Academic Entrepreneur, Academic Entrepreneurship
- 175 Downloads
In the scientific theory, the terms academic entrepreneur and academic entrepreneurship are defined and developed further in very different ways. From the traditional perspective, academic entrepreneurship means an “university spin-off” or an institutional transfer of research, development, or technology to start innovations or ventures (see, for example, Shane 2004). According to Beckman and Cherwitz (2009), academic entrepreneurship can be defined as an “intellectual enterprise,” in which universities cooperate with local communities to create new values or ideas. With the special focus on the production of knowledge an academic entrepreneurship is close to the definition of an “academic firm” (Campbell and Güttel 2005), which sees an academic entrepreneur operating simultaneously as intellectual actor (= academic) and as entrepreneurial actor (= firm). As a summarization, the terms academic entrepreneur and academic...
- Beckman GD, Cherwitz RA. Intellectual entrepreneurship: an authentic foundation for higher education reform. Plan High Educ. 2009;4:27–36.Google Scholar
- Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ. Triple helix, quadruple helix and quintuple helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other? A proposed framework for a trans-disciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology. Int J Soc Ecol Sust Dev. 2010;1(1):41–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- D’Este P, Mahdi S, Neely A. Academic entrepreneurship: what are the factors shaping the capacity of academic researchers to identify and exploit entrepreneurial opportunities? DRUID working paper no. 10-05, ISBN 978- 87-7873-287-3; 2005, p 1–34.Google Scholar
- Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M. The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage; 1994.Google Scholar
- Zhang J. A study of academic entrepreneurs using venture capital data, discussion paper no. 2992, Aug 2007. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA): Bonn; 2007, p 1–43.Google Scholar