Advertisement

Building Entrepreneurial Behaviours in Academic Scientists: Past Perspective and New Initiatives

  • Conor O’KaneEmail author
  • Jing A. Zhang
  • Urs Daellenbach
  • Sally Davenport
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, we make the case that capacity development initiatives aimed at generating greater entrepreneurial behaviours among academic scientists remain under-explored in the literature. We suggest that external government-funded programmes, in the form of macro-level grand challenges, that foster greater entrepreneurial engagement and commercial orientation among the science community have been under-examined in comparison to other key meso- and micro-level determinants and challenges such as scientists’ motives/incentives, professional role identity, social environment, support structures and their individual attributes and competencies. We clarify the notion of entrepreneurial behaviour and how it relates to academic entrepreneurship. The chapter closes with an example of an ongoing publicly funded capacity development programme underway in New Zealand (NZ) titled ‘Building NZ’s Innovation Capacity’.

Keywords

Public science Funding Academic entrepreneurship Mission-led science programmes Entrepreneurial behaviour Scientists 

References

  1. Abreu, M., and V. Grinevich. 2013. The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. Research Policy 42: 408–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aghion, P., and J. Tirole. 1994. The management of innovation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 109 (4): 1185–1209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aldridge, T.T., and D. Audretsch. 2011. The Bayh-Dole act and scientist entrepreneurship. Research Policy 40 (8): 1058–1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ambos, T.C., K. Mäkelä, J. Birkinshaw, and P. d’Este. 2008. When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies 45 (8): 1424–1447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashforth, B. 2000. Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baglieri, D., and G. Lorenzoni. 2014. Closing the distance between academia and market: Experimentation and user entrepreneurial processes. The Journal of Technology Transfer 39 (1): 52–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bercovitz, J., and M. Feldman. 2008. Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science 19 (1): 69–89.Google Scholar
  8. Boehm, D.N., and T. Hogan. 2014. ‘A jack of all trades’: The role of PIs in the establishment and management of collaborative networks in scientific knowledge commercialisation. The Journal of Technology Transfer 39 (1): 134–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borch, O.J., M. Huse, and K. Senneseth. 1999. Resource configuration, competitive strategies, and corporate entrepreneurship: An empirical examination of small firms. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 24 (1): 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chapple, W., A. Lockett, D. Siegel, and M. Wright. 2005. Assessing the relative performance of UK university technology transfer offices: Parametric and non-parametric evidence. Research Policy 34 (3): 369–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarysse, B., V. Tartari, and A. Salter. 2011. The impact of entrepreneurial capacity, experience and organizational support on academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy 40 (8): 1084–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Covin, J.G., and D.P. Slevin. 1991. A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16 (1): 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Covin, J.G., and M.P. Miles. 1999. Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive advantage. Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice 23 (3): 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cunningham, J.A., M. Menter, and C. O’Kane. 2018. Value creation in the quadruple helix: A micro level conceptual model of principal investigators as value creators. R&D Management 48 (1): 136–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Daellenbach, U., S. Davenport, and K. Ruckstuhl. 2017. Developing absorptive capacity for midstream science in open innovation contexts. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation 15 (4): 447–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Jong, J.P.J., S.K. Parker, S. Wennekers, and C.-H. Wu. 2015. Entrepreneurial behavior in organizations: Does job design matter? Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice 39 (4): 982–995.Google Scholar
  17. Debackere, K., and R. Veugelers. 2005. The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy 34 (3): 321–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dorner, M., H. Fryges, and K. Schopen. 2017. Wages in high-tech start-ups – Do academic spin-offs pay a wage premium? Research Policy 46 (1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dutton, J.E., L.M. Roberts, and J. Bednar. 2010. Pathways for positive identity construction at work: Four types of positive identity and the building of social resources. Academy of Management Review 35 (2): 265–293.Google Scholar
  20. Etzkowitz, H., and L. Leydesdorff. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university – industry – government relations. Research Policy 29 (2): 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fernández-Pérez, V., P.E. Alonso-Galicia, L. Rodríquez-Ariza, and M. del Mar Fuentes-Fuentes. 2015. Professional and personal social networks: A bridge to entrepreneurship for academics? European Management Journal 33 (1): 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Freitas, I.M.B., A. Geuna, and F. Rossi. 2013. Finding the right partners: Institutional and personal modes of governance of university – industry interactions. Research Policy 42 (1): 50–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goodrick, E., and T. Reay. 2010. Florence Nightingale endures: Legitimizing a new professional role identity. Journal of Management Studies 47 (1): 55–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haeussler, C., and J.A. Colyvas. 2011. Breaking the ivory tower: Academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences in UK and Germany. Research Policy 40 (1): 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Halilem, N., N. Amara, J. Olmos-Peñuela, and M. Mohiuddin. 2017. “To own, or not to own?” A multilevel analysis of intellectual property right policies’ on academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy 46: 1479–1489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haller, M.K., and E.M. Welch. 2014. Entrepreneurial behavior of academic scientists: Network and cognitive determinants of commitment to grant submissions and award outcomes. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 38 (4): 807–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hamel, G., and C.K. Prahalad. 1994. Competing for the future. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hayter, C.S. 2016. Constraining entrepreneurial development: A knowledge-based view of social networks among academic entrepreneurs. Research Policy 45 (2): 475–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Huynh, T., D. Patton, D. Arias-Aranda, and L.M. Molina-Fernández. 2017. University spin-off’s performance: Capabilities and networks of founding teams at creation phase. Journal of Business Research 78: 10–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ireland, R.D., J.G. Covin, and D.F. Kuratko. 2009. Conceptualizing corporate entrepreneurship strategy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33 (1): 19–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jain, S., G. George, and M. Maltarich. 2009. Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy 38 (6): 922–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kalar, B., and B. Antoncic. 2015. The entrepreneurial university, academic activities and technology and knowledge transfer in four European countries. Technovation 36: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kidwell, D.K. 2014. Navigating the role of the principal investigator: A comparison of four cases. The Journal of Technology Transfer 39 (1): 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lam, A. 2010. From ‘ivory tower traditionalists’ to ‘entrepreneurial scientists’? Academic scientists in fuzzy university – industry boundaries. Social Studies of Science 40 (2): 307–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. ———. 2011. What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Research Policy 40 (10): 1354–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  37. Lepak, D.P., K.G. Smith, and M.S. Taylor. 2007. Value creation and value capture: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review 32 (1): 180–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Link, A.N., D.S. Siegel, and B. Bozeman. 2007. An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change 16 (4): 641–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lockett, A., and M. Wright. 2005. Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy 34 (7): 1043–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lumpkin, G.T., and G.G. Dess. 1996. Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review 21 (1): 135–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mangematin, V., P. O’Reilly, and J. Cunningham. 2014. PIs as boundary spanners, science and market shapers. The Journal of Technology Transfer 39 (1): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Markman, G.D., P.T. Gianiodis, P.H. Phan, and D.B. Balkin. 2005. Innovation speed: Transferring university technology to market. Research Policy 34 (7): 1058–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. MBIE. 2015. High technology manufacturing sector report, 2013. Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/business/business-growth-agenda/sectors-reports-series/high-technology-manufacturing-report
  44. Meek, W.R., and M.S. Wood. 2016. Navigating a sea of change: Identity misalignment and adaptation in academic entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 40 (5): 1093–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Merton, R. 1957. Priorities in scientific discovery. American Sociological Review 22 (6): 635–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Merton, R.K. 1973. The sociology of science. Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  47. Miller, D. 1983. The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science 29 (7): 770–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Muscio, A. 2010. What drives the university use of technology transfer offices? Evidence from Italy. The Journal of Technology Transfer 35 (2): 181–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nelson, R.R. 1959. The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy 67 (3): 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. NZTE. 2015. NZ Trade & Enterprise 2013/14 figures. www.nzte.govt.nz/en/invest/sectors-of-opportunity/high-value-manufacturing/
  51. O’Kane, C. 2016. Technology transfer executives’ backwards integration: An examination of interactions between university technology transfer executives and principal investigators. Technovation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2016.08.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. O’Kane, C., J. Cunningham, V. Mangematin, and P. O’Reilly. 2015a. Underpinning strategic behaviours and posture of principal investigators in transition/uncertain environments. Long Range Planning 48 (3): 200–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. O’Kane, C., V. Mangematin, W. Geoghegan, and C. Fitzgerald. 2015b. University technology transfer offices: The search for identity to build legitimacy. Research Policy 44 (2): 421–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Perkmann, M., V. Tartari, M. McKelvey, E. Autio, A. Broström, P. D’Este, R. Fini, A. Geuna, R. Grimaldi, A. Hughes, S. Krabel, M. Kitson, P. Llerena, F. Lissoni, A. Salter, and M. Sobrero. 2013. Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university – industry relations. Research Policy 42 (2): 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Phan, P.H., and D.S. Siegel. 2006. The effectiveness of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship 2 (2): 77–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Philpott, K., L. Dooley, C. O’Reilly, and G. Lupton. 2011. The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation 31 (4): 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rasmussen, E., S. Mosey, and M. Wright. 2011. The evolution of entrepreneurial competencies: A longitudinal study of university spin-off venture emergence. Journal of Management Studies 48 (6): 1314–1345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rauch, A., J. Wiklund, G.T. Lumpkin, and M. Frese. 2009. Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 33 (3): 761–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sanders, C.B., and F.A. Miller. 2010. Reframing norms: Boundary maintenance and partial accommodations in the work of academic technology transfer. Science and Public Policy 37 (9): 689–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Shane, S.A. 2003. A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity nexus. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Shane, S., and S. Venkataraman. 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review 25: 217–226.Google Scholar
  62. Siegel, D.S., and M. Wright. 2015. Academic entrepreneurship: Time for a rethink? British Journal of Management 26 (4): 582–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Siegel, D.S., D. Waldman, and A. Link. 2003. Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy 32 (1): 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Soetanto, D., and S. Jack. 2016. The impact of university-based incubation support on the innovation strategy of academic spin-offs. Technovation 50: 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stuart, T.E., and W.W. Ding. 2006. When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences. American Journal of Sociology 112 (1): 97–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tartari, V., and S. Breschi. 2012. Set them free: Scientists’ evaluations of the benefits and costs of university – industry research collaboration. Industrial and Corporate Change 21 (5): 1117–1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tartari, V., M. Perkmann, and A. Salter. 2014. In good company: The influence of peers on industry engagement by academic scientists. Research Policy 43 (7): 1189–1203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Teece, D.J. 2012. Dynamic capabilities: Routines versus entrepreneurial action. Journal of Management Studies 49 (8): 1395–1401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Toole, A.A., and D. Czarnitzki. 2010. Commercializing science: Is there a university “brain drain” from academic entrepreneurship? Management Science 56 (9): 1599–1614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Weckowska, D.M. 2015. Learning in university technology transfer offices: Transactions-focused and relations-focused approaches to commercialization of academic research. Technovation 41: 62–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wu, Y., E.W. Welch, and W.L. Huang. 2015. Commercialization of university inventions: Individual and institutional factors affecting licensing of university patents. Technovation 36: 12–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zahar, S., A.P. Nielsen, and W. Bogner. 1999. Corporate entrepreneurship, knowledge, and competence development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 23 (3): 169–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zahra, S.A., H.J. Sapienza, and P. Davidsson. 2006. Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies 43 (4): 917–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Conor O’Kane
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jing A. Zhang
    • 1
  • Urs Daellenbach
    • 2
  • Sally Davenport
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ManagementUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  2. 2.School of ManagementVictoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations