Academic Entrepreneurship (academic + entrepreneurship)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Business, Economics, Finance and Accounting66%

Selected Abstracts

Academic Entrepreneurship in France: the promotion of economic returns of public research and its political and scientific challenges

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, Issue 3 2008
CHRISTELLE MANIFET
Emphasising the level of the observation of university configurations and the example of academic entrepreneurship, the author analyses the drivers of economic returns of public research in France. Based on the study of national public policy in this field since 1999 and a general survey of the paths of researchers-entrepreneurs, the article highlights the weight of political and scientific logics. It also shows that behind the justification of promoting the knowledge economy lies a commercialisation of knowledge that underpins a process to defend the interests of a public research sector in support of mixed mercantile, managerial and professional and scientific logics. [source]

Creating University Spin-Offs: A Science-Based Design Perspective,

THE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 2 2008
Elco Van Burg
Academic entrepreneurship by means of university spin-offs commercializes technological breakthroughs, which may otherwise remain unexploited. However, many universities face difficulties in creating spin-offs. This article adopts a science-based design approach to connect scholarly research with the pragmatics of effectively creating university spin-offs. This approach serves to link the practice of university spin-off creation, via design principles, to the scholarly knowledge in this area. As such, science-based design promotes the interplay between emergent and deliberate design processes. This framework is used to develop a set of design principles that are practice based as well as grounded in the existing body of research on university spin-offs. A case-study of spin-off creation at a Dutch university illustrates the interplay between initial processes characterized by emergent design and the subsequent process that was more deliberate in nature. This case study also suggests there are two fundamentally different phases in building capacity for university spin-off creation. First, an infrastructure for spin-off creation (including a collaborative network of investors, managers and advisors) is developed that then enables support activities to individual spin-off ventures. This study concludes that to build and increase capacity for creating spin-offs, universities should do the following: (1) create university-wide awareness of entrepreneurship opportunities, stimulate the development of entrepreneurial ideas, and subsequently screen entrepreneurs and ideas by programs targeted at students and academic staff; (2) support start-up teams in composing and learning the right mix of venturing skills and knowledge by providing access to advice, coaching, and training; (3) help starters in obtaining access to resources and developing their social capital by creating a collaborative network organization of investors, managers, and advisors; (4) set clear and supportive rules and procedures that regulate the university spin-off process, enhance fair treatment of involved parties, and separate spin-off processes from academic research and teaching; and (5) shape a university culture that reinforces academic entrepreneurship by creating norms and exemplars that mo ivate entrepreneurial behavior. These and other results of this study illustrate how science-based design can connect scholarly research to the pragmatics of actually creating spin-offs in academic institutions. [source]

The Role of Human Capital in Technological Entrepreneurship

ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY AND PRACTICE, Issue 6 2007
Mike Wright
This special issue addresses the role that the human capital characteristics of individuals and teams play in the complex process of technological entrepreneurship. In this article, we position the special issue on human capital and technology-based entrepreneurship within the literatures concerning academic entrepreneurship, technology transfer and innovation, and corporate spin-offs. We summarize the articles in the special issue and also outline a research agenda at the firm, entrepreneurial team, and individual entrepreneur levels. Finally, we discuss managerial and policy implications. [source]

Academic Entrepreneurship in France: the promotion of economic returns of public research and its political and scientific challenges

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, Issue 3 2008
CHRISTELLE MANIFET
Emphasising the level of the observation of university configurations and the example of academic entrepreneurship, the author analyses the drivers of economic returns of public research in France. Based on the study of national public policy in this field since 1999 and a general survey of the paths of researchers-entrepreneurs, the article highlights the weight of political and scientific logics. It also shows that behind the justification of promoting the knowledge economy lies a commercialisation of knowledge that underpins a process to defend the interests of a public research sector in support of mixed mercantile, managerial and professional and scientific logics. [source]

Creating University Spin-Offs: A Science-Based Design Perspective,

THE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 2 2008
Elco Van Burg
Academic entrepreneurship by means of university spin-offs commercializes technological breakthroughs, which may otherwise remain unexploited. However, many universities face difficulties in creating spin-offs. This article adopts a science-based design approach to connect scholarly research with the pragmatics of effectively creating university spin-offs. This approach serves to link the practice of university spin-off creation, via design principles, to the scholarly knowledge in this area. As such, science-based design promotes the interplay between emergent and deliberate design processes. This framework is used to develop a set of design principles that are practice based as well as grounded in the existing body of research on university spin-offs. A case-study of spin-off creation at a Dutch university illustrates the interplay between initial processes characterized by emergent design and the subsequent process that was more deliberate in nature. This case study also suggests there are two fundamentally different phases in building capacity for university spin-off creation. First, an infrastructure for spin-off creation (including a collaborative network of investors, managers and advisors) is developed that then enables support activities to individual spin-off ventures. This study concludes that to build and increase capacity for creating spin-offs, universities should do the following: (1) create university-wide awareness of entrepreneurship opportunities, stimulate the development of entrepreneurial ideas, and subsequently screen entrepreneurs and ideas by programs targeted at students and academic staff; (2) support start-up teams in composing and learning the right mix of venturing skills and knowledge by providing access to advice, coaching, and training; (3) help starters in obtaining access to resources and developing their social capital by creating a collaborative network organization of investors, managers, and advisors; (4) set clear and supportive rules and procedures that regulate the university spin-off process, enhance fair treatment of involved parties, and separate spin-off processes from academic research and teaching; and (5) shape a university culture that reinforces academic entrepreneurship by creating norms and exemplars that mo ivate entrepreneurial behavior. These and other results of this study illustrate how science-based design can connect scholarly research to the pragmatics of actually creating spin-offs in academic institutions. [source]

University Commercialization Strategies in the Development of Regional Bioclusters,

THE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 2 2008
Shiri M. Breznitz
To analyze university contribution to economic development, the present study examines universities' technology transfer policies and their associated economic development impact. The article examines how a university defines itself as part of a region as well as what activities, if any, do university commercialization strategies in context of their regional environment affect spin-off activity. Furthermore, this study explores the ways universities contribute to regional economic development by examining existing theories and analyzing universities' relationships with both government and industry in two regions. This study draws from Roberts and Malone's (1996) selectivity,support typology and highlights this article's argument by comparing the commercialization strategies of world-class universities strategies in the development of regional biotechnology clusters in Massachusetts and in Connecticut. This article investigates the notion of whether universities can differently influence the economic development processes of the while still having successful commercial outcomes. These findings build on previous research (Clarysse et al., 2005; Degroof and Roberts, 2004; Powers and McDougall, 2005), which argues that low support,low selectivity policies may be more suitable to entrepreneurially developed environments, whereas high support,high selectivity policies are more efficient in entrepreneurially underdeveloped environments. Masachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is located in a strong technopole region, whereby many of its support structures for spin-off formation are provided by the regional infrastructure of the Cambridge,Boston region. In contrast, Yale University, which has an underdeveloped entrepreneurial context, has had to take a more proactive role in providing incubation capabilities to their spin-off projects. This finding supports a contingent based perspective of academic entrepreneurship, whereby low support,low selectivity policies are more fitted to entrepreneurially developed environments, whereas high support,high selectivity policies are more efficient in entrepreneurially underdeveloped environments. [source]