Advertisement

Effects of University Research Exposure on Young Company Behavior and Performance

  • Yannis Caloghirou
  • Aimilia Protogerou
  • Nicholas S. Vonortas
Chapter
Part of the Science, Technology and Innovation Studies book series (STAIS)

Abstract

The number of university graduates is continuously raising for many years creating an additional supply of highly qualified labor which doesn’t always meet respective demand thus can’t be absorbed fully. This holds especially true for Ph.Ds of which ever more are entering the labor market although the number of academic positions remains stable and also businesses have limited capacities for Ph.Ds. What follows is that entrepreneurial activities become a serious option for tertiary graduates. Namely Ph.D. graduates engaged in establishing companies by means of using state of the art scientific knowledge which they developed at universities thus generating substantial impact of university produced knowledge on the economy and the broader society. Specifically the cognitive base and the founders’ educational background is an important determinant for the success and impact of knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship in general and academic entrepreneurship in particular. The chapter introduces a broader definition of academic entrepreneurship and investigates whether new ventures founded by Ph.D. holders exhibit different characteristics and/or different behavior patterns compared to the rest of the firms established in the same period in Europe.

Keywords

Knowledge transfer Spin off companies Entrepreneurship 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge financial support in the context of “Advancing Knowledge-Intensive Entrepreneurship and Innovation for Economic Growth and Social Well-being in Europe” (AEGIS), a project co-funded by the European Commission under Theme 8 ‘Socio- Economic Sciences and Humanities’ of the 7th Framework Programme. Moreover, Nick Vonortas acknowledges the infrastructural support of the Center for International Science and Technology Policy (CISTP) at the George Washington University, USA. He acknowledges the support of FAPESP through the São Paulo Excellence Chair in technology and innovation policy at the University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Brazil. He also acknowledges support from the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) and support within the framework of a subsidy by the Russian Academic Excellence Project ‘5-100’.

References

  1. Acs ZJ, Parsons W, Tracy S, (2008) High-impact firms: gazelles revisited. Small business administration advocacy office, under contract SBAHQ-06-Q-0014, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Arvanitis S, Stucki T (2012) What determines the innovation capability of firm founders? Ind Corp Chang 21(4):1049–1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Åstebro T, Bazzazian N, Braguinsky S (2012) Startups by recent university graduates and their faculty: Implications for university entrepreneurship policy. Res Policy 41(4):663–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Autio E, Acs ZJ, (2007) Individual and country level determinants of growth aspirations in new ventures. Paper presented at the third global entrepreneurship research conference, October 2007, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  5. Boh WF, De-Haan U, Strom R (2016) University technology transfer through entrepreneurship: faculty and students in spinoffs. J Technol Transf 41:661–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Colombo M, Mustar P, Wright M (2010) Dynamics of Science-based entrepreneurship. J Technol Transf 35(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. D’Este P, Mahdi S, Neely A (2010) Academic Entrepreneurship: what are the Factors shaping the capacity of academic researchers to identify and exploit entrepreneurial opportunities? Danish Research Unit for Industrial Dynamics, working paper No. 10–05Google Scholar
  8. Delmar F (1997) Measuring growth: methodological considerations and empirical results. In: Donckels R, Miettinen A (eds) Entrepreneurship and SME research: on its way to the next millennium. Aldershot, Ashgate, pp 199–216Google Scholar
  9. Delmar F, Wennberg K (2010) Knowledge intensive entrepreneurship: the birth, growth and demise of entrepreneurial firms. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doutriaux J (1987) Growth pattern of academic entrepreneurial firms. J Bus Ventur 2(4):285–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Etzkowitz H (1998) The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkage. Res Policy 27(8):823–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Franklin SJ, Wright M, Lockett A (2001) Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies. J Technol Transf 26(1-2):127–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Franzoni C, Lissoni F (2009) Academic entrepreneurs: critical issues and lessons for Europe. In: Varga A (ed) Universities, knowledge transfer and regional development: geography, entrepreneurship and policy. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  14. Goel RK, Grimpe C (2012) Are all academic entrepreneurs created alike? Evidence from Germany. Econ Innov New Technol 21(3):247–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hayter C, Lubynsky R, Maroulis S (2016) Who is the academic entrepreneur? The role of graduate students in the development of university spinoffs. J Technol Transf 42:1–18Google Scholar
  16. Henrekson M, Johansson D (2011) Firm growth, institutions and structural transformation. In: Fritsch M (ed) Handbook of entrepreneurship and regional development. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UKGoogle Scholar
  17. KNOWINNO (2013) Key findings of the OECD-knowinno project on the careers of doctorate holders. Coordination and support actions FP7-Adhoc-2007-13Google Scholar
  18. Lee H, Miozzo M, Laredo P (2010) Career patterns and competences of PhDs in science and engineering in the knowledge economy: the case of graduates from a UK research-based university. Res Policy 39(7):869–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lubynsky R (2012) Critical challenges to nascent academic entrepreneurs: from lab bench to innovation. University of Maryland, unpublished dissertationGoogle Scholar
  20. Malerba F, McKelvey M (2016) Conceptualizing knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship: definition and model. In: Malerba F, Caloghirou Y, McKelvey M, Radocevic S (eds) Dynamics of knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship: business strategy and public policy. Routledge, OxonGoogle Scholar
  21. Muscio A, Ramaciotti L, Rizzo U (2016) A tale of untold heroes: how universities affect PhDs’ start-ups in Italy. Paper presented at the DRUID16 20th anniversary conference, Copenhagen, 13–15 JuneGoogle Scholar
  22. Nielsen K (2015) Human capital and new venture performance: the industry choice and performance of academic entrepreneurs. J Technol Transf 40(3):453–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2013) Science, technology and industry scoreboard. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  24. Sapienza HJ, Autio E, George G, Zahra SA (2006) A capability perspective on the effects of early internationalization on firm survival and growth. Acad Manag Rev 31:914–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shane S (2004) Encouraging university entrepreneurship: the effect of the Bayh-Dole act on university patenting in the United States. J Bus Ventur 19(1):127–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shepherd D, DeTienne D (2005) Prior knowledge, potential financial reward, and opportunity identification. Entrep Theory Pract 29(1):91–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stefan PE (2012) How economics shape science. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Siegel D, Wessner C (2012) Universities and the success of entrepreneurial ventures: evidence from the small business innovation research program. J Technol Transf 37(4):404–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Siegel D, Wright M (2015) Academic entrepreneurship: time for a Rethink? Br J Manag 26(4):582–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ucbasaran D, Westhead P, Wright M (2008) Opportunity identification and pursuit: does an entrepreneur’s human capital matter? Small Bus Econ 30(2):153–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Weinzimmer LG, Nystrom PC, Freeman SJ (1998) Measuring organizational growth: issues, consequences and guidelines. J Manag 24(2):235–262Google Scholar
  32. Wennberg K, Wiklund J, Wright M (2011) The effectiveness of university knowledge spillovers: performance differences between university spinoffs and corporate spinoffs. Res Policy 40(8):1128–1143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wright M, Clarysse B, Mustar P, Lockett A (2007) Academic entrepreneurship in Europe. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yannis Caloghirou
    • 1
  • Aimilia Protogerou
    • 1
  • Nicholas S. Vonortas
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Laboratory of Industrial and Energy EconomicsNational Technical University of AthensAthensGreece
  2. 2.Center for International Science and Technology Policy & Department of EconomicsThe George Washington UniversityWashington, DCUSA
  3. 3.São Paulo Excellence ChairUniversity of Campinas (UNICAMP)São PauloBrazil
  4. 4.Leading Research FellowNational Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE)MoscowRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations