University Technology Transfer and Agricultural Science Entrepreneurial Education: a View from Inside

Abstract

Focusing on universities whose faculty has little understanding of technology transfer and the commercialization of academic research, we provide a case study of such a university and argue that even some elementary and indirect form of entrepreneurial training can positively affect faculty technology transfer. In light of the above, we seek to contribute to the literature exploring what makes technology transfer programs at Universities successful and our unique contribution lies on elucidating the link between university technology transfer and science and technology entrepreneurial education (STEE). To this effect, we discuss ways to develop integration processes among STEE and technology transfer offices.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    An indication of the international orientation of AUA’s staff can be provided by looking into the countries where they obtained their PhD. Fifty-five percent got their PhDs in Greek Universities (41% in AUA). The remaining 45% received their PhD in UK: 19%, USA: 13%, France: 5%, Germany: 4%, and other countries: 4%.

  2. 2.

    In this period, there have been 1, 69, and 130 papers from AUA in respectively the top 1, 10, and 25% most influential.

  3. 3.

    Data on number of publications, number of citations, and relative citation impact are taken from Sahini (2014).

  4. 4.

    A manual search was done on the full list of AUA staff using the European Patent Office (EPO) online service, Espacenet. As discussed in Drivas et al. (2015), matches have been further cross-checked to see if the inventor had disclosed a Greek address and whether the technology field of the patent was similar to his/her area of specialization.

  5. 5.

    The figure is even lower if single applicants are considered: in fact, the 28 patent applications have been filed by 11 researchers, meaning that 94% of the research staff has not been involved in any patenting activity from 2002 to 2013.

  6. 6.

    ECOTROPHELIA has the ambition to promote entrepreneurship and competitiveness within the European food industry by implementing a training network of excellence in food innovation and the organization of national and European food innovation competitions “The Student Awards of Food Innovation” a real eye-opener for the food industry see https://eu.ecotrophelia.org/.

  7. 7.

    Interview conducted on 23 June 2017.

  8. 8.

    Interview conducted on 23 June 2017.

  9. 9.

    Interview conducted on 24 June 2017.

  10. 10.

    Interview conducted on 24 June 2017.

  11. 11.

    Interview conducted on 23 June 2017.

  12. 12.

    Interview conducted on 24 June 2017.

  13. 13.

    Interview conducted on 24 June 2017.

  14. 14.

    Interview conducted on 24 June 2017.

  15. 15.

    Interview conducted on 24 June 2017.

  16. 16.

    The largest majority of these research money stems from the Framework Programs.

  17. 17.

    Espacenet is a database hosted by the European Patent Office, which contains information on patents and patent applications for more than 90 countries. http://worldwide.espacenet.com/advancedSearch?locale=en_EP

  18. 18.

    We examined the characteristics of faculty that the team attained an interview and those that did not. We did not find any notable statistical differences between the two samples.

  19. 19.

    In general, funding from the government is less competitive and implies more bureaucratic burden and uncertainties in dates, annuities. Moreover, it depends on institutional and organizational hurdles of absorbing EU funds at the first place which conveys abrupt changes in the flows of funds to beneficiaries (Grant et al. 2011).

References

  1. Agiakloglou, C., Drivas, K., & Karamanis, D. (2016). Individual inventors and market potentials: evidence from US patents. Science and Public Policy, 43(2), 147–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Azoulay, P., Ding, W., & Stuart, T. (2007). The determinants of faculty patenting behavior: demographics or opportunities? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(4), 599–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bloom, N., Jones, C. I., Van Reenen, J., & Webb, M. (2017). Are ideas getting harder to find? (No. w23782). Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Boh, W. F., De-Haan, U., & Strom, R. (2016). University technology transfer through entrepreneurship: faculty and students in spinoffs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(4), 661–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Breznitz, S. M., Clayton, P. A., Defazio, D., & Isett, K. R. (2017). Have you been served? The impact of university entrepreneurial support on start-ups’ network formation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1–25.

  8. Charney, A., & Libecap, G. D. (2000). The impact of entrepreneurship education: an evaluation of the Berger Entrepreneurship Program at the University of Arizona, 1985–1999. Tucson: Karl Eller Center; University of Arizona.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Colyvas, J. A., & Powell, W. W. (2006). Roads to institutionalization: the remaking of boundaries between public and private science. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 305–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Drivas, K., Balafoutis, A. T., & Rozakis, S. (2015). Research funding and academic output: evidence from the Agricultural University of Athens. Prometheus (United Kingdom), 33(3), 235–256.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Drivas, K., Panagopoulos, A., & Rozakis, S. (2018). Instigating entrepreneurship to a university in an adverse entrepreneurial landscape. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(4), 966–985.

  12. Etzkowitz, H. (2013). StartX and the ‘paradox of success’: filling the gap in Stanford’s entrepreneurial culture. Social Science Information., 52(4), 605–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Geppert, M., & Clark, E. (2003). Knowledge and learning in transnational ventures: an actor-centred approach. Management Decision, 41(5), 433–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Grant, J., Ling, T., Potoglou, D., & Culley, D. (2011). A rapid review of the Greek research and development system. RAND Europe, Documented Briefing, Santa Monica CA.

  15. Haase, H., Lautenschläger, A. (2011). The 'Teachability Dilemma' of entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(2), 145–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Haeussler, C. (2011). Information-sharing in academia and the industry: a comparative study. Research Policy, 40(1), 105–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Johnson, G., Melin, L., & Whittington, R. (2003). Micro strategy and strategizing: towards an activity-based view. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lasrado, V., Sivo, S., Ford, C., O’Neal, T., & Garibay, I. (2016). Do graduated university incubator firms benefit from their relationship with university incubators? Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(2), 205–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2004). Bayh-dole act of 1980 and university-industry technology transfer: a model for other OECD governments? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1–2), 115–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Neck, H.M., Greene, P.G. (2011). Entrepreneurship Education: known worlds and new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Robinson, P. B., & Sexton, E. A. (1994). The effect of education and experience on self-employment success. Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 141–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sampat, B. N. (2009). The Bayh-Dole model in developing countries: reflections on the Indian bill on publicly funded intellectual property. UNCTAD-ICTSD project on IPRs and sustainable development-policy brief, (5).

  23. Shapin, S. (2008). The scientific life. A moral history of a late modern vocation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sideri, K., & Panagopoulos, A. (2018). Setting up a technology commercialization office at a non-entrepreneurial university: an insider’s look at practices and culture. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(4), 953–965.

  25. Siegel, D. S., & Phan, P. H. (2005). Analyzing the effectiveness of university technology transfer: implications for entrepreneurship education. In G. D. Libecap (Ed.), University entrepreneurship and technology transfer (advances in the study of entrepreneurship, innovation & economic growth) (Vol. 16, pp. 1–38). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  26. So, A. D., Sampat, B. N., Rai, A. K., Cook-Deegan, R., Reichman, J. H., Weissman, R., & Kapczynski, A. (2008). Is Bayh-Dole good for developing countries? Lessons from the US experience. PLoS Biology, 6(10), e262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Thursby, J., & Thursby, M. (2005). Gender patterns of research and licensing activity of science and engineering faculty. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(4), 343–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Thursby, J., & Thursby, M. (2007). Patterns of research and licensing activity of science and engineering faculty. In Science and the university. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2011). Faculty participation in licensing: implications for research. Research Policy, 40(1), 20–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Thursby, M., Thursby, J., & Gupta-Mukherjee, S. (2007). Are there real effects of licensing on academic research? A life cycle view. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(4), 577–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Vekinis, G. (2016). The researcher entrepreneur: best practices for successful technological entrepreneurship, ISBN: 9789609380454.

  32. Vohora, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy, 33(1), 147–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Wright, B. D., Drivas, K., Lei, Z., & Merrill, S. A. (2014). Technology transfer: industry-funded academic inventions boost innovation. Nature, 507(7492), 297–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is partially funded from the Municipality of Athens grant “Innovation and Entrepreneurship – Valorization of Research by the Agricultural University of Athens”, reference no: 464052. Stelios Rozakis acknowledges financial support by the Widening Program ERA Chair: project BioEcon (H2020), contract number: 669092. The authors are grateful to Kyriakos Drivas for helpful advice on the quantitative analysis. The usual disclaimer applies.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Panagopoulos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Panagopoulos, A., Rozakis, S., Sideri, K. et al. University Technology Transfer and Agricultural Science Entrepreneurial Education: a View from Inside. J Knowl Econ 10, 1466–1481 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-018-0562-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Technology transfer
  • Agricultural science
  • Entrepreneurship
  • Education
  • University