This paper was presented at The XXVII ISPIM Innovation Conference – Blending Tomorrow’s
Innovation Vintage, Porto, Portugal on 19-22 June 2016. The publication is available to ISPIM
members at www.ispim.org.
Entrepreneurial Academic Entrepreneurs:
understanding micro-social factors and legitimacy
Kristel Miller*
Queen’s Management School, Queen’s University, Riddel Hall,
185 Stranmillis Road, Belfast, BT95EE, United Kingdom.
E-mail: [email protected]
Allen Alexander
Centre for Innovation & Service Research, University of Exeter
Business School, Streatham Court, Exeter, EX4 4ST
United Kingdom.
E-mail: [email protected]
Ekaterina Albats
School of Business and Management, Lappeenranta University of
Technology, Skinnarilankatu 34, 53850, Lappeenranta, Finland.
E-mail: [email protected]
* Corresponding author
Abstract: As universities transition toward being increasingly entrepreneurial
there is, according to their emerging strategies, a call for a new breed of
Entrepreneurial Academic. Academic Entrepreneurs, who spinning-out or
starting-up new ventures, have been studied since the inception of academic
capitalism in the late 1980s. Recently, policy and now research recognises less
formal modes of business engagement attracts academics with an
Entrepreneurial modus-operandi.
However we know little about the
distinctions between the two types of academics, the challenges they face,
particularly how microsocial factors impact upon their motivations and
legitimacy. This exploratory research reports on 3 matched-pair interviews
comparing traditional and second career academics in a leading UK Business
School. We find that career pathway affects the motivation to become an
entrepreneurial academic and that the prevalence of organisational reward and
recognition processes, support, norms and role models all impacted upon the
perceived legitimacy of Entrepreneurial Academics.
Keywords: Academic Entrepreneur; Entrepreneurial Academic; University
Business Engagement; Knowledge Transfer; Innovation; Collaboration.
1
This paper was presented at The XXVII ISPIM Innovation Conference – Blending Tomorrow’s
Innovation Vintage, Porto, Portugal on 19-22 June 2016. The publication is available to ISPIM
members at www.ispim.org.
1
Introduction
In recent years, there has been increased interest in how universities can transition to
become more entrepreneurial (Etzkowitz, 2008). Driven by the emergence of the triple
helix and more recently quadruple helix structures (Carayannis and Campbell, 2012)
universities are increasingly expected to leverage their knowledge in pursuit of economic
and social development within their regions (Feldmann, 2014). However, university
knowledge transfer and business engagement is a complex activity, particularly when the
majority of university knowledge transfer activities are discretionary activities (Perkmann
et al., 2013) as in many European universities academics are often only rewarded for
teaching, research and selected commercialisation activities. Despite this, at a strategic
level university funding is now increasingly dependent upon their engagement with
industry and society. This has driven a shift in the respective universities’ business
models (Miller et al., 2014) originating from the concepts of academic capitalism
(Slaughter and Leslie, 1997). As part of this transition toward more commercial
engagement, many academics in the UK are faced with the introduction of academic
standards where they are expected to engage in a wide range of knowledge transfer
activities, despite internal performance and reward mechanisms not formally recognising
many of these activities (McAdam et al., 2016). Knowledge transfer activities can take
the form of more formal transactional activities such as spin out companies, patents,
licensing to more informal and collaborative activities such as networking, joint industry
conferences and publications and contract or collaborative research (Alexander and
Childe, 2012). This shift in emphasis around academic roles has sparked the debate about
the need for academics to evolve to become more entrepreneurial – this has been
presented as academic entrepreneurs (c.f. the ideas around academic capitalism
(Slaughter and Leslie, 1997) or more recently as in terms of Entrepreneurial Academics.
According to research, an academic entrepreneur has historically been engaged in more
formal commercialisation activities (such as company spin-outs or patent and license
sales) whereas an entrepreneurial academic is portrayed to engage in more personal
interactions with industry through direct or indirect collaborative and informal knowledge
transfer activities (Alexander et al., 2015, Perkmann et al., 2013). However, to date there
is a lack of research exploring the specific distinctions between the two types of
academics. In particular there is a lack of research into the factors affecting the
willingness of academics to become more entrepreneurial in their activities and the
perceived legitimacy of these activities within universities. This exploratory research
helps to fill this gap by exploring entrepreneurial academics within a research led
business school to unravel the key motivations, barriers and perceived legitimacy of
engaging in more informal knowledge transfer activities with industry.
This research presents several contributions XXXX
The next section will discuss previous literature distinguishing entrepreneurial academics
versus academic entrepreneurs. The determinants of academic engagement within a range
of knowledge transfer activities will be identified, resulting in three questions which form
the basis of this study.
2
2
The Literature Perspective
Within literature, various terms are often used to define academics engagement with
industry however, there is a lack of consistency over the particular knowledge transfer
activities referred to when using particular terminology (Perkmann et al., 2013; Jain et
al., 2009; Abreu and Grinevich, 2013). Often the term academic entrepreneur is used to
define academics who engage in knowledge transfer activities which results in
commercialisation (Rothaermel et al., 2007; Wright
2014). However academic
entrepreneurship is also often used to describe academics who engage in a wide range of
knowledge transfer activities ranging from more formal and collaborative activities
resulting in patents and spin outs to less formal and more relational knowledge transfer
activities with industry which often result in societal benefit beyond that of
commercialisation activities but are more difficult to measure (Abreu and Grinevich,
2013). Furthermore, several studies use the broad and encompassing term of ‘academic
engagement’ (Perkmann et al., 2013) to cover the vast range of knowledge transfer
activities between academics and industry. The term entrepreneurial academic has only
emerged in recent years to help overcome this ambiguity within the literature (Meyer ,
2003; D’este and Patel, 2007; Abreu and Grinevich, 2013; Perkmann et al., 2013;
Alexander et al., 2015) where an entrepreneurial academic is said to represent an
innovative faculty member who differs from a archetypical start-up entrepreneur
(Martinelli et al., 2008) and is an academic who engages in less formal types of
knowledge transfer which involves personal interactions with industry (Duberley et al.,
2007; Alexander et al., 2015).
Research by Alexander and Childe (2012) and Alexander et al., (2015) identify that
university-industry knowledge transfer activities can be ordered in terms of formality and
governance (see figure 1), suggesting that different knowledge transfer activities will be
attractive to different types of academics. However, within literature there is ambiguity
over what are the key determinants of academic engagement within industry.
Determinants of academic engagement with industry
Within literature, there is a lack of research which explores the determinants of
academics to engage in a diverse range of knowledge transfer activities (Abreu and
Grinevich 2013; Guerrero et al., 2015) as detailed in figure 1. This is surprising
considering academics are a key actor without which university-industry knowledge
transfer activities cannot occur (Miller et al, 2016). Whilst research has looked at the
motivations of academics to engage in commercialisation activities such as patents,
licences and new venture creation (Bozeman , 2013; Wrigh t, 2014), less is known
regarding the determining factors which influences the decisions of academics to engage
in less formal and more relational type knowledge transfer activities (Abreu and
Grinevich, 2013; Guerrero et al., 2015). These activities are often discretionary activities,
not formally recognised within reward and recognition processes within universities
(Perkmann et al., 2013), however, the changing nature of academic work has meant that
academics are now expected to be more entrepreneurial, actively engaging with industry
in diverse ways in order to demonstrate the impact of their research in society (Bercovitz
and Feldman, 2008; Guerrero et al., 2015).
Within literature, various factors have been found to impact upon the entrepreneurial
orientation of individuals, either within an organisation (Zahra et al., 2006) or as a startup or business owner (Wales et al., 2011). However, these are often at the macro or
organisational level. In a university context, recent research identifies the need to explore
This paper was presented at The XXVII ISPIM Innovation Conference – Blending Tomorrow’s
Innovation Vintage, Porto, Portugal on 19-22 June 2016. The publication is available to ISPIM
members at www.ispim.org.
micro level factors (Wright et al., 2012). Micro level factors are factors at an individual
level. Whilst research broadly identifies different personal motivators for academics to
engage in start-up activities (monetary gain, reputational/career and intrinsic satisfaction,
Perkmann et al., 2013) versus more informal and collaborative activities (for research
related aims, D’este and Patel, 2007; Robinson , 2010), results are inconclusive.
Furthermore, little is know how departmental micros social factors can influence the
willingness of academics to engage in certain knowledge transfer activities with industry
(Wright et al., 2012). Micro social factors are linked to relationships between individuals
which affect their perception, beliefs, norms, behaviours and cognition (Shavinina, 2006).
They have their roots within sociology identifying the importance of social action, where
individual actions are influenced by the behaviours of others. If a potential reaction to an
action is not favourable, or deemed legitimate within a particular social context then the
individual will modify their actions accordingly (Suchman, 1995). Micro social factors
go beyond culture and look at how social influence in particular contexts can impact upon
the agency of individuals. There is some evidence in the literature that micro social
factors may impact upon academics willingness to engage in certain types of knowledge
transfer activities and with industry (Perkmann et al., 2013; Wright et al., 2014; Miller et
al., 2016). Indeed, the perceived legitimacy or social perception of acceptance or
appropriateness of engaging in certain knowledge transfer activities within a department
and amongst colleagues and peers is ultimately impacted upon the norms, values and
beliefs within a particular environment (Suchman, 1995; Zimmerman and Zeitz, 2002;
Deephouse and Suchman, 2008; Conroy and Collin, 2016) which ultimately determines
knowledge transfer behaviour.
Furthermore, literature identifies that seniority impacts upon the ability and willingness
of academics to engage in more informal and collaborative knowledge transfer activities
due to the provision of social networks and relational capital (Perkmann et al., 2013).
Indeed, prior experience with industry has been found to impact on whether an academic
engages in certain knowledge transfer activities (D’este and Patel, 2007; Grandi and
Grimaldi , 2011). Within many UK universities there has been a trend of hiring second
career academics in an attempt to bring more practical skills to the classroom and
enhance engagement with industry (Adcroft and Taylor, 2013). However, they often face
challenges where the more relational knowledge transfer activities they engage in are
often not rewarded in formal promotional mechanisms within universities.
Ultimately, all these factors have been said to influence whether an academic becomes an
academic entrepreneur, or an entrepreneurial academic, or neither; however, results are
inconclusive and warrant further investigation (Wright et al., 2012). Consequently, this
exploratory research attempts to answer 3 research questions.

Does the career pathway of an academic effect the likelihood of certain types of
knowledge transfer and engagement with industry?

What motivations, rewards and micro-social factors influencing the willingness
of academics to become entrepreneurial academic?

Are the activities of Entrepreneurial Academics considered to be legitimate in a
research-led business school?
4
3
The Research Methodology
This exploratory research adopts an interpretivist stance and is the first step in a wider
and more in-depth investigation into Entrepreneurial Academics. The purpose of this first
step is to ground and refine the research questions, review the appropriateness of the
research instrument and better define the cohort for the wider study. To this end a
comparative, matched-pair approach was adopted where data was collected within a
leading UK business school, within a research intensive university. 5 exploratory
interviews were conducted, using a purposeful sampling technique (Patton, 1990)
selecting academics who had a traditional career pathways versus academics who were
undertaking academic activity as a second career1. Table 1 presents the profile of
interviewees. All of the academics interviewed were selected because they were active in
research that was directly related to companies and/or the public sector and who had been
identified within the University’s Impact monitoring activity. Semi-structured interviews
were carried out, recorded and subsequently transcribed. In addition, documentation
regarding academic roles, criteria for promotion and institutional strategies for business
engagement and impact were analysed facilitating triangulation (Yin, 2011). An iterative
and reflexive process to data analysis was followed where data was collected and
interpreted through constant referral to literature to aid theory development.
Table 1 Basic information on the interviewees
Interviewee
№
Academic
career
stage
Highest
degree
obtained
(Year)
Position and Areas of expertise
(years working in the university)
Roles in the
university
1
Early stage
PhD in
Management
(2016)
Lecturer: marketing, innovations,
operation management, (4 years).
Background in history, 27 years
of business experience in
automotive, oil sectors, and
online publishing
Research,
lecturer, MBA
and Master
student
supervision
2
Early stage
MBA (1998)
Lecturer: strategic management,
business analytics (4 years).
Expertise: technology
management, industry experience
in telecom and media (15 years).
Research,
Lecturer, MBA
and Master
student
supervision
3
Early stage
PhD in
marketing
(2014)
Lecturer: management. Expertise:
marketing (9 years), few years of
industrial experience
Research,
Lecturer and
Master student
supervision
4
Mid-career
PhD in
Information
Systems and
Computing
(2007)
Senior Lecturer and BA
Programme director: Operations,
Supply Chain Management (3
years). Expertise: Applied
Computing and Modelling &
Simulation, Bibliometric and
Meta-data Analysis
Research,
Lecturer,
student
supervision,
PhD examiner,
Journals Editor,
Head of the
1
Second career academics are defined for the purposes of this study to have attained a
senior position in a specified career pathway for a significant period (>10 years) prior to
becoming a Lecturer/Professor.
This paper was presented at The XXVII ISPIM Innovation Conference – Blending Tomorrow’s
Innovation Vintage, Porto, Portugal on 19-22 June 2016. The publication is available to ISPIM
members at www.ispim.org.
study
programme
5
4
Senior
professorial
level
PhD in
Innovation
Management
(1978)
Professor of Innovation and
Entrepreneurship since 2009 (7
years). Active in the field since
1978
Research,
Lecturer, PhD
student
supervision,
head of
innovation
centre
Findings
Table 2 below summarises the key results of our interviewees and we analyse them in
detail in this section.
Types of engagements with external actors
Before starting to explore the motives and micro-social factors affecting academics’
engagements with external actors, we clarify their position on the activities scale from
those very formally engaged (academic entrepreneurs) through entrepreneurial academics
and researchers not engaged with industry. We asked our interviewees to go through the
list of engagements’ forms and define the intensity of their involvement into certain
activities on the scale 1 to 7 (from very low to very high intensity. The most common
types of engagement that our interviewees are involved include (with Mean of intensity
in brackets):

student placements (5,75),

networks (5,5),

collaborative research (5),

joint conferences (4,75)

and joint supervision (4,25) (see table 1).
Thus, most of our interviewees are more intensively involved into rather informal
activities. Two early-stage academics interviewed, one of which is a shareholder of a
university spin-out company and another has a share in a joint-venture, represent the most
formal modes of engagement revealed. For the type of knowledge produced within the
Business School, which is in focus of this study, patents and licencing have appeared
completely irrelevant. Only one of our interviewees mentioned shared facilities as a mode
of engagement, when students visit companies’ premises and use the corporate software
for the training purposes, but it does not happen very often. Other than that, this activity
is also irrelevant for the business school context.
One of our interviewees has specifically highlighted guest lecturing and company visits
as those activities, which help students to learn corporate culture on top of training
tangible skills. For companies in turn such meetings help in broad promotion of them as
both potential employee and product or service provider. A senior-level academic
6
mentioned a sufficient amount of time spent on speeches at the conferences and internal
corporate events as an important channel for knowledge transfer.
Motivations and barriers for engagement with external actors
All of our interviewees have noted a high importance of engagement with external actors
for their academic career. However, some of them were saying that this engagement is
generally vital for every academic working in the area of business research, while some
noted that there are well-known cases of academics being successful in their academic
career without external engagement. One of the interviewees says:
“I believe that to do my job I need to engage with the outside world. But I see
around me many academics, who had never an intention to connect with an
external world. … It depends on what sort of academic you are. If your
ambition is to get promoted at the academic route purely through publications,
then there are relatively few incentives for engagement with business, even
though business is the subject of your research. If you run a portfolio of
activities, particularly which includes consulting, you have no credibility unless
you have connections with companies.” (Interviewee 1).
Nevertheless, all of the academics we interviewed have admitted that they don’t feel any
organizational pressure forcing them to collaborate with external actors, they all are
driven by their personal motivation and willing to produce a credible research. For early
stage career academics and senior academic this research credibility is in its value for
business, while for mid-career academic the credibility rather means impact case studies.
We asked our interviewees to assess the extent to which certain factors motivate them to
engage with external actors using a scale of 1-7. Overall, among our interviewees the
most common motives for engaging with external actors include (with Mean in brackets):

to learn and gain feedback from industry for teaching purposes (6),

to access to materials (5,75),

to access information on industry problems (5,5),

to gain research income from Gov. (5,5)

to gain research income from industry (5,25),

to gain external recognition (5,25),

to help make a societal contribution (5,25) (see table 1).
Gaining access to industry feedback, specific data and information on industry problems
is one the highly motivating factors for our interviewees and most of them have admitted
that gaining access is also one of the main barriers in relationships with external actors,
especially with business.
Micro-social factors forming entrepreneurial academics
This paper was presented at The XXVII ISPIM Innovation Conference – Blending Tomorrow’s Innovation Vintage, Porto, Portugal on 19-22 June 2016. The
publication is available to ISPIM members at www.ispim.org.
Table 2 – Summary of the results
Interviewee
№
Academic
career
stage
Key types of engagement by
intensity of involvement (1-low
intensity, 7 – very high)
Types of
external
actors
Core motivations (1-low degree of
motivation, 7 – very high)
Role models, inspiring
experiences
1
Early
stage
Student placements (7), Joint
venture (6), Contract Research
& Consultancy (6), Training &
CPD (6), Joint Conferences (6),
Networks (6), Collaborative
research (4)
Mainly big
companies,
more rarely –
local SMEs
personal income (7), research income
from Gov. (7), feedback from industry for
research purposes (6), feedback from
industry for teaching purposes (6),
demonstrate applicability of research (6),
research income from industry (6)
Business schools, which are
good in engagement
(Cranfield university, IMD,
Harvard, INSEAD, Singapore
Management University,
Wharton Business School and
others); Father; Edison and
war time inventors.
2
Early
stage
Joint supervision (5), Student
placements (4)
Big
companies
societal contribution (7), feedback from
industry for teaching purposes (6)
Experience of working in the
MBA study group
3
Early
stage
Collaborative research (7),
Student placements (7), Joint
supervision (7), P. Journal
Publication (7), Networks (7),
Spin-Outs (6), Contract
Research & Consultancy (6),
Joint Conferences (6).
A number of
large
companies
and SMEs
access to materials (7), research income
from Gov. (7), information on industry
problems (6),feedback from industry for
research purposes (6), feedback from
industry for teaching purposes (6),
research income from industry (6),
external recognition (6), academic esteem
(6), academic contribution (6)
PhD supervisor and other
academics
4
Midcareer
Collaborative research (6),
Networks (6), Student
placements (5), Joint
Conferences (5), P. Journal
Publication (4).
Big public
bodies
access to materials (7), research income
from industry (7), research income from
Gov. (7), academic contribution (7),
societal contribution (7), information on
industry problems (6), network (6),
feedback from industry for teaching
purposes (6), applicability of research (6),
external recognition (6)
PhD supervisor, Father,
Brother, other relatives and
childhood friends
8
5
Senior
professori
al level
Joint Conferences (6), Networks
(6), Contract Research &
Consultancy (5), Collaborative
research (5), Training & CPD
(5), P. Journal Publication (4).
Wide
spectrum from
micro
enterprises to
large
corporations
information on industry problems (7),
feedback from industry for research
purposes (7), feedback from industry for
teaching purposes (7), network (7),
research income from Gov. (7), external
recognition (7), societal contribution (7),
applicability of research (6), academic
contribution (6)
Engineering training, father
and brothers working in
industry, entrepreneurial
academics as Roy Rothwell,
George Hayward, Chris
Freeman.
This paper was presented at The XXVII ISPIM Innovation Conference – Blending Tomorrow’s
Innovation Vintage, Porto, Portugal on 19-22 June 2016. The publication is available to ISPIM
members at www.ispim.org.
10
5.0 Discussion – Need to link back to literature
These initial exploratory findings show variances exist across academics at different
stages of their career and between traditional career academics when compared to
second-career academics. This in turn appears to impact the perceived legitimacy and
willingness of academics to become an entrepreneurial academic.
In terms of academics who were early in their career, and concurring with prior research,
the significant pressures to publish and obtain research funding which meant that the
opportunity cost of being an academic entrepreneur was deemed to be too high. In
contrast academics who were early in their career, but who realised the importance of
becoming Entrepreneurial, were seeking our sources of research income, joint
supervision opportunities and shared publications, as these reinforced the metrics
required for their progression. Similarly the more established academics perceived
activities associated with being an entrepreneurial academic as being embedded within
their job and that developing networking with industry and engaging in informal
knowledge transfer can be beneficial for research activities. However, it was identified
that within their university there was a lack of recognition and rewards associated with
these activities and that some academics do not engage in them at all yet are successful
researchers, particularly in terms of publication outputs.
It was also identified that it depends on the type of research academics are carrying out
and its ability to have an impact on society. Whilst it would be expected that business
schools have diverse engagement with industry, secondary data suggested that the
business school in question struggled to build diverse and multifaceted relationships with
businesses, beyond guest speakers, social events and alumni relations. In terms of
earning research funds from business there was, according to the interview subjects, little
appetite across the wider school to undertake any entrepreneurial engagement activity as
many felt they do not need research funding or collaboration to conduct their research.
The interview respondents did comment that having access to role models within the
department who could share their experiences and knowledge of engaging in a diverse
range of knowledge transfer activities with industry did inspire them to explore options to
get involved and increased the perceived legitimacy of such activities. IN particular the
inception of a practitioner-focussed, research and impact centre was seen as a beacon of
entrepreneurial activity. This identifies the importance of the micro social environment
within departments which can help change attitudes and cognitive behaviours of
academics to become more entrepreneurial through the use of role models and knowledge
transfer champions.
5
Conclusions, Contribution and Practical Implications
Add some conclusions here
Motivations are high, but rewards and progression is at odd with this.
Second career academics carry skills that are essential and these should be rewarded
accordingly.
This paper was presented at The XXVII ISPIM Innovation Conference – Blending Tomorrow’s
Innovation Vintage, Porto, Portugal on 19-22 June 2016. The publication is available to ISPIM
members at www.ispim.org.
This research has several contributions. First, it explores an under researched context, the
micro-social level in order to understand how micro-social factors can impact upon the
perceived legitimacy and willingness of academics to engage in various different
knowledge transfer activities. This is important to help inform interventions to encourage
greater university-industry knowledge transfer so that universities can achieve their goal
of being fully entrepreneurial and achieve targets set at a macro level relating to
university-industry knowledge transfer and societal impact. Secondly, it contributes to the
growing debate of the difference between an academic entrepreneur and an
entrepreneurial academic. Third, this research contributes to recent calls for research
identifying the need to consider the influence the department level and subject disciplines
can have on university-industry knowledge transfer activities (Wright et al., 2012).
Fourth, this research identifies the changing nature of academic work and the inherent
increased pressure early career academics are facing with this extended remit.
In terms of practical application this research raises awareness of the practical, every day
micro level challenges facing universities who want their academic staff to become more
entrepreneurial. It also stresses the need for strategic alignment of overarching university
strategy (i.e. wanting to increase university-industry knowledge transfer) and activities
which happen at a department level. Ultimately the ability of a university to fulfil their
entrepreneurial remit is dependent upon academics. Therefore this research identifies the
need for heads of schools and university managers to recognise the importance of micro
social factors at a department level which influence the willingness and perceived
legitimacy of engaging in a diverse range of knowledge transfer activities with industry.
Lastly this research identifies the need for consideration of strategic fit when recruiting
academic’s if universities are striving to fulfil their new entrepreneurial remit and want to
embed an entrepreneurial culture within their departments.
Table 1 This is the title of my table and it goes above my table
Table heading style
Table heading style
Table style centered
Table style left
10
20
Table style right
30
Source: This is the style for sources.
References
ABREU, M. & GRINEVICH, V. 2013. The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the
UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. Research Policy, 42, 408422.
ADCROFT, A. & TAYLOR, D. 2013. Support for new career academics: an integrated
model for research intensive university business and management schools.
Studies in Higher Education, 38, 827-840.
ALEXANDER, A. 2012. Maximising the outcome of University to Industry Knowledge
Transfer.
12
ALEXANDER, A., MILLER, K. & FIELDING, A. 2015. Open for Business:
Universities, Entrepreneurial Academics and Open Innovation. International
Journal of Innovation Management, Forthcoming.
ALEXANDER, A. T. & CHILDE, S. J. 2012. A framework for the transfer of knowledge
between universities and industry. In: FRICK, J. (ed.) Advances in Information
& Comunication Technology. New York: Springer.
BERCOVITZ, J. & FELDMAN, M. 2008. Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational
change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19, 69-89.
BOZEMAN, B., FAY, D. & SLADE, C. 2013. Research collaboration in universities and
academic entrepreneurship: the-state-of-the-art. . The Journal of Technology
Transfer, 38, 1-67.
CARAYANNIS, E. G. & CAMPBELL, D. F. 2012. Mode 3 knowledge production in
quadruple helix innovation systems, Springer.
CONROY, K. M. & COLLINGS, D. G. 2016. The legitimacy of subsidiary issue selling:
Balancing positive & negative attention from corporate headquarters. Journal of
World Business.
D’ESTE, P. & PATEL, P. 2007. University–industry linkages in the UK: What are the
factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research policy, 36,
1295-1313.
DEEPHOUSE, D. L. & SUCHMAN, M. 2008. Legitimacy in organizational
institutionalism. The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism, 49, 77.
DUBERLEY, J., COHEN, L. & LEESON, E. 2007. Entrepreneurial academics:
developing scientific careers in changing university settings. Higher Education
Quarterly, 61, 479-497.
ETZKOWITZ, H. 2008. The Triple Helix: University-industry-government Innovation:
Innovation in Action, Routledge.
FELDMANN, B. 2014. Dissonance in the academy: the formation of the faculty
entrepreneur. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research,
20, 453-477.
GRIMALDI, R., KENNEY, M., SIEGEL, D. S. & WRIGHT, M. 2011. 30 years after
Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40, 10451057.
GUERRERO, M., CUNNINGHAM, J. A. & URBANO, D. 2015. Economic impact of
entrepreneurial universities’ activities: An exploratory study of the United
Kingdom. Research Policy, 44, 748-764.
JAIN, S., GEORGE, G. & MALTARICH, M. 2009. Academics or entrepreneurs?
Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in
commercialization activity. Research policy, 38, 922-935.
MARTINELLI, A., MEYER, M. & VON TUNZELMANN, N. 2008. Becoming an
entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships
and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university. The
Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 259-283.
MCADAM, M., MILLER, K. & MCADAM, R. 2016. Situated Regional University
Incubation: A Multi-level Stakeholder Perspective. Technovation, Forthcoming.
MEYER, M. 2003. Academic entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial academics? Research–
based ventures and public support mechanisms. R&D Management, 33, 107115.
MILLER, K., MCADAM, M. & MCADAM, R. 2014. The changing university business
model: a stakeholder perspective. R and D Management, 44, 265-287.
MILLER, K., MCADAM, R., MOFFETT, S., ALEXANDER, A. & PUTHUSSERY, P.
2016. Knowledge Transfer in University Quadruple Helix Ecosystems: An
Absorptive Capacity Perspective. R&D Management, Forthcoming.
This paper was presented at The XXVII ISPIM Innovation Conference – Blending Tomorrow’s
Innovation Vintage, Porto, Portugal on 19-22 June 2016. The publication is available to ISPIM
members at www.ispim.org.
PERKMANN, M., TARTARI, V., MCKELVEY, M., AUTIO, E., BROSTROM, A.,
D'ESTE, P., FINI, R., GEUNA, A., GRIMALDI, R., HUGHES, A., KRABEL,
S., KITSON, M., LLERENA, P., LISSONI, F., SALTER, A. & SOBRERO, M.
2013. Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature
on university-industry relations. Research Policy, 42, 423-442.
ROBINSON, S., LOCKETT, N., BICKNELL, A., FRANCIS-SMYTHE, J. & ARTHUR,
J. 2010. Knowledge transfer: de-constructing the entrepreneurial academic.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 16, 485-501.
ROTHAERMEL, F. T., AGUNG, S. D. & JIANG, L. 2007. University entrepreneurship:
a taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16, 691-791.
SHAVININA, L. V. 2006. Micro‐social factors in the development of entrepreneurial
giftedness: the case of Richard Branson. High Ability Studies, 17, 225-235.
SLAUGHTER, S. & LESLIE, L. 1997. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the
Entrepreneurial University, Baltimore, MD, The John Hopkins University Press.
SUCHMAN, M. C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches.
Academy of management review, 20, 571-610.
WALES, W. J., GUPTA, V. K. & MOUSA, F.-T. 2011. Empirical research on
entrepreneurial orientation: An assessment and suggestions for future research.
International Small Business Journal, 0266242611418261.
WRIGHT, M. 2014. Academic entrepreneurship, technology transfer and society: where
next? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 322-334.
WRIGHT, M., MOSEY, S. & NOKE, H. 2012. Academic entrepreneurship and
economic competitiveness: rethinking the role of the entrepreneur. Economics of
Innovation and New Technology, 21, 429-444.
YIN, R. K. 2011. Applications of case study research, Sage.
ZAHRA, S. A., SAPIENZA, H. J. & DAVIDSSON, P. 2006. Entrepreneurship and
Dynamic Capabilities: A Review, Model and Research Agenda*. Journal of
Management Studies, 43, 917-955.
ZIMMERMAN, M. A. & ZEITZ, G. J. 2002. Beyond survival: Achieving new venture
growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27, 414-431.
14