Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Publicly Funded Principal Investigators as Transformative Agents of Public Sector Entrepreneurship

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Essays in Public Sector Entrepreneurship

Part of the book series: International Studies in Entrepreneurship ((ISEN,volume 34))

Abstract

National governments consistently implement an array of public sector entrepreneurship policies and activities, seeking to generate further economic activity and create new networks and market opportunities that reduce market risks and uncertainties for market-based technology exploiters. This means that scientists taking on the role of being a publicly funded principal investigator (PI) is at the nexus of science, government and industry, and can have a significant influence and impact on shaping and delivering outcomes of public sector entrepreneurship policies and activities. Within the emerging public sector entrepreneurship literature (see Leyden and Link 2015; Link and Link 2009), we argue that publicly funded PIs as key public sector entrepreneurship transformative agents, through scientific novelty and originality involving some creative and innovative processes that can be exploited for opportunities with good market or societal potential. Publicly funded PIs are key agents of what Leyden and Link (2015:14) define as public sector entrepreneurship:

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    www.upenn.edu/researchservices/faq.html

  2. 2.

    www.columbia.edu/cu/compliance/pdfs/PI_Quick_Guide.pdf

  3. 3.

    www.princeton.edu/…/PI%20Request%20for%20Website%20-%20Final.pdf

  4. 4.

    See ESRC RTD Enquiries Service.

  5. 5.

    See EUROPE DIRECT Contact Centre/Research Enquiry Service.

  6. 6.

    http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf02151/gpm2.jsp#210

  7. 7.

    Formerly known as the Irish Research Council for Humanities and Social Science

  8. 8.

    For more information about the project and other large-scale survey findings, see www.topik.ie

References

  • Alder, N., Elmquist, M., & Norrgren, F. (2009). The challenge of management boundary-spanning research activities: Experiences from the Swedish context. Research Policy, 38(7), 1136–1149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambos, T., Makela, K., Birkensaw, J., & DÉste, P. (2008). When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 1425–1447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekkers, R., & Bodas Freitas, I. M. (2008). Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy, 37, 1837–1853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bessette, R. (2003). Measuring the economic impact of university-based research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(3–4), 355–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum-More, P.-H., Rossini, F.-A., & Baldwin, D.-R. (1990). International research management: Studies in interdisciplinary methods from business, government, and academia. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Boardman, C., & Ponomariov, B. (2014). Management knowledge and the organization of team science in university research centers. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(1), 75–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, D., & Hogan, T. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Mangematin, V. (2004). Editor’s introduction: Scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 565–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bush, V. (1945). Science—The endless frontier. Washington, DC: Office of Scientific Research and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casati, A., & Genet, C. (2014). Principal investigators as scientific entrepreneurs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(1), 11–32.

    Article  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(1), 55–79.

    Article  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(6), 943–966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, J., & Harney, B. (2006). Strategic management of technology transfer: A new challenge on campus. Cork, Ireland: Oak Tree Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, J., O’Reilly, P., O’Kane, C., & Mangematin, V. (2014). The inhibiting factors that principal investigators experience in leading publicly funded research. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(1), 93–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, J., O’Reilly, P., O’Kane, C., & Mangematin, V. (2015). Managerial challenges of publicly funded principal investigators. International Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 68(3/4), 176–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more startups than others? Research Policy, 32(2), 209–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. L. (2005). The research productivity of scientists: How gender, organization culture and the problem choice process influence the productivity of scientists. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, C., & Cunningham, J. A. (2015). Inside the university technology transfer office: Mission statement analysis. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1–12. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9419-6

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzoni, C. (2009). Do scientists get fundamental research ideas by solving practical problems? Industrial and Corporate Change, 18, 671–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frestedt, J. (2008, September). The role and impact of the Principal Investigator. Monitor, 31–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 17–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 Years after Bayh-Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1045–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gubitta, P., Tognazzo, A., & Destro, F. (2015). Signaling in academic ventures: The role of technology transfer offices and university funds. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1–26. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9398-7

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2012). The development of an entrepreneurial university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1), 43–74.

    Article  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(3), 415–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hertzfeld, H. (2002). Measuring the economic returns from successful NASA life sciences technology transfers. Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(4), 311–320.

    Article  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(6), 922–935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, B.-J. (2004). A study on the establishing development model for research parks. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(2), 203–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kidwell, D. K. (2013). Principal investigators as knowledge brokers: A multiple case study of the creative actions of PIs in entrepreneurial science. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(2), 212–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kidwell, D. (2014). Navigating the role of the principal investigator: A comparison of four cases. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(1), 33–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leyden, D. P., & Link, A. N. (2015). Public sector entrepreneurship: US technology and innovation policy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., & Link, J. (2009). Government as entrepreneur. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A., & Scott, J. (2004). Evaluating public sector R&D programs: The advanced technology program’s investment in wavelength references for optical fiber communications. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1–2), 241–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A., Swann, C. A., & Bozeman, B. (2008). A time allocation study of university faculty. Economics of Education Review, 27, 363–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, G. D., Phan, H. P., Balkin, D. B., & Gianiodis, P. T. (2005b). Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 241–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muscio, A. (2010). What drives the university use of technology transfer offices? Evidence from Italy. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(2), 181–202.

    Article  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(2), 421–437.

    Article  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(7), 994–1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, J.-B., Ryu, T.-K., & Gibson, D. (2010). Facilitating public-to-private technology transfer through consortia: Initial evidence from Korea. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(2), 237–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phan, P., & Siegel, D. S. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer: Lessons learned, managerial and policy implications, and the road forward. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 77–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porac, J. F., Wade, J. B., Fischer, H. M., Brown, J., Kanfer, A., & Bowker, G. (2004). Human capital heterogeneity, collaborative relationships, and publication patterns in a multidisciplinary scientific alliance: A comparative case study of two scientific teams. Research Policy, 33(4), 661–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the funding support of the Irish Research Council and the Irish Social Sciences Platform funded under the Programme for Research in Third Level Institutions Cycle 4, administered by the Higher Education Authority and co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). We also wish to thank all of the PIs who participated in the study, either by completing the survey or participating in interviews conducted for the case studies. Finally, we wish to acknowledge the research support of Dr. Agnes Maciocha, Brendan Dolan and Chris Young for different aspects of this research programme.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University, City Campus East, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 8ST, UK

    James A. Cunningham

  2. College of Business, Dublin Institute of Technology, Aungier Street, Dublin 2, Ireland

    Paul O’Reilly

  3. Department of Management, University of Otago, 56, Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand

    Conor O’Kane

  4. Grenoble Ecole de Management, 12 Rue Pierre Semard, 3800, Grenoble, France

    Vincent Mangematin

Authors
  1. James A. Cunningham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul O’Reilly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Conor O’Kane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vincent Mangematin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James A. Cunningham .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Indiana University, School of Public & Environmental Affairs, BLOOMINGTON, Indiana, USA

    David B. Audretsch

  2. University of North Carolina at Greensbo, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA

    Albert N. Link

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cunningham, J.A., O’Reilly, P., O’Kane, C., Mangematin, V. (2016). Publicly Funded Principal Investigators as Transformative Agents of Public Sector Entrepreneurship. In: Audretsch, D., Link, A. (eds) Essays in Public Sector Entrepreneurship. International Studies in Entrepreneurship, vol 34. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26677-0_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation