Small Business Economics

, Volume 47, Issue 3, pp 589–607 | Cite as

Are researchers deliberately bypassing the technology transfer office? An analysis of TTO awareness

  • Annelore Huyghe
  • Mirjam Knockaert
  • Evila Piva
  • Mike Wright
Article

Abstract

Most universities committed to the commercialization of academic research have established technology transfer offices (TTOs). Nonetheless, many researchers bypass these TTOs and take their inventions directly to the marketplace. While TTO bypassing has typically been portrayed as deliberate and undesirable behavior, we argue that it could be unintentional as many researchers may simply be unaware of the TTO’s existence. Taking an information-processing perspective and using data on 3250 researchers in 24 European universities, we examine researcher attributes associated with TTO awareness. Our evidence confirms that only a minority of researchers are aware of the existence of a TTO at their university. TTO awareness is greater among researchers who possess experience as entrepreneurs, closed many research and consulting contracts with industry partners, conduct research in medicine, engineering or life sciences, or occupy postdoctoral positions. Policy implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords

TTO awareness TTO bypassing Information-processing Knowledge corridor Entrepreneurial universities 

JEL Classifications

L26 M13 O32 

References

  1. Algieri, B., Aquino, A., & Succurro, M. (2013). Technology transfer offices and academic spin-off creation: The case of Italy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38, 382–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambos, T. C., Makela, K., Birkinshaw, J., & D’Este, P. (2008). When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1424–1447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: WH Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.Google Scholar
  4. Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Audretsch, D. (2007). The entrepreneurial society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartell, M. (2003). Internationalization of universities: A university culture-based framework. Higher Education, 45, 43–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19(1), 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Belenzon, S., & Schankerman, M. (2009). University knowledge transfer: Private ownership, incentives, and local development objectives. Journal of Law and Economics, 52, 111–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., Feller, I., & Burton, R. (2001). Organizational structure as a determinant of academic patent and licensing behavior: An exploratory study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bienkowska, D., & Klofsten, M. (2012). Creating entrepreneurial networks: Academic entrepreneurship, mobility and collaboration during PhD education. Higher Education, 64, 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brescia, F., Colombo, G., & Landoni, P. (2015). Organizational structures of knowledge transfer offices: An analysis of the world’s top-ranked universities. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi: 10.1007/s10961-014-9384.Google Scholar
  12. Caldera, A., & Debande, O. (2010). Performance of Spanish universities in technology transfer: An empirical analysis. Research Policy, 39, 1160–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carlsson, B., & Fridh, A. C. (2002). Technology transfer in United States universities. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12(1–2), 199–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2005). Assessing the relative performance of U.K. university technology transfer offices: Parametric and non-parametric evidence. Research Policy, 34(3), 369–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clark, B. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  16. Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Van De Velde, E., & Vohora, A. (2005). Spinning out new ventures: A typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 183–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cliff, J., Devereaux, J., & Greenwood, R. (2006). New to the game and questioning the rules: The experiences and beliefs of founders who start imitative versus innovative firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 21, 633–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Coupe, T. (2003). Science is golden: Academic R&D and university patents. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Damsgaard, E. F., & Thursby, M. C. (2013). University entrepreneurship and professor privilege. Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(1), 183–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 301–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Day, D., & Lord, R. 1992. Expertise and problem categorization: The role of expert processing in organizational sensemaking. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Derrick, G. E. (2015). Integration versus separation: Structure and strategies of the technology transfer office (TTO) in medical research organizations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40, 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dietz, J., & Bozeman, B. (2005). Academic careers, patents, and productivity: Industry experience as scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 34(3), 349–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Erikson, T., Knockaert, M., & Foo, M.-D. (2015). Enterprising scientists: The shaping role of norms, experience and scientific productivity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 99, 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32(1), 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fiet, J. (2007). A prescriptive analysis of search and discovery. Journal of Management Studies, 44(4), 592–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Foltz, J., Barham, B., & Kim, K. (2000). Universities and agricultural biotechnology patent production. Agribusiness, 16(1), 82–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Forbes, D. (1999). Cognitive approaches to new venture creation. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1(4), 415–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Forbes, D. (2007). Reconsidering the strategic implications of decision comprehensiveness. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 361–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Franklin, S., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2001). Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fritsch, M., & Krabel, S. (2012). Ready to leave the ivory tower?: Academic scientists’ appeal to work in the private sector. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(3), 271–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gaglio, C. M., & Katz, J. A. (2001). The psychological basis of opportunity identification: Entrepreneurial alertness. Small Business Economics, 16(2), 95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gittelman, M., & Kogut, B. (2003). Does good science lead to valuable knowledge? Biotechnology firms and the evolutionary logic of citation patterns. Management Science, 49(4), 366–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40, 1045–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gruber, M., MacMillan, I., & Thompson, J. (2013). Escaping the prior knowledge corridor: what shapes the number and variety of market opportunities identified before market entry of technology start-ups? Organization Science, 24(1), 280–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2012). The development of an entrepreneurial university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37, 43–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J.-C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, 34, 932–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gupta, V., Hanges, P. J., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Cultural clusters: Methodology and findings. Journal of World Business, 37(1), 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. A global perspective. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  41. Hansen, E. L., & Allen, K. R. (1992). The creation corridor: Environmental load and pre-organization information processing ability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(1), 57–65.Google Scholar
  42. Huber, G., & Daft, R. (1987). The information environments of organizations. In F. Jablin, L. Putnam, K. Roberts, & L. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 130–164). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Hulsbeck, M., Lehmann, E., & Starnecker, A. (2011). Performance of technology transfer offices in Germany. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(3), 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Huyghe, A., Knockaert, M., Wright, M., & Piva, E. (2014). Technology Transfer Offices as boundary spanners in the pre-spin-off process: The case of a hybrid model. Small Business Economics, 43(2), 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., Sully de Luque, M., & House, R. J. (2006). In the eye of the beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from project GLOBE. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kenney, M., & Goe, W. R. (2004). The role of social embeddedness in professional entrepreneurship: A comparison of electrical engineering and computer science at UC Berkeley and Stanford. Research Policy, 33, 691–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kenney, M., & Patton, D. (2009). Reconsidering the Bayh–Dole Act and the current university invention ownership model. Research Policy, 38, 1407–1422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kirby, D. A., Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2011). Making universities more entrepreneurial: Development of a model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 28(3), 302–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Klofsten, M., & Jones-Evans, D. (2000). Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe: The case of Sweden and Ireland. Small Business Economics, 14(4), 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Knockaert, M., Foo, M.-D., Erikson, T., & Cools, E. (2015). Growth intentions among entrepreneurial research scientists: A cognitive style perspective. Technovation, 38, 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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
  52. Krücken, G. (2003). Learning the ‘New, New Thing’: On the role of path dependency in university structures. Higher Education, 46, 315–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kumar, M. N. (2010). Ethical conflicts in commercialization of university research in the post-Bayh–Dole era. Ethics and Behavior, 20(5), 324–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lach, S., & Schankerman, M. (2004). Royalty sharing and technology licensing in universities. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2(2–3), 252–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: “Gold”, “ribbon”, or “puzzle”? Research Policy, 40(10), 1354–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Landry, R., Nabil, A., & Ouimet, M. (2007). Determinants of knowledge transfer: Evidence from Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32, 561–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Larsen, M. T. (2011). The implications of academic enterprise for public science: An overview of the empirical evidence. Research Policy, 40, 6–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lazear, E. (2004). Balanced skills and entrepreneurship. The American Economic Review, 94(2), 208–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lee, Y. S. (1996). ‘Technology transfer’ and the research university: A search for the boundaries of university–industry collaboration. Research Policy, 25(6), 843–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2005). Opening the ivory tower’s door: An analysis of the determinants of the formation of US university spin-off companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1106–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2005). University-based technology initiatives: Quantitative and qualitative evidence. Research Policy, 34(3), 253–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 641–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1043–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Franklin, S. (2003). Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies. Small Business Economics, 20(2), 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lord, R., & Maher, K. (1990). Alternative information-processing models and their implications for theory, research and practice. Academy of Management Review, 15, 9–28.Google Scholar
  66. Mansfield, E. (1998). Academic research and industrial innovation: An update of empirical findings. Research Policy, 26(7–8), 773–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Markman, G. G., Gianiodis, P. T., & Phan, P. H. (2008). Full-time faculty or part-time entrepreneurs. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), 29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Markman, G., Gianiodis, P., Phan, P., & Balkin, D. (2004). Entrepreneurship from the ivory tower: To incentive systems matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3), 353–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Markman, G. D., Gianodis, P. T., & Phan, P. (2006). Sidestepping the ivory tower: Rent appropriations through bypassing of U.S. universities, Mimeograph, University of Georgia.Google Scholar
  70. Markman, G. D., Phan, P. H., Balkin, D. B., & Gianiodis, P. T. (2005). Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 241–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P. P., Morse, E. A., & Smith, J. B. (2002). Toward a theory of entrepreneurial cognition: Rethinking the people side of entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 27(2), 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2007). From human capital to social capital: A longitudinal study of technology-based academic entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(6), 909–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Mowery, D. C., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2002). Learning to patent: Institutional experience, learning, and the characteristics of U.S. university patents after the Bayh–Dole act, 1981–1992. Management Science, 48(1), 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Murray, F. (2004). The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: Sharing the laboratory life. Research Policy, 33(4), 643–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Muscio, A. (2010). What drives the university use of technology transfer offices? Evidence from Italy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(2), 181–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. OECD (2003). Turning science into business: Patenting and licensing at public research organizations. Paris: OECD. Google Scholar
  77. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Olson, B. J., Parayitam, S., & Bao, Y. 2007. Strategic decision making: The effects of cognitive diversity, conflict, and trust on decision outcomes. Journal of management, 33(2), 196–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Pauwels, C., Clarysse, B., Wright, M. & Van Hove, J. (2016). Understanding a new generation incubation model: The accelerator. Technovation, 50, 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2008). Engaging the scholar: Three types of academic consulting and their impact on universities and industry. Research Policy, 37(10), 1884–1891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Petersen, M. (2009). Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: Comparing approaches. Review of Financial Studies, 22(1), 435–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Pfeffer, J. (1972). Size and composition of corporate boards of directors: The organization and its environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 218–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Phan, P. H., & Siegel, D. S. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2, 77–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Pilegaard, M., Moroz, P., & Neergaard, H. (2010). An auto-ethnographic perspective on academic entrepreneurship: Implications for research in the social sciences and humanities. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(1), 46–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Powers, J. (2003). Commercializing academic research: Resource effects on performance of university technology transfer. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(1), 26–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Powers, J., & McDougall, 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, 291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2014). The influence of university departments on the evolution of entrepreneurial competencies in spin-off ventures. Research Policy, 4(1), 92–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Rogers, E. M., Yin, J., & Hoffmann, J. (2000). Assessing the effectiveness of technology transfer offices at US research universities. The Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers, 12(1), 47–80.Google Scholar
  90. Ronstadt, R. (1988). The corridor principal and entrepreneurial time. Journal of Business Venturing, 3(1), 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Rothaermel, F., Agung, S., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Schmiemann, M., & Durvy, J.-N. (2003). New approaches to technology transfer from publicly funded research. Journal of Technology Transfer, 1, 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Schoen, A., de la Potterie, B. V. P., & Henkel, J. (2014). Governance typology of universities’ technology transfer processes. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 435–453.Google Scholar
  94. Sellenthin, M. (2009). Technology transfer offices and university patenting in Sweden and Germany. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 603–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11, 448–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Shane, S. (2004a). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Shane, S. (2004b). Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh–Dole act on university patenting in the United States. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 127–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Shane, S., Dolmans, S., Jankowski, J., Reymen, I., & Romme, A. (2015). Academic entrepreneurship: which inventors do technology licensing officers prefer for spin-offs? Journal of Technology Transfer, 40, 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Shaver, K. G., & Scott, L. R. (1991). Person, process, choice: The psychology of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 16(2), 23–45.Google Scholar
  100. Shepherd, D. A., & DeTienne, D. R. (2005). Prior knowledge, potential financial reward, and opportunity identification. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 29(1), 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Siegel, D. S., Veugelers, R., & Wright, M. (2007). Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: Performance and policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 640–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L., & Link, A. N. (2004). Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(1–2), 115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). University technology transfer offices, licensing, and start-ups. In Chicago Handbook of University Technology Transfer and Academic Entrepreneurship (pp. 1–40).Google Scholar
  105. Simon, H. A. (1971). Designing organizations for an information-rich world. In M. Greenberger (Ed.), Computers, Communication, and the Public Interest (pp. 40–41). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  106. Stuart, T. E., & Ding, W. W. (2006). When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences. American Journal of Sociology, 112(1), 97–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Stuetzer, M., Obschonka, M., & Schmitt-Rodermund, E. (2013). Balanced skills among nascent entrepreneurs. Small Business Economics, 41(1), 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Thune, T. (2009). Doctoral students on the university–industry interface: A review of the literature. Higher Education, 58(5), 637–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Thursby, J. G., & Kemp, S. (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing. Research Policy, 31(1), 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2002). Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science, 48(1), 90–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major U.S. universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Toole, A., & Czarnitzki, D. (2010). Commercializing science: Is there a university “brain drain” from academic entrepreneurship? Management Science, 55(9), 1599–1614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Van Knippenberg, D., Dahlander, L., Haas, M. R., & George, G. (2015). Information, attention, and decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 649–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Vanacker, T., & Forbes, D. (2015). Disentangling the multiple effects of affiliate reputation on resource attraction in new firms. Ghent University and University of Minnesota Working Paper.Google Scholar
  115. Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research. In J. Katz (Ed.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth, 3 (pp. 119–138). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  116. Von Hippel, E. (1994). “Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management Science, 40(4), 429–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Weckowska, D. M. (2015). Learning in university technology transfer offices: Transactions-focused and relations-focused approaches to commercialization of academic research. Technovation, 41, 62–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., & Wright, M. (2011). The effectiveness of university knowledge spillovers: Performance differences between university spinoffs and corporate spinoffs. Research Policy, 40(8), 1128–1143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Westhead, P., Ucbasaran, D., & Wright, M. (2009). Information search and opportunity identification the importance of prior business ownership experience. International Small Business Journal, 27(6), 659–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., & Knockaert, M. (2008). Mid-range universities’ linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. Research Policy, 37, 1205–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Wright, M., Piva, E., Mosey, S., & Lockett, A. (2009). Business schools and academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(6), 560–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Zahra, S. A., & Newey, L. R. (2009). Maximizing the Impact of Organization Science: Theory-Building at the Intersection of Disciplines and/or Fields. Journal of Management Studies, 46(6), 1059–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Armstrong, J. S. (2002). Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science, 48(1), 138–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annelore Huyghe
    • 1
  • Mirjam Knockaert
    • 2
    • 3
  • Evila Piva
    • 4
  • Mike Wright
    • 5
    • 2
  1. 1.Australian Centre for Entrepreneurship ResearchQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Ghent UniversityGhentBelgium
  3. 3.University of OsloOsloNorway
  4. 4.Department of Management, Economics and Industrial EngineeringPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly
  5. 5.Imperial College Business SchoolLondonUK

Personalised recommendations