to as “collaborative entrepreneurship” (Soriano & Urbano, 2009), which is the basis of this study. In this sense, partnerships have a key role in collaborative entrepreneurship, because this business form can help large and small organizations to be more entrepreneurial (Montoro-Sánchez, Criado, & Martínez, 2009). In this study, the concept of collaborative entrepreneurship is based on the creation of something of economic value emerging from ideas generated jointly through the share of information and knowledge coming from outside an organization (Kenney & Mujtaba, 2007).

Among the various sectors where organizations can adopt partnerships, sport has been gaining in importance (Babiak, 2007, 2009; Harverson, 1997; Wolfe, Meenaghanb, & O’Sullivan, 2002). In fact, sport is often used as a tool for political, commercial, and tourism advertising, that is, it is used as an instrument of foreign policies, caused by the prestige, image, and national pride associated with athletes’ victories. As Ratten (2011b) notes, sport as an industry is among the world’s largest and affects other industries, including education, which have an integral focus on entrepreneurship.

However, despite entrepreneurship and sports management growing significantly in the last decade (Ratten, 2010b), there is little investigation linking entrepreneurship to sport. “Sport entrepreneurship consists of individual entrepreneurs who leverage opportunities that arise from their networks and optimize resources by identifying where they are most effective” (Ratten, 2011b, p. 43). In this study, the overall objective is to draw on the entrepreneurial process of discovery, enactment, evaluation, and exploitation of market opportunities (Baker, Gedajlovic, & Lubatkin, 2005) to focus on university sport entrepreneurship in the Portuguese context.

This research seeks to analyze which factors are determinant for entrepreneurship sustained by sport and to what extent partnerships in this sector are a basis for institutes of higher education. More specifically, this study approaches partnerships in university sport from a perspective of collaborative entrepreneurship.

Although some contributions analyze the relationship between entrepreneurship and organizational partnerships (Franco & Haase, 2012; Montoro-Sánchez et al., 2009), this is a subject that warrants investigation (Zacharakis, 1998), due to the lack of empirical research in this area (Alvarez & Barney, 2005), principally concerning the university sport sector.

No research study to date has sought to examine partnerships in the sport sector and its relationship with collaborative entrepreneurship in the Portuguese context. Therefore, and as the University of Beira Interior (UBI) is an institution/organization with success in the sporting sphere, this study aims to contribute to the area of sports relationships, because it will permit understanding of partnerships in this specific sector, from an approach of collaborative entrepreneurship.

The remainder of the article is structured as follows: The section titled “Theoretical Framework” presents theory about entrepreneurship in sport, and a conceptual framework is proposed. Following this, in “Research Method” section, we describe the research method, that is, case selection, data gathering, and data analysis. The section “Case Study: Findings and Discussion” evaluates the model and discusses the outcomes of our case study. The “Conclusions and Contributions” section concludes by presenting the contributions and limitations of our study.

Theoretical Framework

Collaborative Entrepreneurship

Research in entrepreneurship has attracted the interest of investigators, stimulating debate at both the academic and public levels (Cuervo, 2005; Lee & Venkataraman, 2006), but there is little consensus about the definition of this concept (Berglann, Moen, & Røed, 2011). This leads entrepreneurship to be considered as a phenomenon of an interdisciplinary and/or multidisciplinary essence, which is still at a somewhat undeveloped stage as a field of investigation (Gartner, 1985; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000).

Various authors (e.g., Cuervo, 2005; Lee & Venkataraman, 2006; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000) attempt to contribute toward a better definition of entrepreneurship, but the theories and methodology used to analyze this construct vary according to the topic of investigation where entrepreneurship is the subject of study.

However, and according to Filion (1999),

it was Schumpeter, in 1928, who really launched the term of entrepreneurship, clearly associating it with innovation: the essence of entrepreneurship is in perceiving and taking advantage of new opportunities in the business sphere . . . always related to creating a new way of using national resources where they are moved from their traditional use and subject to new combinations. (p. 7)

The definition of entrepreneurship found in the literature is not consensual and even reveals some discrepancy in its explanation. Whereas authors such as Miller and Friesen (1978) consider that entrepreneurship is stimulated by the environment, by structural aspects and decision making, more recent authors such as Lerner and Haber (2001) clarify that it is stimulated by culture, human capital, legislation, and the connecting networks formed with different stakeholders and with support from State institutions.

Soriano and Urbano (2009) state that in a futuristic scenario, innovation and economic development are directly related to collaboration power. Soriano and Urbano add that cooperation is a process in which two or more parties working in close collaboration reach mutually beneficial results. Various academics in the field of collaborative entrepreneurship (Franco & Haase, 2012; Soriano & Urbano, 2009) foresee that very soon organizations will look for collaborative relationships to acquire resources that allow them to remain in a state of constant innovation (Welbourne & Pardo del Val, 2009). This view is also emphasized by Miles, Miles, and Snow (2006), who clarify that collaborative entrepreneurship allows organizations to create economic value, through sharing information and knowledge, as well as the possibility to develop innovations.

Collaboration allows organizations to be innovative and entrepreneurial, continuously exploring new markets (Soriano & Urbano, 2009). This is an essential characteristic that can help organizations to widen their knowledge and perfect their innovative nature (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990). Similarly to other firms and organizations, it should also be natural for higher education institutions to change their ongoing processes and activities, and implement a new institutional model reflecting the provision of educational services within a new social environment (Drozdová, 2008).

In fact, higher education institutions are forced to explicitly prove to society that they make effective and efficient use of their resources and that their activities bear relevance to the employment market, aspects only really achievable through modern management acting in accordance with the prevailing environment (Hintea, Ringsmuth, & Mora, 2006), such as collaborative entrepreneurial processes.

According to Gupta and Govindarajan (2000), the concept of collaborative entrepreneurship is based on the creation of something with economic value arising from ideas created jointly through sharing information and knowledge coming from outside the organization. So partnerships play a key role in collaborative entrepreneurship, and this management model can help institutions of higher education to be more entrepreneurial (Montoro-Sánchez et al., 2009).

Sport Entrepreneurship

When we speak of entrepreneurship, we are speaking about business opportunities, but some more wide-ranging definitions prove that entrepreneurship goes beyond the simple act of opening new firms. Entrepreneurship should be seen as a dynamic process joining the perception, conception, and fulfillment of a business opportunity, which should include people and processes, and as a result leads to transforming ideas into opportunities. Therefore, it is the entrepreneur’s task to seize the opportunities generated by the market and correctly define his or her target public to direct his or her services and/or products.

Any partnership is based on partners’ needs and resources, in areas where own resources are less solid (J. Wilson & Hynes, 2008). Partnerships (even in sport) aim to stimulate each firm’s capacity so that they can join resources to become more powerful in the market (Bucklin & Sengupta, 1993): increased sponsorship, associates, locations, public, and so on. This idea is shared by Yan and Sorenson (2003) when they state that businesspeople/managers who instill an organizational culture based on the collective spirit create an entrepreneurial culture, with this being a pillar in sustaining and growing their organizations. Collaboration is therefore a strategy that allows organizations (e.g., universities, faculties, sport clubs) to access resources and competences, this being seen as a form of collaborative entrepreneurship.

In fact, financial restrictions, rapid technological change, and rising coordination difficulties raise the level of uncertainty and dynamism of the university context. The implications of this scenario for the organization and management of universities may be analyzed within the scope of the evolution from the classical university to the current university environment (Bok, 2003; Davies, 1987; Hounshell, 1996), where collaborative entrepreneurship can assume an important role. This perspective suggests that the organization and management of universities need to adapt to more complex and dynamic environments (Reid, 2010).

In this study, it is therefore important to focus entrepreneurship on sport, which according to Ratten (2010b) can incorporate different categories/dimensions. In this study, the focus is on sport entrepreneurship that can be community-based and social entrepreneurship.

Community Entrepreneurship

Haugh and Pardy (1999) state that community entrepreneurship is an example of organizational activity emerging through groups with economic and social benefits for society. Haugh and Pardy add that community entrepreneurship requires long-term support infrastructure, of people and resources, to implement the entrepreneurial spirit in any community. For Ratten (2010b), community entrepreneurship can also involve aspects of social responsibility and philanthropy, when sports organizations form partnerships with local community groups to address social issues (e.g., obesity).

In this context, and concerning sport, community entrepreneurship occurs when sports teams, organizations, or players join forces with community organizations, including schools, universities, nonprofit-making organizations, and local authorities (Ratten, 2010b, 2011a), that is, uniting efforts allows them to overcome some of the needs perceived in a given place, local community, neighborhood, or street. Intercommunity sport events can help build social capital within diverse communities (Schulenkorf, 2009). We can therefore say that community entrepreneurship is a cultural phenomenon resulting from people’s habits, practices, and values.

Stevenson and Jarillo (1990) state that collaboration can help firms to raise their level of knowledge and develop their innovative characteristics. In turn, Gundry and Kickul (2007) explain that the community entrepreneurship phenomenon requires collaboration between the parties involved.

In universities, sport is hailed as innovative and directed toward the youth market using some marketing techniques (Chalip, 2004), such as sponsorship of a sports team and cooperation with the media in terms of advertising and/or press coverage (Ratten, 2010b).

Social Entrepreneurship

While some authors state that social entrepreneurship is concentrated exclusively on solving social, educational, economic, and environmental problems, others see it from the perspective of creating a social firm that will introduce an innovative approach to deal with these same problems (Makhlouf, 2011). Makhlouf (2011) also mentions that social entrepreneurship differs from commercial entrepreneurship, because it deals with sustainable solutions for social problems, aiming for social change rather than focusing on market expansion. For Makhlouf, social entrepreneurship refers to individuals with an innovative solution for social problems. Although social entrepreneurship can take the form of a for-profit firm, its profits go toward its sustainability in solving social aspects or relationships with the external environment.

In the field of social entrepreneurship, sport has the same purpose (i.e., to promote social change). According to Dyreson (2001), sport is culturally important and creates social capital for the people, organizations, and institutions involved. As Amit, Brigham, and Markman (2000) state, to facilitate social entrepreneurship, a corporate culture that facilitates curiosity, learning, and innovation is important.

Regular participation in physical activities, a variable very often associated with academic success by scientific research, has also effects in promoting human development, not only in terms of organic systems but also in terms of posture and the locomotor system. In this connection, there are also obvious advantages from participation in sport in perceptual motor development, optimizing body image, sense of direction, perception, and space and time configuration (Gallahue & Ozmun, 1995).

At present, many firms concentrate on putting information on their sites about their initiatives regarding social responsibility in sport, so as to encourage employees to get involved in sports promotion and therefore respond to existing social concerns. Here, Holt (1995) argues that the internationalization of many sports such as football allowed sports teams an opportunity to encourage better social practices worldwide, such as promoting recycling, the use of public transport, and healthy lifestyles.

Indeed, sport allied to social responsibility provides a beneficial platform for the development of social systems. Social responsibility is a moral value and should be introduced in organizations as part of their decision-making process, with this being, in sport, an opportunity for organizations to improve their results and so gain more business and greater profits (Ratten, 2010a). This researcher also argues that sport is important in promoting interdependence, social responsibility, and a common interest among parties involved.

Summarizing, Figure 1 shows the conceptual framework that can be used in sport entrepreneurship from a collaborative entrepreneurship perspective.

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework of sport entrepreneurship.

Research Method

Case Selection and Characterization

Given the aims of this investigation, an exploratory qualitative methodology was chosen, dealing with a case study (Yin, 2002). At present, a growing number of higher education institutes are found to use sport as a communication tool in a marketing strategy to attract and retain students. Therefore, this investigation selected a Portuguese higher education institute—UBI—as the context of analysis (case study). According to Patton (1990), this type of research approach generally concentrates on relatively small samples or even on isolated cases.

The UBI is a State Institute of Higher Education situated in the town of Covilhã, Portugal. It has around 1,100 collaborators spread over the various departments. Through the Academic Association of the University of Beira Interior (AAUBI), this university was one of the founders and is currently an associate member of the Academic Federation of University Sport (Federação Académica de Desporto Universitário [FADU]). Today, this organization is a significant sporting association in Portugal and beyond, standing out due to its multiple sports and being part of the framework of the educational system, with higher education students forming its committees (FADU, 2009).

The UBI, more specifically the Cultural and Sports Section of its Social Action Services (SASUBI), has as its mission the promotion of regular sporting activities in all the institution’s academic community. According to SASUBI, the purpose of these services is to “promote the academic and sporting spirit, and activate socialization and the exchange of experiences among students at UBI; increase the exchange between Portuguese university communities and those of other countries; and promote a healthy lifestyle” (UBI, 2011).

“The SASUBI are an integral unit of the University of Beira Interior, with Financial Administrative Autonomy under the protection of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education (MTES)” (UBI, 2010a, p. 53). Regarding sport, it is important to highlight that “in university competitions, named National University Championships (CNUs), various sports are included in the Academic Federation of University Sport (FADU)” (UBI, 2010b, p. 45).

UBI takes part in 14 different sports. SASUBI organize a series of regular sporting activities, which are as follows: Male Handball, Athletics, Badminton, Male Basketball, Female Basketball, Male Football, Male 5-a-side Football, Female 5-a-side Football, Swimming, Male Rugby, Tennis, Table Tennis, Female Volleyball, and Male Volleyball. These competitive activities are directed to students with the aim of participating in the National University Championships (CNUs) of the Academic Federation of University Sport—FADU.

Therefore, and because university sport and sport in general are increasingly understood as a sociocultural phenomenon, UBI was chosen for this study as it is an institute of higher education forming various partnerships, specifically in the area of sport, with different organizations/associations and the community.

Data Collection and Data Analysis

The goal of qualitative investigation is not to list or measure events, but rather to obtain descriptive data, through the researcher’s direct or indirect contact with the situation under study (Patton, 1990; Yin, 2002).

For Tuckman (2000), there are three types of sources for obtaining data normally used in a case study: interviews, various documents, and observation. So for this study, an empirical investigation was carried out by means of direct observation, document analysis (statutes and the UBI site), and a semistructured interview with the head of SASUBI–UBI, more precisely its Administrator.

The interview took place on February 9, 2012, and lasted about 40 min, being conducted by a script (protocol) that was developed based on the literature consulted (e.g., Report of Activities at UBI 2010, Accounting Report of UBI 2010, Tribuna Desportiva) and on the dimensions of the proposed conceptual framework.

In treatment of the information gathered, essentially content analysis was used, which for Bardin (2004), and Quivy and Campenhoudt (1992), involves various types of messages: articles, official documents, or interview reports. This analysis is also sustained on references gathered from text excerpts to allow easier understanding of the interview held, the principal focus of this study. This reinforces the idea of Bardin, when he justifies communication analysis techniques that use systematic leads and objectives of message content description.

Case Study: Findings and Discussion

University Sport Partnerships

The main objective of this study is to consider partnerships in university sport as collaborative entrepreneurship. As Pessoa and Oliveira (2006) state, universities have recently come to depend on entrepreneurial attitudes to survive in the market. In fact, Pessoa and Oliveira add that partnerships and entrepreneurial models are essential for universities to be self-sustaining in the market, hold on to their credibility, their financial results, and stakeholder satisfaction.

Concerning the motives for forming university sport partnerships between SASUBI and various institutions associated with sport and the community, the statements obtained from the Administrator of this institution reveal,

SASUBI have formed various interinstitutional cooperation agreements with a view to contributing to extending the social dimension of UBI. Through opening up UBI to the surrounding community and the early involvement of young children and their families in the academic community, these agreements can be seen as an intelligent means of attracting and retaining future members from that community in this institution.

Therefore, through this type of partnership, there is greater reinforcement of the university’s institutional image in society as a whole, and new publics are attracted to this institute of higher education. The benefits are multiple. First, these partnerships in sport generate income as people are brought to the university, and second, new students are attracted and local families and those from further afield are shown what UBI stands for.

So concerning the entrepreneurial philosophy of the SASUBI, the Administrator explains,

The SASUBI direct their activity to carrying out innovation, which in our case means providing high-quality services at the lowest cost possible. In this connection, we have been diversifying the services offered and our strategic partnerships, aiming to add value to our activities of direct social support (grants) and those of indirect social support (food and nutrition; culture and sport; accommodation; psychological support; and social entrepreneurship).

Through this collaborative strategy, the institute of higher education studied here can achieve a greater dimension, share and reduce costs, acquire organizational bonuses, and stimulate learning. Partnerships imply that the organizations involved are able to exchange and share resources and competences to create value and develop more resources and capacities to reach a competitive advantage (J. Wilson & Hynes, 2008).

Also on partnership formation and the entrepreneurial spirit, the interviewee of SASUBI–UBI goes on to say,

There was complete reconstruction of the organizational system of the Social Action Services, which allowed not only rationalization of the structure, but I can also say this has been an excellent year and the best year in terms of results in the last 11 years.

He adds, “We innovate, provide a quality service at minimum cost, even with fewer human resources.” In this respect, the Administrator of SASUBI also highlights, “It is extraordinarily important that partnerships grow in number but above all in quality . . . what we’re going to do is create agreements with Institutions with a national impact.” As an “entrepreneur,” the interviewee adds that these agreements

connect us to other bodies, show the capacities of UBI, the competences of its human resources, gets the loyalty of those who are here, retains those who are here, and attracts others . . . We’ve followed a quite constructed strategy, focusing on children and on the children’s families.

In this context, one of the motives for forming these partnerships is the benefits achieved. So in this chapter of motivation, the interviewee adds, “Strengthening the institutional image of the university in the community as a whole, attracting new publics, retaining existing ones, and above all the commitment of the younger age groups to the university.” In addition, the UBI Administrator highlights the frequency and early age at which youngsters get to know the university. He also stresses that

the amount of competitions UBI has organized in the last two and a half years, you can be absolutely sure that a worthwhile percentage of people, by having passed through here, are bound to make the choice, because they will have fond memories of the facilities, people, human resources involved in the organization and training.

In this connection, and about partnerships in sport that allow benefits for both parties, the head of SASUBI–UBI answered metaphorically,

Always . . . our intention is to increase the value of the cake, look for the yeast to increase the area and value of the cake, and then we will distribute the slices, because by managing to do this, the slices will be bigger both for ourselves and our partners.

As for future expectations from partnerships, the SASUBI–UBI Administrator underlined,

The expectation is that the university will have better facilities for the different sports and that the Academic Association will continue to cooperate strategically with the Social Action Services. In this model of organizing the sports offered, which brings results/benefits . . . , also brings great effectiveness and in addition, gives the academic community the image of a healthy community with habits of discipline, training, exceeding goals, effort, work, and also teamwork. And above all, it increases the honor, the pride of representing the university.

Also according to the interviewee, “A university that wins in sport is certainly a university that wins in other areas.” According to the empirical evidence obtained, the benefits that partnerships in sport can bring to universities are visible.

Collaborative Process in University Sport Entrepreneurship

Just as in the conceptual framework proposed, in this study, it was important to distinguish two forms of entrepreneurship that can be associated with sport (Ratten, 2010b): entrepreneurship that is community-based and social entrepreneurship.

Regarding community entrepreneurship, this is evident in UBI, because this institute of higher education joins forces with other local bodies to contribute to nonprofit-making associations.

On this type of action, the Administrator mentions several examples:

much of our connection with the community involves making our premises more open and making our human resources available.

Last year, we organized the first rector’s tournament, which consisted basically of sports participation dedicated to basketball, volleyball, and 5-a-side football. This allowed us to collect donations in kind, which went to the Food Bank to Combat Hunger . . . , and monetary donations went to Portuguese Cancer Research.

We’ve regularly organized walks, resulting from agreements the University formed with Portuguese Cancer Research, and also with the Food Bank to Combat Hunger. The second walk had an increase of 200 participants and involved some local community councils, Friends of the local Hospital and the Beira Serra Association [that is, it involved the community].

This direct connection that sport has to social issues means that improvements in areas such as health, the environment, and diversity can be addressed by providing guidance to organizations to act in a responsible and positive manner. As Ratten (2010b, 2011b) explains, this form of community entrepreneurship occurs when organizations join forces in favor of social issues. Indeed, another situation where community entrepreneurship is found is in the opening up of the premises to the community. In this way, this university allows needs in its local area to be filled. This procedure brings economic and social benefits for society, this also being a form of community entrepreneurship (Haugh & Pardy, 1999).

In relation to formation of sporting partnerships by UBI, there are also benefits taken from and opportunities provided to other institutions, that is, there is collaboration between the parties involved, with this, according to Gundry and Kickul (2007), being a characteristic of collaborative entrepreneurship.

For the Administrator of SASUBI–UBI, this type of collaborative entrepreneurship occurs in various ways:

At present, SASUBI-UBI has agreements with institutions in the region, with the Sporting Club of Covilhã, with the Sports Association of Fundão, and also with the Vitória of Santo António for judo, the Oriental of São Martinho with table tennis and recently we have also organized activities in skating, which is also an innovation. Nationally, we have agreements with the Portuguese Basketball Federation, with the Basketball Federation of Castelo Branco and, more recently, with the Winter Sports Association and now also with the Sporting Club of Portugal. (Tribuna Desportiva, 2012, p. 10)

From the statements obtained from this institution, we see that sport partnerships are also motivated by access to sponsorship, financing, and cost reduction. According to Gardner and Shuman (1988) and Keller (2003), sport sponsorship is considered to be an effective means of enhancing brand awareness and brand image. E. Wilson, Nielsen, and Buultjens (2009) state that partnerships are seen as a means to generate more funding beyond dependence on government sources. This is even more relevant in the current political climate, which encourages higher education institutions all over the world to find opportunities to increase self-sufficiency.

Sport agreements/partnerships aim “first, to make our services more visible, and second, to show the quality of the services provided, namely, in food, accommodation, catering, in the area of cultural and sporting activities.” As pointed out by the interviewee, this form of collaborative entrepreneurship occurs in various ways:

SASUBI–UBI intends, through its partnerships to transmit internally and communicate externally, that the university possesses support infrastructure able to provide high-quality services such as conferences, workshops, another type of civic intervention, and national and international sporting competitions. So the university doesn’t just stand by its teaching and research activities, its value is also in the way it is managed, the way it’s organized, and the way it provides support services to its main activities, which are teaching and research.

Another fundamental aspect is increasingly linking the investigation carried out in the university in the area of health and life sciences with the area of sport science and above all with investigation connected to management and marketing. Here, the matter of Sport Management stands out.

On this subject, the Administrator explains that

with excellent athletes and trainers, but without leaders, particularly sport managers, we cannot expect to get results that go beyond what is normal . . . ; we should prepare in that area and have the capacity to introduce those people in the employment market, coaches, trainers, directors, athletes, and researchers connected to these questions, which is also very important and that is what can differentiate us from other universities.

The quality of teaching and research in universities can determine their excellence and their visibility, but these institutions cannot distance themselves from their social responsibility and social dimension. Therefore, “the value of the university comes not only from its teaching and research activities but also from how it is managed, how it is organized, and how it provides support services to the main activities of teaching and research,” the UBI Administrator adds.

As for social entrepreneurship at UBI, its application is obvious through the Department of Psychological Support, directed to the whole academic community, and the 5-a-side football school directed toward children. The Administrator explains,

[The] organization of actions showing social responsibility and solidarity, as happened just recently with the 5-a-side football tournament in Fundão, gives the university a positive image.

. . . two projects which should be highlighted:

(1) Department of Psychological Support and Social Entrepreneurship, which basically provides services to the academic community, organizing . . . deals with relationship matters such as coping with anxiety, stress, timetabling activities, time management . . . accompaniment and specific training directed to the academic community.

(2) 5-a-side Football School we have with the Sporting Club of Covilhã, which briefly, has more than 20 children, regularly playing the sport every Saturday, and what’s more, we have a youth team competing in the district league.

With these types of partnerships, UBI integrates its students and in so doing, considering the financial difficulties being experienced in Portugal at present, it is a way to prevent students from “abandoning” the institution. This is indirect social support. More and more, university students and collaborators need accompaniment and specific training directed toward the academic community.

The interviewee mentions yet another project:

We are also developing a project with the Delta business group, which is pioneering. We’re going to do it with Covilhã International School, the Secondary School, and also with the Beira Serra Association, which is aimed at different publics, from underprivileged children to more fortunate ones, and here we’ll adopt a manual developed by the Alice Nabeiro Foundation to teach entrepreneurship to children between 3 and 12 years old . . . this is a project, . . . to then be able to teach children how to be entrepreneurial.

These interinstitutional partnerships are important, because they connect the university to other bodies, and show what it can offer and the competences of its human resources. As the interviewee says, “Irrespective of the university being national and increasingly international, it must have a basis of sustainability in its own geographical area.” Indeed, universities must be well rooted in their immediate geographical area of influence, and a way to achieve this is “through increasing its reputation and intangible capital,” as the interviewee from UBI stresses.

In fact, all of these efforts have involved collaborative partnerships. Through sport, UBI encourages social change, this being important in generating social capital for the population and for the organization. For Dyreson (2001) and Makhlouf (2011), social entrepreneurship can be seen as a solution to social problems or as an innovative approach in dealing with a social problem. In this connection, and as Ratten (2010a) emphasizes, universities also have the moral need to promote, through sport, better social practices and policies.

As can be observed, the UBI, through its Department of Social Action Services, possesses entrepreneurial characteristics that create and develop new market opportunities. However, these characteristics arise from its collaborators (internal entrepreneurs) who are the ones who stimulate entrepreneurship within organizations as well as the formation of interinstitutional partnerships.

To sum up, sport partnerships are viewed as a vehicle for accessing additional resources, specialized skills, and funding (Bucklin & Sengupta, 1993; Laing et al., 2008). The majority of university partnerships are to be found in the development, financing, implementation, and management of infrastructure. Therefore, sport partnerships allow integration of fundamental strategic resources and other business, so that increasingly an entrepreneurial university manages to reach its objectives.

Synthesis of Empirical Evidence

After analyzing and discussing the data, and based on the empirical evidence obtained from the selected case, a synthesis of the results obtained was formed (Figure 2). So the present study is a contribution to the scientific debate about the interface of collaborative entrepreneurship and university sport partnership areas. According to the objective and theoretical framework developed, this case study allowed analysis of the effect of both community entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship on the university sport collaborative process.

Figure 2.

Fundamental characteristics of entrepreneurship in university sport–UBI.

Conclusions and Contributions

In an increasingly complex and competitive organizational climate, it is unlikely that organizations can act in isolation. This emerging cooperation and entrepreneurial attitude, therefore, becomes an essential strategy for organizations’ development, success or even survival, in a variety of sectors including that of university sport.

There is a range of challenges affecting on universities, such as shrinking financial resources, demographic changes among the student population, the need to attract students, and remain engaged with the community, and so on (Kogan, Bauer, Bleiklie, & Henkel, 2006; Shapiro, 2005). Due to the growing emergence of these new challenges and so as to establish an entrepreneurial culture at the heart of universities, the adoption of sport partnerships appears as one possible response to these challenges through reinforcing resources of a diverse nature. Thus, collaborative entrepreneurship through university sport partnerships can be a crucial strategy to overcome these constraints.

The aim of this investigation concerned the importance of partnerships in sport in institutes of higher education as a form of collaborative entrepreneurship. More precisely, the study was based on exploring and identifying the main motives and benefits in partnerships and collaborative entrepreneurship in an institute of higher education in an inland region of Portugal: UBI–SASUBI.

Based on the empirical evidence obtained, we conclude that sport partnerships, including higher education institutions, can be understood from the perspective of collaborative entrepreneurship, in that these relationships combine the interests of different institutions in carrying out common projects of value and social intervention, facilitating integration and the opening up of universities to society and both internal and external stakeholders. Collaborative entrepreneurship appeared to be helping the higher education institution studied here (UBI) accomplish one or more of its goals. Although collaborative entrepreneurship can reveal unquestionable advantages and benefits in its development, the difficulties and obstacles universities face in creating and organizing them are also undeniable. This collaborative process is developed from partnerships between two or more parties, all aiming to achieve beneficial results. As Todeva and Knoke (2005) note, there are cases where sport partnerships can present uncertainties that can become a problem when new structures, new practices, and different movements between stakeholders are necessary.

In this connection, sport partnerships are unanimously recognized as important forms of collaborative entrepreneurship for promoting long-term strategic thinking, some of them established between two or more public or private associations/institutions.

Regarding entrepreneurship in the sports sector, the case studied here unites the two main dimensions of this organizational phenomenon, more specifically, the university studied has adopted policies of community entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship.

The results of this study also present some theoretical and practical contributions. This study aims to be a contribution to the field of relationships in university sport and collaborative entrepreneurship, because it will allow comprehension of partnerships in this specific sector. In particular, the relational and entrepreneurship perspectives offer a way for actors to move forward. To bring about these sport partnerships, actors must be prepared to embrace and develop collaborative relationships. These insights lead us to some practical recommendations for various stakeholders associated with higher education institutes, namely, the inclusion in these institutions’ cultural and social action services of different sports through cooperation with various organizations, with a view to instilling an entrepreneurial spirit and culture in universities, as a way of capturing and retaining students and involving the whole community.

Our study also argues that the entrepreneurship approach can provide insight for scholars, as well as a strategic map of pragmatic value to managers grappling with the problems of the dynamic university sports environment. Similarly, application of the collaborative entrepreneurship perspective in the sports domain may provide worthwhile insights into how such an approach can contribute to the understanding of exchange-based phenomena in situations as complex as higher education institutions.

This study presents some limitations. One of the principal ones concerns the fact the study is restricted to only one case/institution. Due to this limitation, it is suggested that future studies consider other cases/bodies with partnerships and collaborative entrepreneurship in sport, so that a comparative study can be made. Regarding methodology, it should be mentioned that choice of the case study method, while allowing extensive and specific information about the phenomena of interorganizational partnerships and sport entrepreneurship, produces results and conclusions that cannot be generalized. Therefore, this limitation imposes the need to confirm results obtained from other institutions and in the future adopt a quantitative approach to allow generalization. Through using a mix of quantitative and qualitative methodologies, a larger sample of respondents could be studied and a quantitative empirical basis could be established to refine and adapt some of the key constructs in the partnership phenomenon.

Finally, despite the limitations described in this study, it is considered that the results and conclusions obtained can be a valid contribution to comprehension of the main dimensions of partnerships in the sport sector as collaborative entrepreneurship for organizations such as higher education institutes consider this strategy as an example to follow in the future.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by a Research Unit (NECE), financed by the FCT - Science and Technology Foundation of Portugal.

Author Biographies

Mário Franco is an assistant professor of entrepreneurship and small- and medium-size enterprise (SME) Administration at the Department of Management and Economics, Beira Interior University, Portugal. He received his PhD in management from Beira Interior University in 2002. In 1997, he was a doctoral candidate and participated in the European Doctoral Programme in Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management in Spain and Sweden. His research focuses on strategic alliances, business networks, innovation, and business creation. He is also a member of a Research Center (Núcleo de Estudos em Ciências Empresariais [NECE]) and currently involved in several research projects on SMEs.

Nuno Pessoa is a collaborator at Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, University of Beira Interior. He graduated in marketing in 2010 at University of Beira Interior. He completed a master’s degree in marketing in 2012. The investigative work he has carried out deals with the role of interorganizational partnerships in sport sector.

References

Alvarez

S. A.

Barney

J. B.

(2005). How do entrepreneurs organize firms under conditions of uncertainty? Journal of Management, 31, 776-793.

Amit

R. H.

Brigham

Markman

G. D.

(2000). Entrepreneurship in the new competitive landscape. In Meyer

G. D.

Heppard

K. A.

(Eds.), Entrepreneurship as strategy (pp. 83-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Antoncic

(2007). Intrapreneurship: A comparative structural equation modeling study. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107, 309-325.

Babiak

(2007). Determinants of interorganizational relationships: The case of a Canadian nonprofit sport organization. Journal of Sport Management, 21, 338-376.

Babiak

(2009). Criteria of effectiveness in multiple cross-sectoral interorganizational relationships. Evaluation and Program Planning, 32, 1-12.

Baker

Gedajlovic

Lubatkin

(2005). A framework for comparing entrepreneurship processes across nations. Journal of International Business Studies, 36, 492-504.

Bardin

(2004). Content analysis (3rd ed.). Lisbon, Portugal: Editions 70.

Berglann

Moen

E. R.

Røed

(2011). Entrepreneurship: Origins and returns. Labour Economics, 18, 180-193.

Bok

(2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

10.

Bucklin

L. P.

Sengupta

(1993). Organizing successful co-marketing alliances. Journal of Marketing, 57, 32-46.

11.

Chalip

(2004). Beyond impact: A general model for host community event leverage. In Ritchie

Adair

(Eds.), Sport tourism: Interrelationships, impacts and issues (pp. 226-252). Clevedon, UK: Channel View Publications.

12.

Cuervo

(2005). Individual and environmental determinants of entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1, 293-311.

13.

Davies

(1987). The entrepreneurial and adaptive university. Institutional Management in Higher Education, 2, 33-39.

14.

Dess

G. G.

Lumpkin

G. T.

Eisner

A. B.

(2008). Strategic management: Creating competitive advantage (4rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

15.

Drozdová

(2008). New business model of educational institutions. Ekonomie a Management, 1, 60-68.

16.

Dyreson

(2001). Maybe it’s better to bowl alone: Sport, community and democracy in American thought. Sports in Society: Culture, Sport, Society, 4, 19-30.

17.

Federação Académica de Desporto Universitário. (2011). Retrieved from www.fadu.pt

18.

Filion

L. J.

(1999). Empreendedorismo: Empreendedores e proprietários-gerentes de pequenos negócios [Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurs and owner-managers of small businesses]. Revista de Administração, 34, 5-28.

19.

Franco

Haase

(2012). Interfirm alliances: A collaborative entrepreneurship perspective. In Burger-Helmchen

(Ed.), Entrepreneurship—Creative and innovative business models (Chapter 7, pp. 115-138). Croatia: InTech.

20.

Gallahue

D. L.

Ozmun

J. C.

(1995). Understanding motor development: Infants, children, adolescents (3rd ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Benchmark Press.

21.

Gardner

M. P.

Shuman

(1988). Sponsorship and small business. Journal of Small Business Management, 26, 44-52.

22.

Gartner

W. B.

(1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. Academy of Management Review, 10, 696-706.

23.

Gundry

L. K.

Kickul

J. R.

(2007). Entrepreneurship strategy: Changing patterns in new venture creation, growth and reinvention. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

24.

Gupta

A. K.

Govindarajan

(2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 481-510.

25.

Harverson

(1997, March 14). The business of sport. Finance Times, p. 33.

26.

Haugh

H. M.

Pardy

(1999). Community entrepreneurship in North East Scotland. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 5, 163-172.

27.

Hintea

Ringsmuth

Mora

(2006). The reform of the higher education public administration programs in the context of public administration reform in Romania. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 16E, 40-46.

28.

Holt

D. B.

(1995). How consumers consume: A typology of consumption practices. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 1-16.

29.

Hounshell

(1996). The evolution of industrial research in the United States. In Rosenbloom

Spencer

(Eds.), Engines of innovation: U.S. industrial research at the end of an era (pp. 110-137). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

30.

Keller

K. L.

(2003). Building, measuring, and managing brand equity (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

31.

Kenney

Mujtaba

(2007). Understanding corporate entrepreneurship and development: A practitioner view of organizational intrapreneurship. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 12, 73-88.

32.

Kogan

Bauer

Bleiklie

Henkel

(2006). Transforming higher education: A comparative study. Higher Education Dynamics, 13, 25-46.

33.

Laing

Wegner

Moore

Weiler

Pfueller

Lee

(2008). Understanding partnerships for protected area tourism: Learning from the literature. Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia: CRC for Sustainable Tourism.

34.

Lee

J. H.

Venkataraman

(2006). Aspirations, market offerings, and the pursuit of entrepreneurial opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 21, 107-123.

35.

Lerner

Haber

(2001). Performance factors of small tourism ventures: The interface of tourism, entrepreneurship and the environment. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 77-100.

36.

Makhlouf

H. H.

(2011). Social entrepreneurship: Generating solutions to global challenges. International Journal of Management & Information Systems, 15, 1-8.

37.

Miles

R. E.

Miles

Snow

C. C.

(2006). Collaborative entrepreneurship: A business model for continuous innovation. Organizational Dynamics, 35, 1-11.

38.

Miller

Friesen

(1978). Archetypes of strategy formulation. Management Science, 24, 921-933.

39.

Montoro-Sánchez

Criado

M. O.

Martínez

A. M.

(2009). The decision to use alliances as corporate entrepreneurship: The role of resources and skills. Group Decision and Negotiation, 18, 431-448.

40.

Patton

M. Q.

(1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

41.

Pessoa

Oliveira

K. C.

(2006). Perfil intra-empreendedor: Um estudo inicial em funcionários da infraero-sede [Intra-entrepreneur profile: An initial study in employees of the Infraero-Sede]. Revista do Serviço Público, 57, 507-529.

42.

Quivy

Campenhoudt

(1992). Manual de Investigação em Ciências Sociais [Research methodology in social sciences]. Lisboa, Portugal: Gradiva–Publicações.

43.

Ratten

(2010a). The future of sports management: A social responsibility, philanthropy and entrepreneurship perspective. Journal of Management & Organization, 16, 488-494.

44.

Ratten

(2010b). Sport-based entrepreneurship: Towards a new theory of entrepreneurship and sport management. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7, 57-69.

45.

Ratten

(2011a). Practical implications and future research directions for international for international sports management. Thunderbird International Business Review, 53, 763-770.

46.

Ratten

(2011b). Social entrepreneurship and innovation in sports. International Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 1, 42-54.

47.

Reid

(2010). Management of school attendance in the UK: A strategic analysis. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38, 88-106.

48.

Sandberg

W. R.

(1991). Strategic management’s potential contributions to a theory of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16, 73-90.

49.

Schulenkorf

(2009). An ex ante framework for the strategic study of social utility of sports events. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 9, 120-131.

50.

Shane

Venkataraman

(2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25, 217-225.

51.

Shapiro

(2005). A larger sense of purpose: Higher education and society. Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press.

52.

Soriano

D. R.

Urbano

(2009). Overview of collaborative entrepreneurship: An integrated approach between business decisions and negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation, 18, 419-430.

53.

Stevenson

Jarillo

J. C.

(1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 17-27.

54.

Todeva

Knoke

(2005). Strategic alliances and models of collaboration. Management Decision, 43, 123-126.

55.

Tribuna Desportiva, Ano XVII, n^° 883, 7 Fevereiro de 2012.

56.

Tuckman

(2000). Manual de investigação em educação [Research methodology in education]. Lisboa, Portugal: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.

57.

University of Beira Interior. (2010a). Relatório & Contas 2010 [Report & accounts 2010]. Covilhã, Portugal: Author.

58.

University of Beira Interior. (2010b). Relatório de Atividades 2010 [Report of activities 2010]. Covilhã, Portugal: Serviços de Ação Social, University of Beira Interior.

59.

University of Beira Interior. (2011). Retrieved from https://www.ubi.pt/Index.aspx

60.

Welbourne

T. M.

Pardo del Val

(2009). Relational capital: Strategic advantage for small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs) through negotiation and collaboration. Group Decision and Negotiation, 18, 483-497.

61.

Wilson

Nielsen

Buultjens

(2009). From lessees to partners: Exploring tourism public-private partnerships within the New South Wales national parks and wildlife service. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17, 269-285.

62.

Wilson

Hynes

(2008). Co-evolution of firms and strategic alliances: Theory and empirical evidence. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 76, 620-628.

63.

Wolfe

Meenaghanb

O’Sullivan

(2002). The sports network: Insights into the shifting balance of power. Journal of Business Research, 55, 611-622.

64.

Yan

Sorenson

R. L.

(2003). Collective entrepreneurship in family firms: The influence of leader attitudes and behaviors. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 6, 37-51.

65.

Yin

R. K.

(2002). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

66.

Zacharakis

A. L.

(1998). Entrepreneurial entry into foreign markets: A transaction cost perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21, 23-39.