Defining Academic Spinoffs and Entrepreneurial University

Chapter
Part of the FGF Studies in Small Business and Entrepreneurship book series (FGFS)

Abstract

The traditional vision of the university as a teaching institution still prevails in many countries. Typical of this vision is the high-risk aversion to knowledge commercialization due to lack of institutional support and market knowledge. Therefore, university scholars and seem more interested in publishing and graduates are more interested in secured life-time employability instead of commercialising their research and ideas on the market which does not contribute to technology transfer (TT) process and economic growth.

This chapter aims at providing insights into the important success factors of creation of academic spin-offs and entrepreneurial university, by carrying out a systemic review of eclectic literature on knowledge commercialization a technology transfer. It reveals that technology transfer offices (TTOs), centres for entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education as important success factors for academics spin-offs and knowledge commercialisation. Practical implications for entrepreneurship university and other stakeholders and discussed.

Keywords

Knowledge transfer Entrepreneurial university Spin-offs Knowledge commercialization Researcher 

References

  1. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., Di Costa, F., & Solazzi, M. (2011). The role of information asymmetry in the market for university–industry research collaboration. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(1), 84–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., Ferretti, M., & Parmentola, A. (2012). An individual-level assessment of the relationship between spin-off activities and research performance in universities. R&D Management, 42(3), 225–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Algieri, B., Aquino, A., & Succurro, M. (2013). Technology transfer offices and academic spin-off creation: The case of Italy. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(4), 382–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory in action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  5. Audretsch, D. B., & Belitski, M. (2013). The missing pillar: The creativity theory of knowledge spillover entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 1–18.Google Scholar
  6. Audretsch, D. B., & Caiazza, R. (2016). Technology transfer and entrepreneurship: Cross-national analysis. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(6), 1247–1259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9441-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Audretsch, D. B., Hülsbeck, M., & Lehmann, E. E. (2012). Regional competitiveness, university spillovers, and entrepreneurial activity. Small Business Economics, 39(3), 587–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Azagra-Caro, J. M., Archontakis, F., Gutierrez-Gracia, A., & Ferńandez-de-Lucio, F. (2006). Belarusian State Economic University. Research Policy, 35, 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  10. BIS. (2014). Funding per student in higher education. Business innovation and skills department. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/318628/BIS_performance_indicators_Funding_per_student_in_HE.pdf
  11. BIS. (2015, November). Fulfilling our potential: Teaching excellence, social mobility and student choice.Google Scholar
  12. Caiazza, R. (2016). A cross-national analysis of policies effecting innovation diffusion. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(6), 1406–1419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9439-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Caiazza, R., & Audretsch, D. (2013). A general framework for classifying spin-offs. International Review of Entrepreneurship, 11(1), 15–30.Google Scholar
  14. Caiazza, R., & Volpe, T. (2016). Innovation and its diffusion: Process, actors and actions. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 29, 181–189. ISSN 0953-7325.Google Scholar
  15. Caiazza, R., Audretsch, D., Volpe, T., & Debra Singer, J. (2014). Policy and institutions facilitating entrepreneurial spin-offs: USA, Asia and Europe. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 3(2), 186–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chiesa, V., & Piccaluga, A. (2000). Exploitation and diffusion of public research: The general framework and the case of academic spin-off companies. R&D Management, 30(4), 329–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chinni, D., & Gimpel, J. (2011). Our patchwork nation: The surprising truth about the ‘real’ America. New York, NY: Gotham Books.Google Scholar
  18. Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Milton Keynes: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  19. Clarysse, B., & Moray, N. (2004). A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: The case of a research-based spin-off. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 55–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 1(1), 64–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. European Commission. (2013). European knowledge transfer report 2013. Final Report (June), DG Research and Innovation, Brussels.Google Scholar
  23. Ewalt, D. (2015). The world’s most innovative universities. Reuters.Google Scholar
  24. Fernald, L., Solomon, G., & El Tarabishy, A. (2005). A new paradigm: Entrepreneurial leadership. Southern Business Review, 30(2), 1–10.Google Scholar
  25. Fiet, J. O. (2001a). The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fiet, J. O. (2001b). The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(2), 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., Santoni, S., & Sobrero, M. (2011). Complements or substitutes? The role of universities and local context in supporting the creation of academic spin-offs. Research Policy, 40(8), 1113–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fontes, M. (2005). The process of transformation of scientific and technological knowledge into economic value conducted by biotechnology spin-offs. Technovation, 25(4), 339–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gibb, A. (2002). In pursuit of new ‘enterprise’ and ‘entrepreneurship’ paradigm for learning: Creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combinations of knowledge. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(3), 233–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gibb, A. (2012). Exploring the synergistic potential in entrepreneurial university development: Towards the building of a strategic framework. Annals of Innovation & Entrepreneurship, 3, 16742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Giunta, A., Pericoli, F., & Pierucci, E. (2016). University–industry collaboration in the biopharmaceuticals: The Italian case. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 818–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2010). The creation and development of entrepreneurial universities in Spain: An institutional approach. Hauppauge: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Hayter, C. S. (2013). Conceptualizing knowledge-based entrepreneurship networks: Perspectives from the literature. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 899–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hindle, K. (2010). How community context affects entrepreneurial process: A diagnostic framework. Entrepreneurship and regional development, 22(7–8), 599-647.Google Scholar
  35. Jacob, M., Lundqvist, M., & Hellsmark, H. (2003). Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish University system: The case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research Policy, 32(9), 1555–1568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kenney, M., & Patton, D. (2009). Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the current university invention ownership model. Research Policy, 38(9), 1407–1422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kolympiris, C., & Klein, P. G. (2017). The effects of academic incubators on university innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 11(2), 145–170.Google Scholar
  38. Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Franklin, S. (2003). Technology transfer and universities’ spinout strategies. Small Business Economics, 20(2), 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Markman, G. D., Phan, P. H., Balkin, D. B., & Gianiodis, P. T. (2005). Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 241–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Markuerkiaga, L., Caiazza, R., Igartua, J. I., & Errasti, N. (2016). Factors fostering students’ spin-off firm formation: An empirical comparative study of universities from North and South Europe. Journal of Management Development, 35(6), 814–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mavi, R. K. (2014). Indicators of entrepreneurial university: Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS approach. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5(2), 370–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Meyer, G. D. (2011). The reinvention of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mustar, P. (1997). Spin-off enterprises – how French academics create hi-tech companies: The conditions for success or failure. Science and Public Policy, 24(1), 37–43.Google Scholar
  44. Mustar, P., Renault, M., Colombo, M. G., Piva, E., Fontes, M., Lockett, A., et al. (2006). Conceptualizing the heterogeneity of research-based spin-offs: A multi-dimensional taxonomy. Research Policy, 35(2), 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: Known worlds and new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Neck, H. M., Greene, P. G., & Brush, C. G. (2014). Teaching entrepreneurship: A practice-based approach. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Netval. (2014). Unire I Puntini Per Completare Il Disegno Dell’innovazione. XI Rapporto Netval Sulla Valorizzazione Della Ricerca Pubblica Italiana. Technical Report, Milan, Italy.Google Scholar
  48. Philpott, K., Dooley, L., O’reilly, C., & Lupton, G. (2011). The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation, 31(4), 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Simulating entrepreneurial learning: Integrating experiential and collaborative approaches to learning. Management Learning, 38(2), 211–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shane, S. (2004). 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
  51. Siegel, D. S., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2007). The rise of entrepreneurial activity at universities: Organizational and societal implications. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 489–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Taylor, D. W., & Thorpe, R. (2004). Entrepreneurial learning: A process of co-participation. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 11(2), 203–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Times Higher Education. (2015). Let students build tech products, UK sector told. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/let-students-build-tech-products-uk-sector-told
  54. Times Higher Education. (2016). The world’s top universities for attracting industry funding. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/funding-for-innovation-ranking-2016
  55. Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., & Binks, M. (2006). Venture capital and university spin-outs. Research Policy, 35(4), 481–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Henley Business SchoolUniversity of ReadingReadingUK
  2. 2.School of ManagementUniversity of Sao PauloSao PauloBrazil
  3. 3.Belarusian Economic Research and Outreach CentreMinskBelarus

Personalised recommendations