Skip to main content

Who is the academic entrepreneur? The role of graduate students in the development of university spinoffs

The Journal of Technology Transfer volume 42, pages 1237–1254 (2017)Cite this article

Abstract

Academic entrepreneurship, the establishment of new companies based on technologies derived from university research, is a well-recognized driver of regional and national economic development. For more than a decade, scholars have conceptualized individual university faculty as the primary agents of academic entrepreneurship. Recent research suggests that graduate students also play a critical role in the establishment and early development of university spinoff companies, but the nature of their involvement through the entrepreneurial process is not yet fully understood. Employing a case study approach, this paper investigates the role of graduate students in early-stage university spinoff companies from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. We find that graduate students play role similar to that of individual faculty entrepreneurs in university spinoffs, both in terms of making the initial establishment decision and in reconfiguring the organization for marketable technology development. We also find that student entrepreneurs face unique challenges involving conflicts with faculty advisors and other students.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. As of January 1, 2016, Google Scholar shows that lists Shane’s (2004) book Academic Entrepreneurship with 1366 citations.

  2. See Bradley et al. (2013a) for a detailed discussion of the emergence of the patent-centric, linear model of technology transfer among most research universities within the United States. In practical terms, this means that most university faculty are subject to similar technology disclosure and management processes, typically articulated within their employment contracts. This also helps explains the emphasis on licensed technologies, a characteristic that is relatively easy to capture as opposed to other forms of entrepreneurship (e.g. Fini et al. 2010).

  3. Theoretical sampling introduces deductive thinking into the study (Eisenhardt 1989). Decisions about which data should be collected next were determined by the insights revealed in the present case; collected data guided the selection of the next case in order to maximize empirical heterogeneity, an important consideration for early theory-building efforts (Creswell 2003).

References

  • Acs, Z., Braunerhjelm, J. P., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32(1), 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Åstebro, T., Bazzazian, N., & Braguinsky, S. (2012). Startups by recent university graduates and their faculty: Implications for university entrepreneurship policy. Research Policy, 41(4), 663–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (Eds.). (2015). Concise guide to entrepreneurship, technology and innovation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailetti, T. (2011). Fostering student entrepreneurship and university spinoff companies. Technology Innovation Management Review, 1, 7–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barr, S., Baker, T., Markham, S., & Kingon, A. (2009). Bridging the valley of death: Lessons learned from 14 years of commercialization of technology education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(3), 370–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berggren, E., & Dahlstrand, Å. L. (2009). Creating an entrepreneurial region: Two waves of academic spin-offs from Halmstad University. European Planning Studies, 17(8), 1171–1189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blank, S., & Engel, J. (2016). The National Science Foundation I-Corps Teaching Handbook. https://venturewell.org/wp-content/uploads/I-Corps-Teaching-Handbook-Jan16.pdf. Accessed 26 Jan 2016.

  • Boh, W. F., De-Haan, U., & Strom, R. (2016). University technology transfer through entrepreneurship: Faculty and students in spinoffs. Journal of Technology Transfer (forthcoming).

  • Bradley, S., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013a). Methods and models of university technology transfer. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 9(6), 571–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, S., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013b). Proof of concept centers in the United States: An exploratory look. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38, 349–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bramwell, A., & Wolfe, D. A. (2008). Universities and regional economic development: The entrepreneurial University of Waterloo. Research Policy, 37, 1175–1187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braunerhjelm, P., Ács, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2010). The missing link: Knowledge diffusion and entrepreneurship in endogenous growth. Small Business Economics, 34(2), 105–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brindley, C., & Ritchie, B. (2000). Undergraduates and small and medium-sized enterprises: Opportunities for a symbiotic partnership? Education & Training, 42(9), 509–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brush, C. (1992). Research on Women business owners: Past trends, a new perspective, and future directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Summer, 12, 27–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cliff, J. (1998). Does one size fit all? Exploring the relationships between attitudes towards growth, gender, and business size. Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 523–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, A. (2003). Entrepreneurship: The past, the present, the future. In Z. Acs & D. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship (pp. 21–36). The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). New York: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doutriaux, J. (1987). Growth patter of academic entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 2, 285–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fini, R., Lacetera, N., & Shane, S. (2010). Inside or outside the IP system? Business creation in academia. Research Policy, 39, 1060–1069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fukugawa, N. (2005). Characteristics of knowledge interactions between universities and small firms in Japan. International Small Business Journal, 23(4), 379–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayter, C. S. (2011). In search of the profit-maximizing actor: Motivations and definitions of success from nascent academic entrepreneurs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 340–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayter, C. S. (2013). Harnessing university entrepreneurship for economic growth: Factors of success among university spin-offs. Economic Development Quarterly, 27(1), 17–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayter, C. S. (2015a). Public or private entrepreneurship? Revisiting motivations and definitions of success among academic entrepreneurs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40, 1003–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayter, C. S. (2015b). Social networks and the success of university spinoffs: Toward an agenda for regional growth. Economic Development Quarterly, 29, 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayter, C. S. (2016a). Constraining entrepreneurial development: A knowledge-based view of social networks among academic entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 45, 475–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayter, C. S. (2016b). A trajectory of early-stage spinoff success: The role of knowledge intermediaries within an entrepreneurial university ecosystem. Arizona State University Working Paper.

  • Hébert, R. F., & Link, A. N. (2009). A history of entrepreneurship. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, D. H., Roberts, E. B., & Eesley, C. E. (2007). Entrepreneurs from technology-based universities: Evidence from MIT. Research Policy, 36, 768–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 283–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. (2004). Survey of endowed positions in entrepreneurship and related fields in the United States. Available at SSRN 1234582.

  • Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Research Policy, 40, 1354–1368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., & Ruhm, C. (2009). Bringing science to market: Commercializing from NIH SBIR awards. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 4, 381–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (Eds.). (2014). The Chicago handbook of university technology transfer and academic entrepreneurship. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubynsky, R. (2012). Critical challenges to nascent academic entrepreneurs: From lab bench to innovation, University of Maryland, unpublished dissertation.

  • McMurtrie, B. (2015). Inside startup U: How Stanford develops entrepreneurial students. The Chronicle of Higher Education. http://chronicle.com/article/Inside-Startup-U-How/233899. Accessed 01 Nov 2015.

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M. H. (2015). Entrepreneurship, education and the unreasonable. In D. B. Audretsch, C. S. Hayter, & A. N. Link (Eds.), Concise guide to entrepreneurship, technology and innovation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Gorman, C., Byrne, O., & Pandya, D. (2008). How scientists commercialise new knowledge via entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 23–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oehler, A., Hofer, A., & Schalkowski, H. (2015). Entrepreneurial education and knowledge: Empirical evidence on a sample of German undergraduate students. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40, 536–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oosterbeek, H., van Praag, M., & Ijsselstein, A. (2010). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurship skills and motivation. European Economic Review, 54(3), 442–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 479–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2015). The transformation of network ties to develop entrepreneurial competencies for spin-offs. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 27(7–8), 430–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, E., & Sorheim, R. (2006). Action-based entrepreneurship education. Technovation, 26, 185–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reich, E. S. (2011). Scientists, meet capitalists. Nature, 480(7375), 15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reif, L. R. (2015). Personal communication with author, December 10.

  • Ridder, A., & van der Sijde, P. (2003). Raising awareness of entrepreneurship and e-commerce: A case study on student-entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 3(5), 609–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, E. (1991). Entrepreneurs in high technology. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, E. B., & Eesley, C. (2009). Entrepreneurial impact: The role of MIT. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.

  • Roberts, E. B., & Eesley, C. (2011). Entrepreneurial impact: The role of MIT—an updated report. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 7(1–2), 1–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, E. B., Murray, F., & Kim, J. D. (2015). Entrepreneurship and Innovation at MIT: Continuing global growth and impact. Technical Report: http://web.mit.edu/innovate/entrepreneurship2015.pdf. Accessed January 9, 2016.

  • Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 71–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah, S. K., & Pahnke, E. C. (2014). Parting the ivory curtain: Understanding how universities support a diverse set of startups. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 780–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. A. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., Locke, E., & Collins, C. (2003). Entrepreneurial motivation. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 257–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, P. (2009). Tracking the placement of students as a measure of technology transfer. In G. Libecap (Ed.), Measuring the social value of innovation: A link in the university technology transfer and entrepreneurship equation (Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation & Economic Growth, Volume 19) (pp. 113–140). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swamidass, P. (2013). University startups as a commercializing alternative: Lessons from three contrasting case studies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38, 788–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vohora, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spin-out companies. Research Policy, 33, 147–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wani, V., Garg, T., & Sharma, S. (2004). Effective industry/institute interaction for developing entrepreneurial vision amongst engineers for the sustainable development of SMEs in India. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialization, 3(1), 38–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Mustar, P., & Lockett, A. (2007). Academic entrepreneurship in Europe. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Organization Research and Design, School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA

    Christopher S. Hayter

  2. MIT Venture Mentoring Service, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Roman Lubynsky

  3. School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA

    Spiro Maroulis

Authors
  1. Christopher S. Hayter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roman Lubynsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Spiro Maroulis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roman Lubynsky.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hayter, C.S., Lubynsky, R. & Maroulis, S. Who is the academic entrepreneur? The role of graduate students in the development of university spinoffs. J Technol Transf 42, 1237–1254 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9470-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9470-y

Keywords

  • Academic entrepreneurship
  • Student entrepreneurship
  • University spinoffs
  • Technology transfer

JEL Classification

  • L26
  • M13
  • O31
  • O32