The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 320–337 | Cite as

Entrepreneurial performance of principal investigators and country culture: relations and influences

  • Manlio Del Giudice
  • Melita Nicotra
  • Marco Romano
  • Carmela Elita Schillaci
Article

Abstract

The paper focuses on the role of a country’s culture in influencing the entrepreneurial attitudes of Principal Investigators, in shaping their ability to combine knowledge theory and business practice, in determining their capacity to strengthen the cooperation between the two domains of research and business, and in supporting research spin-off creation in entrepreneurial universities. To make Principal Investigators’ orientation match Entrepreneurial Universities’ goals of the marketing of innovation and entrepreneurship is not an easy task. A research-oriented approach, rather than an explorative entrepreneurial orientation, is still predominant in Principal Investigators. Among the factors influencing the strategic orientation towards entrepreneurship of Principal Investigators, the paper argues that the country’s culture could be key. Evaluating the influence of the entrepreneurial culture on a Principal Investigator’s activity is critical in predicting his performance and comparing it with that of Principal Investigators in other countries.

Keywords

Principal investigator Country culture Entrepreneurial performance Entrepreneurial orientation 

References

  1. Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2004). Does entrepreneurship capital matter? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(5), 419–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2007). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies, 44(7), 1242–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourke, P., & Butler, L. (1999). The efficacy of different modes of funding research: Perspectives from Australian data on the biological sciences. Research Policy, 28(5), 489–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campanella, F., Della Peruta, M. R., & Del Giudice, M. (2013). The role of sociocultural background on the characteristics and the financing of youth entrepreneurship. An exploratory study of university graduates in Italy. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4(3), 244–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlson, S. D. (1985). Consistency of attitude components: A new proposal for an old problem. Dissertation Abstract International, 46(09B), 3261–3281.Google Scholar
  6. Carroll, G., & Mosakowski, E. (1987). The career dynamics of self-employment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 570–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Casati, A., & Genet, C. (2014). Principal investigators as scientific entrepreneurs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(1), 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charlton, B. G. (2009). Why are modern scientists so dull? How science selects for perseverance and sociability at the expense of intelligence and creativity. Medical Hypotheses, 72(3), 237–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities, society for research into higher education. London: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R.R., Rosenberg, N., et al. (2002). How do university inventions get into practice? Management Science, 48(1), 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cunningham, J., Mangematin, V., O’Kane, C., & O’Reilly, P. (2016). At the frontiers of scientific advancement: The factors that influence scientists to become or choose to become publicly funded principal investigators. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(4), 778–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cunningham, J., O’Reilly, P., O’Kane, C., & Mangematin, V. (2014). The inhibiting factors that principal investigators experience in leading publicly funded research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(1), 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davidsson, P., & Wiklund, J. (1997). Values, beliefs and regional variations in new firm formation rates. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18(2–3), 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Del Giudice, M., & Maggioni, V. (2014). Managerial practices and operative directions of knowledge management within inter-firm networks: a global view. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(5), 841–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Edquist, C. (1997). Systems of innovation. London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
  16. Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university—industry linkages. Research Policy, 27(8), 823–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2007). Universities and the global knowledge economy: A triple helix of university-industry-government relations. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  18. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Cantisano Terra, B. R. (2000). The future of the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29, 313–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eurobarometer. (2012). Entrepreneurship in the EU and beyond, report 354.Google Scholar
  20. Evans, D., & Leighton, L. (1989). Some empirical aspects of entrepreneurship. American Economic Review, 79, 519–535.Google Scholar
  21. Fitzsimmons, J. R., & Douglas, E. J. (2011). Interaction between feasibility and desirability in the formation of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 431–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heinze, T., Shapira, P., Rogers, J. D., & Senker, J. M. (2009). Organizational and institutional influences on creativity in scientific research. Research Policy, 38, 610–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills/London: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  25. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  27. Hunt, H. K., Huefner, J. C., Voegele, C., & Robinson, P. B. (1989). The entrepreneurial consumer. In G. E. Hills, R. W. LaForge, & B. J. Parker (Eds.), Research at the marketing/entrepreneurship interface (pp. 175–184). Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago.Google Scholar
  28. Jackson, J. E., & Rodkey, G. R. (1994). The attitudinal climate for entrepreneurial activity. Public Opinion Quarterly, 58(3), 358–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91(1), 240–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jensen, R. A., Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2003). Disclosure and licensing of University inventions: The best we can do with the s**t we get to work with. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 1271–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jha, S. (2008). Trade, institutions and religious tolerance: Evidence from India. Stanford University Research Paper, 2004.Google Scholar
  32. Jolly, V. K. (1997). Commercializing new technologies: Getting from mind to market (3rd ed.). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  33. Kidwell, D. K. (2013). Principal investigators as knowledge brokers: A multiple case study of the creative actions of PIs in entrepreneurial science. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(2), 212–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Krabel, S., Siegel, D.S., Slavtchev, V. (2009). The internationalization of science and its influence on academic entrepreneurship. JIMS Discussion Paper Series, 3.Google Scholar
  35. Krueger, N. F. (1993). The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture feasibility and desirability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(1), 5–21.Google Scholar
  36. Laudel, G. (2006). The art of getting funded: How scientists adapt to their funding conditions. Science and Public Policy, 33(7), 489–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lubango, L. M., & Pouris, A. (2007). Industry work experience and inventive capacity of South African academic researchers. Technovation, 27, 788–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Luukkonen, T. (2012). Conservatism and risk taking in peer review: Emerging ERC practices. Research Evaluation, 21, 48–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McCline, R. L., Bhat, S., & Baj, P. (2000). Opportunity recognition: An exploratory investigation of a component of the entrepreneurial process in the context of the health care industry. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25, 81–144.Google Scholar
  40. Mustar, P. (1997). How French academics create hi-tech companies: The conditions for success and failure. Science and Public Policy, 24(1), 37–43.Google Scholar
  41. O’Gorman, C., Byrne, O., & Pandya, D. (2008). How scientists commercialise new knowledge via entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. O’Kane, C., Cunningham, J., Mangematin, V., & O’Reilly, P. (2015). Underpinning strategic behaviours and posture of principal investigators in transition/uncertain environments. Long Range Planning, 48, 200–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Park, J. S. (2005). Opportunity recognition and product innovation in entrepreneurial hi-tech start-ups: A new perspective and supporting case study. Technovation, 25, 739–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pesaran, H., & Schmidt, P. (1997). Handbook of applied econometrics: Microeconomics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  46. Roberts, J. (2000). From know-how to show-how? Questioning the role of information and communication technologies in knowledge transfer. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 12(4), 429–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Robinson, P. B., Huefner, J. C., & Hunt, H. K. (1991a). Entrepreneurial research on student subjects does not generalize to real world entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management, 29, 42–50.Google Scholar
  48. Robinson, P. B., Stimpson, D. V., Huefner, J. C., & Hunt, H. K. (1991b). An attitude approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(4), 13–30.Google Scholar
  49. Romano, M., Del Giudice, M., & Nicotra, M. (2014). Knowledge creation and exploitation in Italian Universities: The role of internal policies for patent activity. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(5), 952–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Romano, M., Schillaci, C., & Nicotra, M. (2015). Principal investigators in entrepreneurial universities: A research framework. In J. Cunningham (Ed.) Entrepreneurial universities: Technology and knowledge transfer. World Scientific Publishing Innovation Handbook Series (in press).Google Scholar
  51. Rossi, M. (2014). Capital budgeting in Europe: Confronting theory with practice. International Journal of Managerial and Financial Accounting, 6(4), 341–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schillaci, C. E., & Nicotra, M. (2010). Rowing against the tide: The struggle to Enhance Entrepreneurship in a Hostile Region. In G. Dossena (Ed.), Entrepreneurship today (pp. 1–14). Milano: Mc-Graw Hill.Google Scholar
  53. Schillaci, C. E., Romano, M., & Longo, M. C. (2009). Hybrid organizational forms and academic entrepreneurship. The evolution of Italian university incubators. Torino: Giappichelli Editore.Google Scholar
  54. Schumpeter, J.A. [1934] (2008). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest and the business cycle. translated from the German by Redvers Opie. New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  55. Segal, G., Borgia, D., & Schoenfeld, J. (2002). Using social cognitive career theory to predict self-employment goals. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 47–56.Google Scholar
  56. Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4), 448–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shane, S. (2002). Selling university technology: Patterns from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 122–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.Google Scholar
  59. Shapero, A., & Sokol, L. (1982). Social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 72–90). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  60. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2004). Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(1–2), 115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism. Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltomore/London: The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Stevenson, H. H., & Gumpert, D. E. (1985). The heart of entrepreneurship. Harvard Business Review, 63(2), 85–95.Google Scholar
  63. Thorburn, L. (2000). Knowledge management, research spinoffs and commercialization of R&D in Australia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 17(2), 257–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Toole, A. A., & Czarnitzki, D. (2007). Biomedical academic entrepreneurship through the SBIR program. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 63, 716–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in business. London: Economist Books.Google Scholar
  66. Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1997). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in business (2nd ed.). London & Santa Rosa: Nicholas Brealey Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  67. Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: an editor’s perspective. In J. Katz & R. Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth (Vol. 3, pp. 119–138). Greenwhich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  68. Wright, M., Birley, S., & Mosey, S. (2004). Entrepreneurship and university technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wright, M., Clarisse, B., Mustar, P., & Lockett, A. (2007). Academic entrepreneurship in Europe. Cheltenhamm/Nortzhampton: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zucker, L. G., & Darby, M. R. (2007). Star scientists, innovation and regional and national immigration. NBER Working Paper 13547, 1–41.Google Scholar
  71. Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Armstrong, J. S. (2002). Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science, 48(1), 138–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of US biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review, 88, 290–306.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manlio Del Giudice
    • 1
  • Melita Nicotra
    • 2
  • Marco Romano
    • 2
  • Carmela Elita Schillaci
    • 2
  1. 1.Paris School of BusinessParisFrance
  2. 2.Department “Economia e Management”University of CataniaCataniaItaly

Personalised recommendations