Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conceptualizing academic entrepreneurship ecosystems: a review, analysis and extension of the literature

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Policy-related discussions increasingly view universities as so-called “engines of economic growth”. Recognizing that the economic impact of universities is dependent, at least in part, on the success of university-affiliated entrepreneurial ventures, this paper reviews the extant literature to understand how academic entrepreneurship is conceptualized and the extent to which it adopts an ecosystem approach. We find that scholars have largely focused on individual ecosystem elements and characteristics, eschewing strategic and systemic conceptualizations of entrepreneurship ecosystems. As a result, we argue that the ecosystem perspective has not been fully leveraged to influence policy decisions. We conclude by offering several concrete recommendations on future research directions that, if pursued, would further enhance our understanding of the economic impact of universities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. According to Wolfswinkel et al. (2013), the purpose of open coding is to identify, label or re-label, and build insights—categories—based on inductions from articles included in the review. The purpose of axial coding is to analyze and understand the relationship among subcategories within a respective category. Selective coding is the process of identifying and developing relationships between the main categories.

  2. Affiliations were only counted once per author per university, preventing authors who appear multiple times under the same affiliation to disproportionately skew the distribution.

  3. See http://www.reuters.com/most-innovative-universities-europe.

  4. Author affiliations that appeared multiple times under one same author were again counted only once, thus N in Fig. 5 is 193 rather than 353.

  5. Note that 34 publications study university entrepreneurship in more than one country.

References

(*) Indicates articles cited but not included in our review

  • Abreu, M., & Grinevich, V. (2013). The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. Research Policy, 42, 408–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • (*) Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 306–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, R., & Shah, S. K. (2014). Knowledge sources of entrepreneurship: Firm formation by academic, user and employee innovators. Research Policy, 43, 1109–1133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, A. (2006). Engaging the inventor: Exploring licensing strategies for university inventions and the role of latent knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 63–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldridge, T. T., & Audretsch, D. (2011). The Bayh–Dole Act and scientist entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40, 1058–1067.

    Google Scholar 

  • Algieri, B., Aquino, A., & Succurro, M. (2013). Technology transfer offices and academic spin-off creation: The case of Italy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38, 382–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambos, T. C., Mäkelä, K., Birkinshaw, J., & D’Este, P. (2008). When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 1424–1447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Åstebro, T., Bazzazian, N., & Braguinsky, S. (2012). Startups by recent university graduates and their faculty: Implications for university entrepreneurship policy. Research Policy, 41, 663–677.

    Google Scholar 

  • (*) Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustard, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy, 43, 1097–1108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayoub, M. R., Gottschalk, S., & Müller, B. (2017). Impact of public seed-funding on academic spin-offs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 1100–1124.

  • (*) Bahrami, H., & Evans, S. (2000). Flexible recycling and high-technology entrepreneurship. In M. Kenney (Ed.), Understanding silicon valley (pp. 165–189). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2006). Institutional changes and the commercialization of academic knowledge: A study of Italian universities’ patenting activities between 1965 and 2002. Research Policy, 35, 518–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbero, J. L., Casillas, J. C., Wright, M., Ramos Garcia, A., Barbero, J. L., Casillas, J. C., et al. (2014). Do different types of incubators produce different types of innovations? Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 151–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri, E., Rubini, L., Pollio, C., & Micozzi, A. (2018). What are the trade-offs of academic entrepreneurship? An investigation on the Italian case. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43, 198–221.

  • Bathelt, H., Kogler, D. F., & Munro, A. K. (2010). A knowledge-based typology of university spin-offs in the context of regional economic development. Technovation, 30, 519–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19, 69–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., Feller, I., & Burton, R. (2001). Organizational structure as a determinant of academic patent and licensing behavior: An exploratory study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 21–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann, H., Hundt, C., & Sternberg, R. (2016). What makes student entrepreneurs? On the relevance (and irrelevance) of the university and the regional context for student start-ups. Small Business Economics, 47, 53–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjørnåli, E. S., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2010). Exploring board formation and evolution of board composition in academic spin-offs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 92–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boardman, P. C., & Corley, E. A. (2008). University research centers and the composition of research collaborations. Research Policy, 37, 900–913.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boh, W. F., De-Haan, U., & Strom, R. (2016). University technology transfer through entrepreneurship: Faculty and students in spinoffs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 661–669.

    Google Scholar 

  • (*) Bradley, S., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013a). Methods and models of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 9, 571–650.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, S. R., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013b). Proof of Concept centers in the United States: An exploratory look. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38, 349–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bramwell, A., & Wolfe, D. A. (2008). Universities and regional economic development: The entrepreneurial University of Waterloo. Research Policy, 37, 1175–1187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bray, M. J., & Lee, J. N. (2000). University revenues from technology transfer: Licensing fees vs. equity positions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 385–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brescia, F., Colombo, G., & Landoni, P. (2016). Organizational structures of Knowledge Transfer Offices: An analysis of the world’s top-ranked universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 132–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breznitz, S. M., & Feldman, M. P. (2012). The engaged university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37, 139–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • (*) Byrne, D., & Callaghan, G. (2013). Complexity theory and the social sciences: The state of the art. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., Cherepovitsyn, A. Y., & Ilinova, A. A. (2016). Technology commercialization in entrepreneurial universities: The US and Russian experience. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 1135–1147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casper, S. (2013). The spill-over theory reversed: The impact of regional economies on the commercialization of university science. Research Policy, 42, 1313–1324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarysse, B., & Moray, N. (2004). A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: The case of a research-based spin-off. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 55–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarysse, B., Tartari, V., & Salter, A. (2011a). The impact of entrepreneurial capacity, experience and organizational support on academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40, 1084–1093.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Bruneel, J., & Mahajan, A. (2014). Creating value in ecosystems: Crossing the chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems. Research Policy, 43, 1164–1176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarysse, B., Wright, M., & Van de Velde, E. (2011b). Entrepreneurial origin, technological knowledge, and the growth of spin-off companies. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 1420–1442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colyvas, J. A. (2007). From divergent meanings to common practices: The early institutionalization of technology transfer in the life sciences at Stanford University. Research Policy, 36, 456–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 61–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comacchio, A., Bonesso, S., & Pizzi, C. (2012). Boundary spanning between industry and university: The role of Technology Transfer Centres. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37, 943–966.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, C. E., Hamel, S. A., & Connaughton, S. L. (2012). Motivations and obstacles to networking in a university business incubator. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37, 433–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Criaco, G., Minola, T., Migliorini, P., & Serarols-Tarrés, C. (2014). “To have and have not”: Founders’ human capital and university start-up survival. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 567–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croce, A., Grilli, L., & Murtinu, S. (2014). Venture capital enters academia: An analysis of university-managed funds. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 688–715.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Este, P., Mahdi, S., Neely, A., & Rentocchini, F. (2012). Inventors and entrepreneurs in academia: What types of skills and experience matter? Technovation, 32, 293–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 316–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davey, T., Rossano, S., & van der Sijde, P. (2016). Does context matter in academic entrepreneurship? The role of barriers and drivers in the regional and national context. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 1457–1482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debackere, K., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy, 34, 321–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Degroof, J.-J., & Roberts, E. B. (2004). Overcoming weak entrepreneurial infrastructures for academic spin-off ventures. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 327–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32, 209–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diánez-González, J. P., & Camelo-Ordaz, C. (2016). How management team composition affects academic spin-offs’ entrepreneurial orientation: The mediating role of conflict. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 530–557.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Eesley, C., Li, J. B., & Yang, D. (2016). Does institutional change in universities influence high-tech entrepreneurship? Evidence from China’s Project 985. Organization Science, 27, 446–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ensley, M. D., & Hmieleski, K. M. (2005). A comparative study of new venture top management team composition, dynamics and performance between university-based and independent start-ups. Research Policy, 34, 1091–1105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M., Feller, I., Bercovitz, J., & Burton, R. (2002). Equity and the technology transfer strategies of American research universities. Management Science, 48, 105–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. P., & Graddy-Reed, A. (2014). Accelerating commercialization: A new model of strategic foundation funding. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 503–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feller, I., Ailes, C. P., & Roessner, J. D. (2002). Impacts of research universities on technological innovation in industry: Evidence from engineering research centers. Research Policy, 31, 457–474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernández-Alles, M., Camelo-Ordaz, C., & Franco-Leal, N. (2015). Key resources and actors for the evolution of academic spin-offs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40, 976–1002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fini, R., Fu, K., Mathisen, M. T., Rasmussen, E., & Wright, M. (2017). Institutional determinants of university spin-off quantity and quality: a longitudinal, multilevel, cross-country study. Small Business Economics, 48(2), 361–391.

  • Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2009). Factors fostering academics to start up new ventures: An assessment of Italian founders’ incentives. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 380–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fini, R., Lacetera, N., & Shane, S. (2010). Inside or outside the IP system? Business creation in academia. Research Policy, 39, 1060–1069.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fini, R., Santoni, S., & Sobrero, M. (2011). Complements or substitutes? The role of universities and local context in supporting the creation of academic spin-offs. Research Policy, 40, 1113–1127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, S. J., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2001). Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 127–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: do incentives, management, and location matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 17–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, A. W., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2012). When stars shine: The effects of faculty founders on new technology ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 6, 220–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gassol, J. H. (2007). The effect of university culture and stakeholders’ perceptions on university–business linking activities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32, 489–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gianiodis, P. T., Markman, G. D., & Panagopoulos, A. (2016). Entrepreneurial universities and overt opportunism. Small Business Economics, 47, 609–631.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldfarb, B., & Henrekson, M. (2003). Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy, 32, 639–658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grandi, A., & Grimaldi, R. (2003). exploring the networking characteristics of new venture founding teams: A study of Italian academic spin-off. Small Business Economics, 21, 329–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grandi, A., & Grimaldi, R. (2005). Academics’ organizational characteristics and the generation of successful business ideas. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 821–845.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, H. M., & Jaenicke, J. (2012). What drives patenting and commercialisation activity at East German universities? The role of new public policy, institutional environment and individual prior knowledge. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37, 454–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gubitta, P., Tognazzo, A., & Destro, F. (2016). Signaling in academic ventures: The role of technology transfer offices and university funds. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 368–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2014). Academics’ start-up intentions and knowledge filters: An individual perspective of the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 43, 57–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Cunningham, J., & Organ, D. (2014). Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions: A case study comparison. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 415–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulbranson, C. A., & Audretsch, D. B. (2008). Proof of concept centers: Accelerating the commercialization of university innovation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 249–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haeussler, C., & Colyvas, J. A. (2011). Breaking the ivory tower: Academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences in UK and Germany. Research Policy, 40, 41–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayter, C. S. (2011). In search of the profit-maximizing actor: Motivations and definitions of success from nascent academic entrepreneurs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 340–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayter, C. S. (2015). Public or private entrepreneurship? Revisiting motivations and definitions of success among academic entrepreneurs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40, 1003–1015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayter, C. S. (2016a). Constraining entrepreneurial development: A knowledge-based view of social networks among academic entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 45, 475–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayter, C. S. (2016b). A trajectory of early-stage spinoff success: The role of knowledge intermediaries within an entrepreneurial university ecosystem. Small Business Economics, 47, 633–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2015). On the economic impact of university proof of concept centers. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40, 178–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayter, C. S., Lubynsky, R., & Maroulis, S. (2017). Who is the academic entrepreneur? The role of graduate students in the development of university spinoffs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heblich, S., & Slavtchev, V. (2014). Parent universities and the location of academic startups. Small Business Economics, 42, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henrekson, M., & Rosenberg, N. (2001). Designing efficient institutions for science-based entrepreneurship: Lessons from the US and Sweden. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 207–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horta, H., Meoli, M., & Vismara, S. (2016). Skilled unemployment and the creation of academic spin-offs: A recession-push hypothesis. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 798–817.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, D. H., Roberts, E. B., & Eesley, C. E. (2007). Entrepreneurs from technology-based universities: Evidence from MIT. Research Policy, 36, 768–788.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang-Saad, A., Fay, J., & Sheridan, L. (2017). Closing the divide: Accelerating technology commercialization by catalyzing the university entrepreneurial ecosystem with I-Corps™. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 1466–1486.

  • Hunter, E. M., Perry, S. J., & Currall, S. C. (2011). Inside multi-disciplinary science and engineering research centers: The impact of organizational climate on invention disclosures and patents. Research Policy, 40, 1226–1239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huyghe, A., Knockaert, M., & Obschonka, M. (2016a). Unraveling the “passion orchestra” in academia. Journal of Business Venturing, 31, 344–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huyghe, A., Knockaert, M., Piva, E., & Wright, M. (2016b). Are researchers deliberately bypassing the technology transfer office? An analysis of TTO awareness. Small Business Economics, 47, 589–607.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huyghe, A., Knockaert, M., Wright, M., & Piva, E. (2014). Technology transfer offices as boundary spanners in the pre-spin-off process: The case of a hybrid model. Small Business Economics, 43, 289–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • (*) Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). The keystone advantage: What the new dynamics of business ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation and sustainability. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, M., Lundqvist, M., & Hellsmark, H. (2003). Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish university system: The case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research Policy, 32, 1555–1568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain, S., George, G., & Maltarich, M. (2009). Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy, 38, 922–935.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson, D. J., Maida, M., Farkas, A., Alandete-Saez, M., & Bennett, A. B. (2017). Technology transfer in the Americas: Common and divergent practices among major research universities and public sector institutions. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 1307–1333.

  • Johansson, M., Jacob, M., & Hellström, T. (2005). The strength of strong ties: University spin-offs and the significance of historical relations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30, 271–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jong, S. (2008). Academic organizations and new industrial fields: Berkeley and Stanford after the rise of biotechnology. Research Policy, 37, 1267–1282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalar, B., & Antoncic, B. (2015). The entrepreneurial university, academic activities and technology and knowledge transfer in four European countries. Technovation, 36, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson, T., & Wigren, C. (2012). Start-ups among university employees: The influence of legitimacy, human capital and social capital. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37, 297–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karnani, F. (2013). The university’s unknown knowledge: Tacit knowledge, technology transfer and university spin-offs findings from an empirical study based on the theory of knowledge. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38, 235–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenney, M., & Patton, D. (2011). Does inventor ownership encourage university research-derived entrepreneurship? A six university comparison. Research Policy, 40, 1100–1112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenney, M., & Richard Goe, W. (2004). The role of social embeddedness in professorial entrepreneurship: a comparison of electrical engineering and computer science at UC Berkeley and Stanford. Research Policy, 33, 691–707.

    Google Scholar 

  • (*) Kenney, M., & von Burg, U. (1999). Technology and path dependence: The divergence between Silicon Valley and Route 128. Industrial and Corporate Change, 8, 67–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klofsten, M., & Jones-Evans, D. (2000). Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe—The case of Sweden and Ireland. Small Business Economics, 14, 299–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knockaert, M., Ucbasaran, D., Wright, M., & Clarysse, B. (2011). The relationship between knowledge transfer, top management team composition, and performance: The case of science-based entrepreneurial firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35, 777–803.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knockaert, M., Wright, M., Clarysse, B., & Lockett, A. (2010). Agency and similarity effects and the VC’s attitude towards academic spin-out investing. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 567–584.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, C., & Wagner, M. (2015). Crowding in or crowding out: The link between academic entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial traits. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40, 387–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolympiris, C., & Klein, P. G. (2017). The effects of academic incubators on university innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11, 145–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: “Gold”, “ribbon” or “puzzle”? Research Policy, 40, 1354–1368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavie, D., & Drori, I. (2012). Collaborating for knowledge creation and application: The case of nanotechnology research programs. Organization Science, 23, 704–724.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levie, J. (2014). The university is the classroom: Teaching and learning technology commercialization at a technological university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 793–808.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2005). Opening the ivory tower’s door: An analysis of the determinants of the formation of U.S. university spin-off companies. Research Policy, 34, 1106–1112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34, 1043–1057.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Franklin, S. (2003). Technology transfer and universities’ spin-out strategies. Small Business Economics, 20, 185–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, R. A., & Gonzalez-Brambila, C. (2007). Faculty entrepreneurs and research productivity. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32, 173–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, R. A., Ziedonis, A. A., & Ross, S. M. (2006). Overoptimism and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Management Science, 52, 173–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundqvist, M. A. (2014). The importance of surrogate entrepreneurship for incubated Swedish technology ventures. Technovation, 34, 93–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maia, C., & Claro, J. (2013). The role of a Proof of Concept Center in a university ecosystem: An exploratory study. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38, 641–650.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., Phan, P. H., & Balkin, D. B. (2004). Entrepreneurship from the ivory tower: Do incentive systems matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 353–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., Phan, P. H., & Balkin, D. B. (2005a). Innovation speed: Transferring university technology to market. Research Policy, 34, 1058–1075.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markman, G. D., Phan, P. H., Balkin, D. B., & Gianiodis, P. T. (2005b). Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 241–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAdam, M., & McAdam, R. (2008). High tech start-ups in University Science Park incubators: The relationship between the start-up’s lifecycle progression and use of the incubator’s resources. Technovation, 28, 277–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAdam, M., Miller, K., & McAdam, R. (2016). Situated regional university incubation: A multi-level stakeholder perspective. Technovation, 50, 69–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meoli, M., & Vismara, S. (2016). University support and the creation of technology and non-technology academic spin-offs. Small Business Economics, 47, 345–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • (*) Mervis, J. (2016). When the payoff for academics drops, commercialization suffers. Science, 352(6284), 396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2006). Academic inventiveness and entrepreneurship: On the importance of start-up companies in commercializing academic patents. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 501–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mindruta, D. (2013). Value creation in university-firm research collaborations: A matching approach. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 644–665.

    Google Scholar 

  • (*) Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71, 75–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2007). From human capital to social capital: A longitudinal study of technology-based academic entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 909–935.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980. Research Policy, 30, 99–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, K. (2010). Academic spin-off’s transfer speed—Analyzing the time from leaving university to venture. Research Policy, 39, 189–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munari, F., Pasquini, M., & Toschi, L. (2015). From the lab to the stock market? The characteristics and impact of university-oriented seed funds in Europe. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40, 948–975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munari, F., Rasmussen, E., Toschi, L., & Villani, E. (2016). Determinants of the university technology transfer policy-mix: A cross-national analysis of gap-funding instruments. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 1377–1405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muscio, A., Quaglione, D., & Ramaciotti, L. (2016). The effects of university rules on spinoff creation: The case of academia in Italy. Research Policy, 45, 1386–1396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mustar, P., & Wright, M. (2010). Convergence or path dependency in policies to foster the creation of university spin-off firms? A comparison of France and the United Kingdom. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 42–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ndonzuau, F. N., Pirnay, F., & Surlemont, B. (2002). A stage model of academic spin-off creation. Technovation, 22, 281–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, A. J. (2014). From the ivory tower to the startup garage: Organizational context and commercialization processes. Research Policy, 43, 1144–1156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, A. J. (2016). How to share “a really good secret”: Managing sharing/secrecy tensions around scientific knowledge disclosure. Organization Science, 27, 265–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, A. J., & Monsen, E. (2014). Teaching technology commercialization: Introduction to the special section. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 774–779.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nerkar, A., & Shane, S. (2007). Determinants of invention commercialization: An empirical examination of academically sourced inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 1155–1166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolaou, N., & Birley, S. (2003a). Social networks in organizational emergence: The university spinout phenomenon. Management Science, 49, 1702–1725.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, A. S., Rickne, A., & Bengtsson, L. (2010). Transfer of academic research: Uncovering the grey zone. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 617–636.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niosi, J. (2006). Success factors in Canadian academic spin-offs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 451–457.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Gorman, C., Byrne, O., & Pandya, D. (2008). How scientists commercialise new knowledge via entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 23–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Kane, C., Mangematin, V., Geoghegan, W., & Fitzgerald, C. (2015). University technology transfer offices: The search for identity to build legitimacy. Research Policy, 44, 421–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy, 34, 994–1009.

    Google Scholar 

  • (*) O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., O’Gorman, C., & Roche, F. (2004). Universities technology transfer: A review of academic entrepreneurship literature. Irish Journal of Management, 25, 11–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Shea, R. P., Chugh, H., & Allen, T. J. (2008). Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: A conceptual framework. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 653–666.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oehler, A., Höfer, A., & Schalkowski, H. (2015). Entrepreneurial education and knowledge: Empirical evidence on a sample of German undergraduate students. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40, 536–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 99–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. (2009). Strategic entrepreneurship at universities: academic entrepreneurs’ assessment of policy programs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33, 319–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pérez, M. P., & Sánchez, A. M. (2003). The development of university spin-offs: Early dynamics of technology transfer and networking. Technovation, 23, 823–831.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann, M., King, Z., & Pavelin, S. (2011). Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality on university engagement with industry. Research Policy, 40, 539–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42, 423–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, L., Rice, M., & Sundararajan, M. (2004). The role of incubators in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 83–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • (*) Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2005). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phan, P. H. (2014). The business of translation: The Johns Hopkins University Discovery to Market program. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 809–817.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phan, P. H., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2005). Science parks and incubators: Observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 165–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philpott, K., Dooley, L., O’Reilly, C., & Lupton, G. (2011). The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation, 31, 161–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirnay, F., Surlemont, B., & Nlemvo, F. (2003). Toward a typology of university spin-offs. Small Business Economics, 21, 355–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitsakis, K., Souitaris, V., & Nicolaou, N. (2015). The peripheral halo effect: Do academic spinoffs influence universities’ research income? Journal of Management Studies, 52, 321–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plummer, L. A., & Gilbert, B. A. (2015). The effect of defense agency funding of university research on regional new venture creation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9, 136–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • (*) Powell, W., Packalen, K., & Whittington, K. (2009). Organizational and institutional genesis: The emergence of high-tech clusters in the life sciences. In J. Padgett & W. Powell (Eds.), The emergence of organizations and markets. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powers, J. B., & McDougall, P. (2005a). Policy orientation effects on performance with licensing to start-ups and small companies. Research Policy, 34, 1028–1042.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powers, J. B., & McDougall, P. P. (2005b). University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: A resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 291–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, E. (2008). Government instruments to support the commercialization of university research: Lessons from Canada. Technovation, 28, 506–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, E., & Borch, O. J. (2010). University capabilities in facilitating entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study of spin-off ventures at mid-range universities. Research Policy, 39, 602–612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, E., Moen, Ø., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2006). Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge. Technovation, 26, 518–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2011). The evolution of entrepreneurial competencies: A longitudinal study of university spin-off venture emergence. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 1314–1345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2014). The influence of university departments on the evolution of entrepreneurial competencies in spin-off ventures. Research Policy, 43, 92–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, E. A., & Sørheim, R. (2006). Action-based entrepreneurship education. Technovation, 26, 185–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, E., & Wright, M. (2015). How can universities facilitate academic spin-offs? An entrepreneurial competency perspective. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40, 782–799.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renault, C. S. (2006). Academic capitalism and university incentives for faculty entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 227–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzo, U. (2015). Why do scientists create academic spin-offs? The influence of the context. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40, 198–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • (*) Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16, 691–791.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. (2005). University–incubator firm knowledge flows: Assessing their impact on incubator firm performance. Research Policy, 34, 305–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • (*) Saldana, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salvador, E. (2011). Are science parks and incubators good “brand names” for spin-offs? The case study of Turin. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 203–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samila, S., & Sorenson, O. (2010). Venture capital as a catalyst to commercialization. Research Policy, 39, 1348–1360.

    Google Scholar 

  • (*) Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schillo, R. S. (2018). Research-based spin-offs as agents in the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43, 222–239.

  • Scholten, V., Omta, O., Kemp, R., & Elfring, T. (2015). Bridging ties and the role of research and start-up experience on the early growth of Dutch academic spin-offs. Technovation, 45, 40–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shah, S. K., & Pahnke, E. C. (2014). Parting the ivory curtain: Understanding how universities support a diverse set of startups. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 780–792.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2002). Selling university technology: Patterns from MIT. Management Science, 48, 122–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • (*) Shane, S. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., Dolmans, S. A. M., Jankowski, J., Reymen, I. M. M. J., Georges, A., & Romme, L. (2015). Academic entrepreneurship: Which inventors do technology licensing officers prefer for spinoffs? Journal of Technology Transfer, 40, 273–292.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Sideri, K., & Panagopoulos, A. (2016). Setting up a technology commercialization office at a non-entrepreneurial university: An insider’s look at practices and culture. Journal of Technology Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9526-z.

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32, 27–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., & Wessner, C. (2012). Universities and the success of entrepreneurial ventures: Evidence from the small business innovation research program. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37, 404–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sine, W. D., Shane, S., & Gregorio, D. Di. (2003). The halo effect and technology licensing: The influence of institutional prestige on the licensing of university inventions. Management Science, 49, 478–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soetanto, D., & Jack, S. (2016). The impact of university-based incubation support on the innovation strategy of academic spin-offs. Technovation, 50, 25–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soetanto, D., & van Geenhuizen, M. (2015). Getting the right balance: University networks’ influence on spin-offs’ attraction of funding for innovation. Technovation, 36, 26–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., & Al-Laham, A. (2007). Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 566–591.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffensen, M., Rogers, E. M., & Speakman, K. (2000). Spin-offs from research centers at a research university. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 93–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. (2014). Success factors of university-spin-offs: Regional government support programs versus regional environment. Technovation, 34, 137–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swamidass, P. M. (2013). University startups as a commercialization alternative: Lessons from three contrasting case studies. Journal of Technogical Transfer, 38, 788–808.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swamidass, P. M., & Vulasa, V. (2009). Why university inventions rarely produce income? Bottlenecks in university technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 343–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tartari, V., Perkmann, M., & Salter, A. (2014). In good company: The influence of peers on industry engagement by academic scientists. Research Policy, 43, 1189–1203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todorovic, Z. W., McNaughton, R. B., & Guild, P. (2011). ENTRE-U: An entrepreneurial orientation scale for universities. Technovation, 31, 128–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toole, A. A., & Czarnitzki, D. (2009). Exploring the relationship between scientist human capital and firm performance: The case of biomedical academic entrepreneurs in the SBIR program. Management Science, 55, 101–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • (*) Tranfield, D. R., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14, 207–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Geenhuizen, M., & Soetanto, D. P. (2009). Academic spin-offs at different ages: A case study in search of key obstacles to growth. Technovation, 29, 671–681.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Looy, B., Landoni, P., Callaert, J., van Pottelsberghe, B., Sapsalis, E., & Debackere, K. (2011). Entrepreneurial effectiveness of European universities: An empirical assessment of antecedents and trade-offs. Research Policy, 40, 553–564.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanaelst, I., Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Moray, N., & S’Jegers, R. (2006). Entrepreneurial team development in academic spinouts: An examination of team heterogeneity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30, 249–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visintin, F., & Pittino, D. (2014). Founding team composition and early performance of university—Based spin-off companies. Technovation, 34, 31–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vohora, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy, 33, 147–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J. P., & Huang, H. (2014). Local context, academic entrepreneurship and open science: Publication secrecy and commercial activity among Japanese and US scientists. Research Policy, 43, 245–260.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter, T., Ihl, C., Mauer, R., Brettel, M. (2013). Grace, gold, or glory? Exploring incentives for invention disclosure in the university context. Journal of Technology Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9303-1.

  • Walter, S. G., Schmidt, A., & Walter, A. (2016). Patenting rationales of academic entrepreneurs in weak and strong organizational regimes. Research Policy, 45, 533–545.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wennberg, K., & Wiklund, J. (2011). The effectiveness of university knowledge spillovers: Performance differences between university spinoffs and corporate spinoffs. Research Policy, 40, 1128–1143.

    Google Scholar 

  • (*) Whittington, K., Owen-smith, J., & Powell, W. (2009). Networks, propinquity and innovation in knowledge-intensive industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 90–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • (*) Wolfswinkel, J. F., Furtmueller, E., & Wilderom, C. P. M. (2013). Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature. European Journal of Information Systems, 22, 45–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, M. S. (2009). Does one size fit all? The multiple organizational forms leading to successful academic entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 3, 929–947.

    Google Scholar 

  • (*) Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Mustar, P., & Lockett, A. (2007). Academic entrepreneurship in Europe. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., Liu, X., Buck, T., & Filatotchev, I. (2007). Returnee entrepreneurs, science park location choice and performance: An analysis of high-technology SMEs in China. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32, 131–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., Lockett, A., Clarysse, B., & Binks, M. (2006). University spin-out companies and venture capital. Research Policy, 35, 481–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., Piva, E., Mosey, S., & Lockett, A. (2009). Academic entrepreneurship and business schools. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 560–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., Vohora, A., & Lockett, A. (2004). The formation of high-tech university spinouts: The role of joint ventures and venture capital investors. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 287–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, W. (2010). Managing and incentivizing research commercialization in Chinese Universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 203–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Würmseher, M. (2017). To each his own: Matching different entrepreneurial models to the academic scientist’s individual needs. Technovation, 59, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youtie, J., & Shapira, P. (2008). Building an innovation hub: A case study of the transformation of university roles in regional technological and economic development. Research Policy, 37, 1188–1204.

    Google Scholar 

  • (*) Zahra, S. A., & Nambisan, S. (2012). Entrepreneurship and strategic thinking in business ecosystems. Business Horizons, 55, 219–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J. (2009). The performance of university spin-offs: An exploratory analysis using venture capital data. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 255–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zou, Y., & Zhao, W. (2014). Anatomy of Tsinghua University Science Park in China: Institutional evolution and assessment. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 663–674.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Armstrong, J. S. (2002). Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science, 48, 138–153.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Organization Research and Design, School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, 85004, USA

    Christopher S. Hayter

  2. Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 97403, USA

    Andrew J. Nelson

  3. RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA

    Stephanie Zayed & Alan C. O’Connor

Authors
  1. Christopher S. Hayter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew J. Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephanie Zayed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alan C. O’Connor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher S. Hayter.

Appendix A: Keyword combinations used in literature search

Appendix A: Keyword combinations used in literature search

  1. a.

    “University”, “academi”, or “facult”

  2. b.

    “Entrepreneurship”, “commercialization”, “technology development”, “spinoff”, “startup”, or “spinout”

  3. c.

    Other search terms

    1. 1.

      Ecosystem

    2. 2.

      Support

    3. 3.

      Assistance

    4. 4.

      Advising

    5. 5.

      Services

    6. 6.

      Technology transfer office

    7. 7.

      Proof of concept center

    8. 8.

      Accelerator

    9. 9.

      Incubator

    10. 10.

      Entrepreneurship education

    11. 11.

      Science park

    12. 12.

      Fund

    13. 13.

      Venture fund

    14. 14.

      Industry research center

    15. 15.

      Networking

    16. 16.

      Federal programs (e.g. Small Business Innovation Research Program and Engineering Research Centers only as they relate to the commercialization of university technologies or supporting university spinoffs)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hayter, C.S., Nelson, A.J., Zayed, S. et al. Conceptualizing academic entrepreneurship ecosystems: a review, analysis and extension of the literature. J Technol Transf 43, 1039–1082 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9657-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9657-5

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation