Advertisement

The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 322–334 | Cite as

Academic entrepreneurship, technology transfer and society: where next?

  • Mike WrightEmail author
Article

Abstract

I outline a synthesis of micro and macro levels that attempts to provide a broader conceptualization of academic entrepreneurship and an appreciation of the contextual heterogeneity of academic entrepreneurship and the implications for how it occurs. The micro-level concerns how firms orchestrate their resources and capabilities, specifically knowing where resources come from and how to accumulate, bundle and configure them to generate sustainable returns. At the macro level, I analyse four different dimensions of context: temporal, institutional, social and spatial. Consequently, I argue that there is a need for a reconciliation of utilitarian and education-for-education’s sake perspectives on the role of universities.

Keywords

Spin-offs Universities Technology transfer Academic entrepreneurship 

JEL Classification

N13 O31 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Simon Mosey, Philippe Mustar and participants at the Technology Transfer Society Conference 2011 for comments on an earlier version.

References

  1. Acworth, E. B. (2008). University industry engagement: The formation of the knowledge integration community (KIC) model at the Cambridge-MIT institute. Research Policy, 37, 1241–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahuja, G., & Katila, R. (2004). Where do resources come from? The role of idiosyncratic situations. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 887–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Babcock-Lumish, T. L. (2009). Financing clusters of innovation: The geography of venture capital investment, US and UK, Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1358931.
  4. Boucher, G., Conway, C., & Van der Meer, E. (2003). Tiers of engagement by universities n their region’s development. Regional Studies, 37(9), 887–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. (2009). “Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3/4), 201–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christensen, J. L. (2010). Low-tech, high-performing clusters in knowledge-based economies, Paper presented at Druid Conference. Imperial College Business School, June 16–18.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, T., & Wright, M. (2007). Reviewing Journal rankings and revisiting peer reviews. Journal of Management Studies, 44(4), 612–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, T., & Wright, M. (2009). So farewell, then… reflections on editing journal of management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 46(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
  9. Clarysse, B., Mosey, S., & Lambrecht, A. (2009). New trends in technology management education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(3), 427–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarysse, B., Wright, M., & van de Velde, E. (2011). Entrepreneurial origin, technological knowledge and the growth of spin-off companies. Journal of Management Studies, 48(60), 1420–1442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Freeman, C. (1987). Technology and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  12. Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 Years after Bayh-Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1045–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harrison, R., & Leitch, C. (2009). Voodoo institution or entrepreneurial university? Spin-off companies, the entrepreneurial system and regional development in the UK. Regional Studies, 44(9), 1241–1262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Higher Education Funding Council. (2011). Higher Education-Business and Community Interaction Survey 2009–10. London: HEFCE.Google Scholar
  15. Huggins, R. (2008). Universities and knowledge-based venturing: Finance, management and networks in London. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 20, 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Sirmon, D. G. (2003). A model of strategic entrepreneurship: The construct and its dimensions. Journal of Management, 29, 963–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kenney, M., & Patton, D. (2009). Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the current university invention ownership model. Research Policy, 38, 1407–1422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Levie, J., Hart, M., & Anyadyke-Danes, M. (2010). The effect of business or enterprise training on opportunity recognition and entrepreneurial skills of graduates and non-graduates in the UK. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 2009, 749–759.Google Scholar
  19. Martin, R., Berndt, C., Klagge, B., & Sunley, P. (2005). Spatial proximity effects and regional equity gaps in the venture capital market: Evidence from Germany and the United Kingdom. Environment and Planning A, 37, 1207–1231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moore, J. F. (1996). The Death of Competition: Leadership & Strategy in the Age of Business Ecosystems. New York: HarperBusiness.Google Scholar
  21. Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2007). From human capital to social capital: A longitudinal study of technology-based academic entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 909–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mueller, C., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2012). Formal venture capital acquisition: Can entrepreneurs compensate for the spatial proximity benefits of south east of England and ‘star’ golden triangle universities?. Environment and Planning A, 44, 281–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mustar, P. (2009). Technology management education: Innovation and entrepreneurship at MINES ParisTech, a leading French engineering school. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(3), 418–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Newman, J. H. C. (1852). The idea of a university defined and illustrated. London: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
  25. Pettigrew, A. (2002). Management research after modernism. British Journal of Management, 12S, 61–70.Google Scholar
  26. Pettigrew, A. (2011). Scholarship with impact. British Journal of Management, 22(3), 347–354.Google Scholar
  27. Phan, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2009). New developments in technology management education: Background issues, program initiatives and a research agenda. Academy of Management Education and Learning, 8(3), 324–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2011). The evolution of entrepreneurial competencies: A longitudinal study of university spin-off venture emergence. Journal of Management Studies, 48(6), 1314–1345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Salter, A. J., & Martin, B. R. (2001). The economic benefits of publically funded basic research: A critical review. Research Policy, 30, 509–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shane, S. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Siegel, D., Veugelers, R., & Wright, M. (2007). University commercialization of intellectual property: Policy implications. Oxford review of economic policy, 23(4), 640–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sirmon, D., Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Gilbert, B. A. (2011). Resource orchestration to create competitive advantage: Breadth, depth and life cycle effects. Journal of Management, 37, 1390–1412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith A. (1776/1999). The wealth of nations: Books IV–V. Penguin: Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
  34. Vohora, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy, 33, 147–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurship—conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., & Wright, M. (2011). The effectiveness of university knowledge spillovers: Performance differences between university spin-offs and corporate spin-offs. Research Policy, 40(8), 1128–1143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wilson, N., & Wright, M. (2011). Equity gap in the UK venture capital industry. Report prepared for NESTA.Google Scholar
  38. Wright, M. (2011). Entrepreneurial mobility, Chapter 6. In D. Bergh & D. Ketchen (Eds.), Research methodology in strategy and management (Vol. 6, pp. 137–162). Bingley: Emerald Books.Google Scholar
  39. Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., & Knockert, M. (2008a). Mid-range universities’ in Europe linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. Research Policy, 37(8), 1205–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Mustar, P., & Lockett, A. (2008b). Academic entrepreneurship in Europe. Cheltenham: UK Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  41. Wright, M., Piva, E., Mosey, S., & Lockett, A. (2009). Business Schools and academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(6), 560–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zahra, S., Filatotchev, I., & Wright, M. (2009). How do threshold firms sustain corporate entrepreneurship? The role of boards and absorptive capacity. Journal of Business Venturing, 24, 248–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zahra, S., & Wright, M. (2011). Entrepreneurship’s next act. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25, 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Management Buy-out ResearchImperial College Business SchoolLondonUK
  2. 2.University of GhentGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations