Theoretical Framework and Literature Review


The previous chapter presented the historic development of the relationship of academia and entrepreneurship in the U.S. and its status quo. In addition, it positioned this dissertation within different perspectives of entrepreneurship and technology transfer research, and defined the relevant terms. In this chapter, a theoretical framework will be derived from the existing literature and identified as a basis for the investigation of academic entrepreneurial behavior. Exhibit 8 illustrates the selection process of the theoretical framework.


Entrepreneurial Activity Market Orientation Risk Taking Entrepreneurial Orientation Entrepreneurial Intention 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 118.
    See Etzkowitz, Webster, Gebhardt and Terra (2000), p. 326.Google Scholar
  2. 119.
    Powers (2000), p. 34. Powers also mentions increasing competition from new entrants to the higher education industry, such as online universities.Google Scholar
  3. 120.
    See Wayne (2003), p. 40.Google Scholar
  4. 121.
    Etzkowitz (2003), p. 109.Google Scholar
  5. 122.
    E.g. Powers (2000) applied the resource-based view, resource-dependency theory, and the revenue theory of costs, Wayne (2003) applied resource-dependency theory to universities, Lilischkis (2001) applied transaction cost theory.Google Scholar
  6. 123.
    See Benveniste (1987), p. 1.Google Scholar
  7. 124.
    See Peters and Waterman (1982), p. 1.Google Scholar
  8. 125.
    See Etzkowitz (1983), p. 198.Google Scholar
  9. 126.
    See Penrose (1958), p. 1.Google Scholar
  10. 127.
    See Wernerfelt (1984), p. 171.Google Scholar
  11. 128.
    See Mintzberg, Ahlstrand and Lampel (1998), pp. 276–277, for a comparison of the approaches of Wernerfelt (1984) and Prahalad and Hamel (1990).Google Scholar
  12. 129.
    See Barney (1991), p. 15.Google Scholar
  13. 130.
    Resource immobility relates to the notion that resources are not easy to copy.Google Scholar
  14. 131.
    See Mansfield and Lee (1996), p. 1047.Google Scholar
  15. 132.
    Powers (2000), p. 34.Google Scholar
  16. 133.
    See Pfeffer (1987), p. 25.Google Scholar
  17. 134.
    See Pfeffer and Salancik (1978), p. 1.Google Scholar
  18. 135.
    See Pfeffer and Salancik (1978), p. 106.Google Scholar
  19. 136.
    See Powers (2000). pp. 35–38, and Wayne (2003), pp. 33–45.Google Scholar
  20. 137.
    See Wayne (2003), p. 40.Google Scholar
  21. 138.
    See Donaldson (2001), p. 1. The origins of contingency theory were formulated by Pugh, Hickson, Hinings, Macdonald, Turner and Lupton (1963), p. 289.Google Scholar
  22. 139.
    See Burns and Stalker (1962), p. 1, Child (1975), p. 12, and Chandler (1962). p. 1, respectively for the contingencies of environment, organizational size, and organizational strategy.Google Scholar
  23. 140.
    See Donaldson (2001), p. 2.Google Scholar
  24. 141.
    See Mintzberg, Ahlstrand and Lampel (1998), p. 289.Google Scholar
  25. 142.
    See Staehle (1999), p. 48.Google Scholar
  26. 143.
    See Pennings (1987), p. 223, and Burns and Stalker (1962), p. 1. Alternative terms for mechanistic and organic are hierarchical and participatory, respectively.Google Scholar
  27. 144.
    See Miller and Friesen (1984), pp. 1–8. Miller and Friesen label their holistic approach as “Quantum View” on the organization. The notion of a Quantum View comprises that a relatively limited number of key configurations reflects a high number of combinations of organizational elements. See also Miller (1983) for the archetypes of these combinations.Google Scholar
  28. 145.
    Miller and Friesen (1984), p. 1.Google Scholar
  29. 146.
    See the work of Kenney and Goe (2004), and Murray (2004).Google Scholar
  30. 147.
    See Granovetter (1973), p. 1360. Granovetter revisits this theory of the strength of weak ties in Granovetter (1983).Google Scholar
  31. 148.
    See Williamson (1975). Granovetter (1985, pp. 481–482) argues that classical and neoclassical eco-nomics assume rational, self-interested behavior affected minimally by social relations, thus invoking an idealized state. His argument of embeddedness captures the opposite, saying that ongoing social relations constrain actors and institutions so much that to construe them as independent is a grievous misunderstanding.Google Scholar
  32. 149.
    See Powell, Koput and Smith-Doerr (1996), p. 116.Google Scholar
  33. 150.
    See Murray (2004), p. 645.Google Scholar
  34. 151.
    See Ardichvili, Cardozo and Ray (2003), p. 113.Google Scholar
  35. 152.
    Based on its psychological origins, attitude theory has a substantial history of research. Attitudes are seen as being relatively less stable than personality traits, changing across time and across situations through interactive process with the environment. See Robinson, Stimpson, Huefner and Hunt (1991), p. 18, and Chaiken and Stangor (1987), p. 575.Google Scholar
  36. 153.
    Robinson, Stimpson, Huefner and Hunt (1991), p. 13.Google Scholar
  37. 154.
    See Ajzen and Fishbein (1977), p. 888.Google Scholar
  38. 155.
    Robinson, Stimpson, Huefner and Hunt (1991), p. 17.Google Scholar
  39. 156.
    See van Wyk and Boshoff (2004), p. 33.Google Scholar
  40. 157.
    See Robinson, Stimpson, Huefner and Hunt (1991), p. 19.Google Scholar
  41. 158.
    See Schumpeter (1934), Brockhaus (1980, 1982); see also Gartner (1988), who argues that individu-als seldom behave consistently over time and in different situations, and that personality traits are not good predictors of future actions.Google Scholar
  42. 159.
    See Bird (1988), Shapero (1975), and Shapero and Sokol (1982). Davidsson (1995), e.g., related personal variables such as gender, education, and experiences to attitudes that influence convictions and entrepreneurial intentions.Google Scholar
  43. 160.
    See Peterman and Kennedy (2003), Gorman, Hanlond and King (1997), and Young (1997).Google Scholar
  44. 161.
    See Gorman, Hanlond and King (1997)Google Scholar
  45. 162.
    Different models were developed by Shapero (1982) and Shapero and Sokol (1982), tested by Krueger (1993), and Davidsson (1995), tested by Autio et al. (1997) to the university situation.Google Scholar
  46. 163.
    See Autio, Keeley, Klofsten and Ulfstedt (1997), p. 2, and Davidsson (1995), p. 4.Google Scholar
  47. 164.
    Autio et al. (1997) three question index asks for (1) consideration to creating a company, (2) likeli-hood to start a company in 1 years, and (3) likelihood to start a company in 5 years.Google Scholar
  48. 165.
    See Hornaday (1982) for a summary of the trait approach.Google Scholar
  49. 166.
    See Gartner (1988), pp. 11–12. Gardner realigned entrepreneurship research and convincingly moved the focus more towards behavioral aspects, referring to the work done by Mintzberg (1973) on managerial behavior.Google Scholar
  50. 167.
    See Bird (1988), p. 442, and Shapero and Sokol (1982).Google Scholar
  51. 168.
    See Boyd and Vozikis (1994), p. 63, and Krueger (1993), p. 5.Google Scholar
  52. 169.
    See Ajzen (1991), p. 179.Google Scholar
  53. 170.
    Boyd and Vozikis (1994), p. 63.Google Scholar
  54. 171.
    See Fishbein and Ajzen (1975).Google Scholar
  55. 172.
    Davidsson (1995), p. 2.Google Scholar
  56. 173.
    See Davidsson (1995), p. 2.Google Scholar
  57. 174.
    Autio, Keeley, Klofsten and Ulfstedt (1997), p. 3.Google Scholar
  58. 175.
    See Autio, Keeley, Klofsten and Ulfstedt (1997), p. 3.Google Scholar
  59. 176.
    Kohli and Jaworski (1990) and Narver and Slater (1990) published their fundamental research in the same year in the Journal of Marketing.Google Scholar
  60. 177.
    See Kohli and Jaworski (1990), p. 1.Google Scholar
  61. 178.
    See Atuahene-Gima and Ko (2001), p. 55.Google Scholar
  62. 179.
    See Kohli and Jaworski (1990), p. 13.Google Scholar
  63. 180.
    See Narver and Slater (1990), p. 21. Homburg and Pflesser (2000) provide a distinction between the cultural and behavioral aspects of market orientation on which this dissertation will not elaborate.Google Scholar
  64. 181.
    See Atuahene-Gima and Ko (2001), p. 56.Google Scholar
  65. 182.
    See Lumpkin and Dess (1996), p. 135.Google Scholar
  66. 183.
    See Bourgeois (1980), p. 25.Google Scholar
  67. 184.
    See Lumpkin and Dess (1996), p. 136.Google Scholar
  68. 185.
    Lumpkin and Dess (1996), p. 136. See also Burgelman (1984), p. 154, as to corporate venturing.Google Scholar
  69. 186.
    See Schumpeter (1934), and Schumpeter (1942).Google Scholar
  70. 187.
    See Lumpkin and Dess (1996), pp. 136–137, with reference to Child (1972) and Van de van den Ven and Poole (1995).Google Scholar
  71. 188.
    Miller (1983), p. 770.Google Scholar
  72. 189.
    See Covin and Slevin (1989), pp. 83–85.Google Scholar
  73. 190.
    Jeffrey G. Covin is Professor of Entrepreneurship at the Kelley School of Business, Indiana Univer-sity, Bloomington. He received his Ph.D. in Organization Studies and Strategic Planning from the Uni-versity of Pittsburgh in 1985. Prior, he was Professor of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Man-agement at Georgia Tech. Dennis P. Slevin is Professor of Business Administration at the Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh. He received his Ph.D. in Business Administra-tion (Organizational Behavior) at Stanford University in 1969. Tom Lumpkin is Assistant Professor of Management at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He received his Ph.D. in Strategic Management at the University of Texas at Arlington in 1996. Gregory Dess is Professor of Organization, Strategy and International Management at the University of Texas at Dallas. Prior, Dess was Professor of Leadership and Strategic Management at University of Kentucky. He received his Ph.D. in Business Administra-tion from the University of Washington in 1980.Google Scholar
  74. 191.
    See Hart (1992) and Miller and Friesen (1978). Miller and Friesen identified 11 strategy-making dimensions, such as adaptiveness, analysis, integration, and risk taking.Google Scholar
  75. 192.
    See Covin and Slevin (1991), p. 7. The authors indicate that their model is intended to relate to lar-ger, established firms, but also to smaller firms.Google Scholar
  76. 193.
    See Covin and Slevin (1991), p. 7.Google Scholar
  77. 194.
    See Covin and Slevin (1991), p. 8.Google Scholar
  78. 195.
    See Covin and Slevin (1991), p. 8.Google Scholar
  79. 196.
    See Zahra (1993).Google Scholar
  80. 197.
    See Lumpkin and Dess (1996), p. 139.Google Scholar
  81. 198.
    Lumpkin and Dess speak initially of competitive aggressiveness, rather than competitiveness. The term “Competitive aggressiveness” wants to emphasize the aggressive and active nature of the dimen-sion. However, the term “aggressiveness” seems redundant, given that a competitive attitude involves per se some elements of aggressiveness. Therefore, the term “aggressiveness” is used in a limited way, and more focus is given towards the term “competitiveness”.Google Scholar
  82. 199.
    Lumpkin and Dess (1996), p. 137.Google Scholar
  83. 200.
    See Lumpkin and Dess (1996), p. 138. This is an important element, given the discussion about the appropriate level of investigation, analysis, and management. Reviewing the existing literature of en-trepreneurial orientation, Zahra pointed out that “(1) entrepreneurship activities occur at (and cut across) multiple levels within a firm, and (2) a generic model of firm-level entrepreneurship — such as Covin and Slevin’;s — should account for these multiples levels in conceptualizing the entrepreneurship-performance relationship.” (Zahra (1993), p. 7). This approach should similarly be used for the exami-nation of universities, which have organization-wide, research unit, and individual levels.Google Scholar
  84. 201.
    Lumpkin and Dess (1996), p. 140.Google Scholar
  85. 202.
    See Mintzberg (1973) and Mintzberg and Waters (1985) on strategy making. A similar approach can be found with Hart (1992), who labels it “command mode”, and Bourgeois and Brodwin (1984), who refer to it as “commander model.”Google Scholar
  86. 203.
    See Lumpkin and Dess (1996), p. 141.Google Scholar
  87. 204.
    See Pinchot (1985), p. 1.Google Scholar
  88. 205.
    See Badawy (1988), p. 21.Google Scholar
  89. 206.
    See Blau and Scott (1962).Google Scholar
  90. 207.
    Debackere, Clarysse and Rappa (1996), p. 73.Google Scholar
  91. 208.
    See Lumpkin and Dess (1996), 140.Google Scholar
  92. 209.
    See Bailyn (1985), p. 144.Google Scholar
  93. 210.
    See Schumpeter (1934), and Schumpeter (1942).Google Scholar
  94. 211.
    Lumpkin and Dess (1996), p. 142.Google Scholar
  95. 212.
    See Miller (1983), and Miller and Friesen (1982).Google Scholar
  96. 213.
    See Zahra and Covin (1993), p. 452.Google Scholar
  97. 214.
    See Dess and Lumpkin (2005), p. 152.Google Scholar
  98. 215.
    See Baird and Thomas (1985), pp. 231–232.Google Scholar
  99. 216.
    Miller and Friesen (1978), p. 923.Google Scholar
  100. 217.
    See Schumpeter (1934) and Penrose (1958).Google Scholar
  101. 218.
    See Lieberman and Montgomery (1998), p. 41.Google Scholar
  102. 219.
    See Miller and Friesen (1978), p. 923.Google Scholar
  103. 220.
    See Venkatraman (1989), p. 949.Google Scholar
  104. 221.
    For matters of consistency, the term competitiveness will be used in this context, rather than the term competitive aggressiveness. Without engaging into the semantics of these two terms, one should also consider that aggressiveness in its German translation bears a rather negative connotation. This is not the case in its original English meaning, where it also relates to speediness, impetuousness, and pertinacity.Google Scholar
  105. 222.
    See Covin and Slevin (1989), p. 79. The authors relate to aggressive competitive orientation as a defining element of proactiveness.Google Scholar
  106. 223.
    Lumpkin and Dess (1996), p. 147.Google Scholar
  107. 224.
    Lumpkin and Dess (1996), p. 148. The authors refer to MacMillan (1982) and Porter (1985) in their definition.Google Scholar
  108. 225.
    Lumpkin and Dess (1996), p. 149.Google Scholar
  109. 226.
    See Lumpkin and Dess (1996), p. 151.Google Scholar
  110. 227.
    Anecdotal evidence by Sony and Matsushita is presented, claiming that Sony operates entrepreneu-rial based on its innovativeness, proactiveness, and competitiveness given its R&D efforts and its ef-forts to be a first-mover, whilst Matsushita as the classical second-mover acts entrepreneurially by waiting how markets develop, but then putting money at risk and being intensly competitive. Conse-quently, entrepreneurial orientation can have various specificities, very much depending on the circum-stances. See Lumpkin and Dess (1996), pp. 150–151.Google Scholar
  111. 228.
    See Miller (1983).Google Scholar
  112. 229.
    See Lumpkin and Dess (1996), pp. 152–161. For the purposes of this dissertation, further details of the contingencies will note be discussed here. It is refereed to the original text for further information.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Betriebswirtschaftlicher Verlag Dr. Th. Gabler | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden 2008

Personalised recommendations