The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 271–296 | Cite as

Ready to leave the ivory tower?: Academic scientists’ appeal to work in the private sector

Article

Abstract

This study investigates the factors that shape the attitudes of scientists toward starting their own business or working in a private sector firm. The analysis is based on data collected from scientists working in the German Max Planck Society, a research institution devoted to basic science. We find that the scientists’ attractiveness of working in a private sector firm or of starting their own business differ considerably according to their academic discipline and the self-reported commercial potential of their research. The ability to take risks, prior work experience in private firms, and personal experience in cooperating with industry lead to a positive attitude towards switching to private sector employment or entrepreneurship. Strong willingness to freely distribute research findings is related to a low appeal of private sector work.

Keywords

Knowledge transfer Science Entrepreneurship Innovation Commercialization 

JEL Classification

O31 O33 L26 L32 

References

  1. Agrawal, A. (2006). Engaging the inventor: Exploring licensing strategies for university inventions and the role of latent knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 27(1), 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agarwal, R., Echambadi, R., Franco, A. M., & Sarkar, M. B. (2004). Knowledge transfer through inheritance: Spin-out generation, development and survival. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 501–522.Google Scholar
  3. Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 44–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Azoulay, P., Ding, W. W., & Stuart, T. (2006). The impact of academic patenting on (public) research output. NBER Working Paper #11917.Google Scholar
  6. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19(1), 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buenstorf, G. (2009). Is commercialization good or bad for science? Individual-level evidence from the Max Planck Society. Research Policy, 38(2), 281–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charles, D., & Conway, C. (2001). Higher education–business interaction survey: A report to the UK HE funding bodies and the Office of Science and Technology. Newcastle: University of Newcastle upon Tyne.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, W. M., Florida, R., Randazzese, L., & Walsh, J. (1998). Industry and the academy: Uneasy partners in the cause of technological advance. In R. Noll (Ed.), Challenges to the research university (pp. 171–198). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Colombo, M. G., & Grilli, L. (2005). Founders’ human capital and the growth of new technology–based firms: A competence–based view. Research Policy, 34(6), 795–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dietz, J. S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). Academic careers, patents, and productivity: industry experience as scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 34(3), 349–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schrupp, J., & Wagner, G.G. (2005). Individual risk attitudes: New evidence from a large, representative, experimentally-validated survey. DIW Discussion Paper 511, available at http://193.174.141.131/documents/publikationen/73/43553/dp511.pdf. Accessed October, 15th, 2009.
  14. Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages. Research Policy, 27(8), 823–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  16. Gittelman, M. (1999). Knowledge as property: Innovation in biotechnology in the United States and in France. In: Academy of Management Proceedings, IM: L1–L6.Google Scholar
  17. Herrera, L., Muñoz-Doyague, M. F., & Nieto, M. (2010). Mobility of public researchers, scientific knowledge transfer, and the firm’s innovation process. Journal of Business Research, 63(5), 510–518.Google Scholar
  18. Krabel, S., & Mueller, P. (2009). What drives scientists to start their own company?: An empirical investigation of Max Planck Society scientists. Research Policy, 38(6), 947–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Libaers, D. (2009). Industry relationships of DoD-funded academics and institutional changes in the US University system. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(5), 474–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lin, M.-W., & Bozeman, B. (2006). Researchers’ industry experience and productivity in university-industry research centers: A ‘scientific and technical human capital’ explanation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(2), 269–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Link, A. N., & Ruhm, C. J. (2010). Public knowledge, private knowledge: The intellectual capital of entrepreneurs. Small Business Economics, (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  22. Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2007). Innovation, entrepreneurship and technological change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lowe, R. A., & Gonzalez-Brambila, C. (2007). Faculty entrepreneurs and research productivity. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(3), 173–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mangematin, V. (2000). PhD job market: Professional trajectories and incentives during the PhD. Research Policy, 29(6), 741–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic research underlying industrial innovation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(1), 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martinelli, D. (2001). Labour market entry and mobility of young French PhDs. In: Innovative people—Mobility of skilled personnel in national innovation systems. OECD Proceedings, 2001, 159–173.Google Scholar
  27. Max Planck Society (2009). Max Plank Society: Annual Report 2008, available at http://www.mpg.de/pdf/jahresbericht2008/jahresbericht2008.pdf, Accessed February, 9th, 2009.
  28. Noll, R. (1998). Challenges to research universities. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  29. OECD (2002). International mobility of the highly skilled. OECD Report, Paris, available at: http://pesona.mmu.edu.my/~chtan/Seminar/9202011E.pdf?bcsi_scan_2A2102422E3B7B6B=0&bcsi_scan_filename=9202011E.pdf, Accessed August, 15th, 2009.
  30. Pavitt, K. (1998). The social shaping of the national science base. Research Policy, 27(8), 793–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University-industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259–280.Google Scholar
  32. Ponomariov, B., & Boardman, P. C. (2008). The effect of informal industry contacts on the time university scientists allocate to collaborative research with industry. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 301–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Powers, J. B., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: A resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(3), 291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reynolds, P. D., Carter, N. M., Gartner, W. B., & Greene, P. G. (2004). The prevalence of nascent entrepreneurs in the United States: Evidence from the panel study of entrepreneurial dynamics. Small Business Economics, 23(4), 263–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rosenberg, N. (1990). Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)? Research Policy, 19(2), 165–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schomburg, H., & Teichler, U. (2006). Higher education and graduate employment in Europe: Results from graduates surveys from twelve countries. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Segarra–Blasco, A., & Arauzo–Carod, J. (2008). Sources of innovation and industry–university interaction: Evidence from Spanish firms. Research Policy, 37(8), 1283–1295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shane, S. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship—University spinoffs and wealth creation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  39. Shane, S., & Khurana, R. (2003). Bringing individuals back in: The effects of career experience on new firm founding. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(3), 519–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shane, S., & Stuart, T. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Science, 48(1), 154–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. New York City: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Shrader, R., & Siegel, D. S. (2007). Assessing the relationship between human capital and firm performance: Evidence from technology-based new ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 31(6), 893–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stern, S. (2004). Do scientists pay to be scientists? Management Science, 50(6), 835–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stuart, T., & Ding, W. W. (2006). The social structural determinants of academic entrepreneurship: An analysis of university scientists’ participation in commercial ventures. American Journal of Sociology, 112(1), 97–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thune, T. (2007). University–industry collaboration: The network embeddedness approach. Science and Public Policy, 34(3), 158–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Toole, A., & Czarnitzki, D. (2007). Biomedical academic entrepreneurship through the SBIR program. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(4), 716–738.Google Scholar
  47. Toole, A. A., & Czarnitzki, D. (2009). Exploring the relationship between scientist human capital and firm performance: The case of biomedical academic entrepreneurs in the SBIR program. Management Science, 55(1), 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Turner, R. (1990). Some contributions of Muzafer Sherif to Sociology. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53(4), 283–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Verplanken, B., & Holland, R. W. (2002). Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 434–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wagner, G. G., Frick, J., & Schrupp, J. (2007). German Socio.Economic Panel. http://www.diw.de/documents/dokumentenarchiv/17/56579/personen_en_2007.pdf. Accessed October, 28th, 2009.
  51. Wright, M., Clarysee, B., Mustar, P., & Lockett, A. (2007). Academic entrepreneurship in Europe. Cheltenham, UK.l: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  52. Zellner, C. (2003). The economic effects of basic research: Evidence for embodied knowledge transfer via scientists’ migration. Research Policy, 32(10), 1881–1895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of US. biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review, 88(1), 290–306.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics and Business AdministrationFriedrich Schiller UniversityJenaGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Economics, Economic Policy ResearchUniversity of KasselKasselGermany

Personalised recommendations