Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Academic entrepreneurship and business schools

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we employ resource-based and institutional theories to examine the current role of business schools in academic entrepreneurship. In particular, we seek to identify and understand the challenges to business schools contributing to the transfer of knowledge to enable academic entrepreneurship. Employing a case-based method, we present evidence from 42 interviews with technology transfer officers (TTOs), business school deans, business school entrepreneurship faculty and scientists in eight UK universities. Our empirical analysis is focused on analyzing the challenges arising from the links between business schools and three other principal stakeholders of academic entrepreneurship (i.e., the university management, TTOs and academics in science departments). The findings suggest that in addition to concerns about the nature of their human capital, the ability of business schools to fill knowledge gaps in the development of academic entrepreneurship is constrained by the institutional structures of universities which influence: the strategies of the university and the business school; links between business schools, TTOs and scientists; and process issues relating to differences in language and codes, goal differences, incentives and rewards, expertise differences and the content of interactions. We conclude that if business schools are to play a more prominent role in academic entrepreneurship there is a need to develop internal university processes and policies that promote rather than hinder internal knowledge flows between business schools, TTOs and science departments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A wider definition of academic entrepreneurship could include the involvement of academics in other commercialisation activities such as consulting and licensing, research sponsored by industry as well as in identifying new sources of research funds, creating new research centres, etc. (Ben David 1971; Seashore Louis 1989). However, these latter aspects are beyond the focus of this paper.

  2. This uneven distribution is also apparent among US BSs. Finkle and Deeds (2001) showed that between 1989 and 1998 the top 25 BSs in the US advertised for 15 entrepreneurship faculty whereas those ranked between 26 and 50 sought 26.

References

  • Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben David, J. (1971). The scientist’s role in society: A comparative study. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman, J. J., Hynes, T., & Fraser, S. (1995). Faculty entrepreneurship and economic development: The case of the University of Calgary. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 267–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities, Organisational pathways of transformation. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Van de Velde, E., & Vohora, A. (2005). Spinning out new ventures: A typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 183–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Currie, G., Lockett, A. & Suhomlinova, O. (2009). Leadership & institutional change in the public sector: The case of secondary schools in England, The Leadership Quarterly, forthcoming.

  • Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 301–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Degroof, J. J., & Robert, E. B. (2004). Overcoming weak entrepreneurial infrastructures for academic spin-off ventures. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 327–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobbin, F., & Dowd, T. (1997). How policy shapes competition: Early railroad foundings in Massachusetts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 501–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doz, Y. (1996). The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: Initial conditions or learning processes. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Summer), 55–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. (2001). Taking stock’. BizEd, November/December, 12–17.

  • Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 543–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ensley, M. D., & Hmieleski, K. M. (2005). A comparative study of new venture top management team composition, dynamics and performance between university-based and independent start-ups. Research Policy, 34, 1091–1105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkle, T. A., & Deeds, D. (2001). Trends in the market for entrepreneurship faculty, 1989–1998. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 613–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, S., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2001). Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs and university spinout companies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 127–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geary, J., Mariott, L., & Rowlinson, M. (2004). Journal rankings in business and management and the 2001 research assessment exercise in the UK. British Journal of Management, 15(2), 95–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibb, A. (2002). In pursuit of a 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, 233–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M. L., Limoges, H., Nowotny, S., Schwartman, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge, dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gittell, J. H., & Weiss, L. (2004). Coordination networks within and across organizations: A multi-level framework. Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), 127–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies of qualitative research. London: Wiedenfeld and Nicholson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardagon, A. B., & Douglas, Y. (2001). When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(6), 476–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M. (1998). Twenty-first century organizations? Business firms, business schools, and the academy. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 218–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HM Treasury. (2004). Science and Innovation investment framework 2004–2014. HMTreasury/dti/department for education and skills.

  • Huff, A. S., & Huff, J. O. (2001). Re-focusing the business school agenda. British Journal of Management, 12, S49–S54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inkpen, A., & Tsang, E. (2005). Social capital, networks and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 146–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, R. (2003). Review of business-university collaboration. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawton Smith, H., & Ho, K. (2006). Measuring the performance of Oxford University, Oxford Brookes University and the government laboratories’ spin-off companies. Research Policy, 35, 1554–1568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leblebici, H., Salancik, G., Copay, A., & King, T. (1991). Institutional change and the transformation of interorganizational fields: An organizational history of the US radio broadcasting industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 333–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, R. (1989). Management and higher education since 1940. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, R., & Schöne, K. (2004). The entrepreneurial shift: Americanization in European high-technology management education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2005). Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34, 1043–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., Wright, M., & Franklin, S. (2003). Technology transfer and universities’ spin-out strategies. Small Business Economics, 20, 185–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundqvist, J. M., & Hellsmark, M. (2003). Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish University system: The case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research Policy, 32, 1555–1568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacLean, D., MacIntosh, R., & Grant, S. (2002). Mode 2 management research. British Journal of Management, 13, 189–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2007). From human capital to social capital: A longitudinal study of technology-based academic entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 909–936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller-Camen, M., & Salzgeber, S. (2005). Changes in academic work and the chair regime: The case of German business administration academics’. Organization Studies, 26(2), 271–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mustar, P., Renault, M., Colombo, M., Piva, E., Fontes, M., Lockett, A., et al. (2006). Conceptualising the heterogeneity of research-based spin-offs: A multi-dimensional taxonomy. Research Policy, 35(2), 289–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nlemvo, F., Pirnay, F., & Surlemont, B. (2002). A stage model of academic spin-off creation. Technovation, 22(5), 281–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of growth of the firm. New York: Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1(1), 78–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2004). The business school “business”: Some lessons from the US experience. Journal of Management Studies, 41(8), 1501–1520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phan, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2005). Science parks and incubators: Observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 165–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., & Owen-Smith, J. (1998). Universities and the market for intellectual property in the life sciences. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17(2), 253–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radosevich, R. (1995). A model for entrepreneurial spin-offs from public technology sources. International Journal of Technology Management, 10, 879–893.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, E. B., & Malone, D. (1996). Policies and structures for spinning off new companies from research and development organizations. R&D Management, 26, 17–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seashore Louis, K. (1989). Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviours among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 110–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., & Delmar, F. (2004). Planning for the market: Business planning before marketing and the continuation of organizing efforts. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(6), 767–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D., Veugelers, R., & Wright, M. (2007). University commercialization of intellectual property: Policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 640–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., Atwater, L., & Link, A. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of University-Industry collaboration. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14, 111–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (1999). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. NBER Working paper W7256.

  • Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2007). Intellectual property: The assessment. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 529–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, J. (1993). Boundary role ambiguity: Facets, determinants, and impacts. Journal of Marketing, 57, 11–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starkey, K., Hatchuel, A., & Tempest, S. (2004). Rethinking the business school. Journal of Management Studies, 41(8), 1521–1532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starkey, K., & Madan, P. (2001). Bridging the relevance gap: Aligning stakeholders in the future of management research. British Journal of Management, 12, S3–S26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby, R. (2006). What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 633–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2001). Colonizing knowledge: Commodification as a dynamic of jurisdictional expansion in professional service firms. Human Relations, 54, 933–953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 27–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szulanski, G. (2003). Sticky knowledge: Barriers to knowing in the firm. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 464–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vohora, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy, 33, 147–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westhead, P., Ucbasaran, D., & Wright, M. (2005). Decisions, actions and performance: Do novice, serial and portfolio entrepreneurs differ?’. International Small Business Journal, 43, 393–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., Binks, M., Vohora, A. & Lockett, A. (2003). UK technology transfer survey: Financial year 2002. NUBS/UNICO/AURIL.

  • Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., & Binks, M. (2006). University spin-out companies and venture capital. Research Policy, 35(4), 481–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., & Knockaert, M. (2008). Mid-range universities’ in Europe linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. Research Policy, 37, 1205–1223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeitlyn, M. & Horne, J. (2002). Business interface training provision review (BITS Review), Report produced for Dti, UK.

Download references

Acknowledgments

Financial support from ESRC is gratefully acknowledged as are comments on an earlier draft from Bart Clarysse, Gerardo Patriotta, David Knights and Harry Scarborough. Research assistance from Nick Tiratsoo, Catrina Alferoff and Jonathan English is acknowledged with thanks.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nottingham University Business School, Jubilee Campus, Nottingham, NG8 1BB, UK

    Mike Wright, Simon Mosey & Andy Lockett

  2. RSM Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Mike Wright

  3. Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci, 33, 20133, Milan, Italy

    Evila Piva

Authors
  1. Mike Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Evila Piva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Simon Mosey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andy Lockett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mike Wright.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wright, M., Piva, E., Mosey, S. et al. Academic entrepreneurship and business schools. J Technol Transf 34, 560–587 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-009-9128-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-009-9128-0

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation