As a result of our investigation we suggest that the increasing prevalence of entrepreneurship in universities will create significant challenges for both university policy makers and managers, and indeed for those who aspire to academic entrepreneurship. In particular we agree with Etzkowitz (2003) on the need for changes in organizational entities and systems in order to overcome real barriers within modern university structures and strategies.
It is also apparent that academic entrepreneurship is different in important ways from independent entrepreneurship – specifically in terms of the nature of discipline knowledge and the academic–university relationship.
We further suggest that a change in organizational thinking is needed in order to fully support academic entrepreneurship. The nature of such a change is summarized in Table 4.8.
1. The dominant social aspect of work relationships suggests the need to view entrepreneurship as corporate rather than simply an individual phenomenon.
2. The interdisciplinary aspect of knowledge production suggests the need for thinking outside the rigours of individual disciplines while still recognizing the fundamental role of such disciplines for academic innovation.
3. Attempts to funnel knowledge through central units can be counter- productive. Multiple gatekeepers need to be welcomed and reflect the reality of interdisciplinary knowledge production.
4. The dichotomous thinking that simplifies academia into theory (inside the university) and practice (outside the university) does not reflect the nature of academic entrepreneurship. ‘Trialectic’ thinking, encom- passing the idea of multiple parts that attract (Ford and Ford, 1994), and the triple helix concept of multiple relationships, offer a more meaningful framework for understanding academic entrepreneurship.
Finally, the identification of types of academic entrepreneur based on their approach to discipline knowledge and relationship with a host uni- versity recognizes a set of key relationships important for understanding Table 4.8 The entrepreneurial university
Academic Paradigm entrepreneurship
The managerial The entrepreneurial
university university
Work relationships Individual Corporate
entrepreneurship entrepreneurship Knowledge production Discipline focus Interdiscipline focus
(Mode 1) (Modes 1 and 2)
Knowledge acquisition Central gatekeepers Multiple gatekeepers in a knowledge market Organization orientation Internal – external The entrepreneurial
(dichotomous thinking) system (‘trialectic’
thinking)
Source: Brennan et al. (2005).
this special form of entrepreneurship. Such key relationships are important in that they both give credibility to individual academics, while providing the specialist knowledge that forms the basis of the entrepreneurial enter- prise and especially high-tech start-ups. As such they are important for beginning to understand the enablers and barriers to interaction at the aca- demic–industry interface.
REFERENCES
Antoncic, B. and R.D. Hisrich (2003), ‘Clarifying the intrapreneurship concept’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,10(1), 7–24.
Askling, B., M. Henkel and B. Kehm (2001), ‘Concepts of knowledge and their organisation in universities’,European Journal of Education,36(3), 341–50.
Autio, E. (1997), ‘New technology-based firms in innovation networks’, in D. Jones- Evans and M. Klofsten (eds), Technology Innovation and Enterprise: The European Experience, London: Macmillan, pp. 209–35.
Birley, S. (2002), ‘Universities, academics, and spinout companies: lessons from Imperial’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1 (1), 133–53.
Blacker, F. (1995), ‘Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: an overview and interpretation’,Organization Studies,16(6), 1021–46.
Brazeal, D.V. and T.T. Herbert (1999), ‘The genesis of entrepreneurship’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,23(3), 29–45.
Brennan, M.C., A. Wall and P. McGowan (2005), ‘Academic entrepreneurship:
assessing preferences in nascent entrepreneurs’,Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,12(3), 307–22.
Carayannis E., E. Rodgers, K. Kurihara and M. Allibritton (1998), ‘High technol- ogy spin-offs from government R&D laboratories and research universities’, Technovision,8(1), 1–11.
Cohen, W.M. and D.A. Levinthal (1990), ‘Absorptive capacity: a new perspec- tive on learning and innovation’, Administrative Science Quarterly, March, 128–52.
Collins, H. (1993), ‘The structure of knowledge’,Social Research,60(1), 95–116.
Cooper, S. (2000), ‘Technical entrepreneurship’, in S. Carter and D. Jones-Evans (eds),Enterprise and Small Business, Harlow: Pearson, pp. 220–41.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2001), ‘A systems perspective on creativity’, in J. Henry (ed.), Creative Management, London: Sage, pp. 11–26.
Denzin, N.K. and Y.S. Lincoln (eds) (2000), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dess, G.G., R.D. Ireland, S.A. Zahra, S.W. Floyd, J.J. Janney and P.J. Lane (2003),
‘Emerging issues in corporate entrepreneurship’,Journal of Management,29(3), 351–78.
Dickson, K., A. Coles and H. Smith (1998), ‘Science in the market place: the role of the scientific entrepreneur’, in W. During and R. Oakey (eds),New Technology Based Firms in the 1990s, London: Paul Chapman, pp. 27–37.
Ekvall, G. (2002), ‘Conditions and levels of creativity’, in J. Henry and D. Mayle (eds),Managing Innovation and Change, London: Sage, pp. 99–110.
Erikson, T. (2003), ‘Towards a taxonomy of entrepreneurial learning experiences among potential entrepreneurs’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,10(1), 106–12.
Etzkowitz, H. (1983), ‘Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepreneurial universities in American academic science’,Minerva,21, Autumn, 198–233.
Etzkowitz, H. (2003), ‘The European entrepreneurial university: an alternative to the US model’,Industry and Higher Education, October, 325–35.
Faulkner, W. (1994), ‘Conceptualising knowledge used in innovation: a second look at the science-technology distinction and industrial innovation’, Science, Technology and Human Values,19(4), 425–58.
Ferguson, R. (1999), ‘What’s in a location? Science parks and the support of new technology-based firms’, Doctoral thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Ultuna.
Fine, M., L. Weis, S. Weseen and L. Wong (2000), ‘For who? Qualitative research, representation and social responsibilities’, in Denzin and Lincoln (eds), pp. 107–32.
Ford, J.D. and L.W. Ford (1994), ‘Logics of identity, contradiction and attraction in change’,Academy of Management Review,19(4), 756–85.
Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott and M. Trow (1994),The New Production of Knowledge, London: Sage.
Gibbons, M. and B. Wittrock (1985),Science as a Commodity: Threats to the Open Community of Scholars, Harlow: Longman.
Hisrich, R.D. and M. Drnovsˇek (2002), ‘Entrepreneurship and small business research – a European perspective’,Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Research,9(2), 172–222.
Hitt, M.A., R.D. Ireland, M. Camp and D.L. Sexton (2001), ‘Strategic entrepre- neurship: entrepreneurial strategies for wealth creation’,Strategic Management Journal,22(6/7), 479–91.
Jones-Evans, D. (1987), ‘Technical entrepreneurship, experience and the manage- ment of small technology-based firms’, in D. Jones-Evans and M. Klofsten (eds), Technology Innovation and Enterprise: The European Experience, London:
Macmillan, pp. 11–60.
Jones-Evans, D. (1998), ‘Universities, technology transfer and spin-offactivities:
academic entrepreneurship in different European regions’, Targeted Socio- Economic Research Project No. 1042, Pontypridd: University of Glamorgan.
Kemmis, S. and R. McTaggart (2000), ‘Participatory action research’, in Denzin and Lincoln (eds), pp. 567–606.
Kinsella, R. and V. McBrierty (1997), ‘Campus companies and the emerging techno-academic paradigm: the Irish experience’,Technovision,17(5), 245–51.
Laukkanen, M. (2003), ‘Exploring academic entrepreneurship: drivers and tensions of university-based business’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,10(4), 372–82.
Lundvall, B. (1990), National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, London: Frances Pinter.
Miles, M.P. and J.G. Covin (2002), ‘Exploring the practice of corporate venturing:
some common forms and their organisational implications’,Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,26(3), 21–40.
Neck, H.M., G.D. Meyer, B. Cohen and A.C. Corbett (2004), ‘An entrepreneurial system view of new venture creation’,Journal of Small Business Management, 42(2), 190–208.
Nonaka, I. (1994), ‘A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation’, Organization Science,5(1), 14–37.
Nowotny, H., P. Scott and M. Gibbons (2001),Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty, London: Polity.
Oakey, R.P. (1984),High Technology Small Firms, London: Frances Pinter.
Oakey, R.P. (1995), High-Technology New Firms: Variable Barriers to Growth, London: Paul Chapman.
Office of Science and Technology (OST) (2001), Science Enterprise Challenge Guidelines, London: OST, www.ost.gov.uk/enterprise/knowledge/sec.htm.
Roberts, E.B. (1991),Entrepreneurs in High Technology: Lessons from MIT and Beyond, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Samsom, K.J. and M.A. Gurdon (1993), ‘University scientists as entrepreneurs: a special case of technology transfer and high technology venturing’,Technovation, 13(2), 63–71.
Saxenian, A. (1996),Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schwandt, T.A. (2000), ‘Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: inter- pretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism’, in Denzin and Lincoln (eds), pp. 189–214.
Shane, S. (2004),Academic Entrepreneurship, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
Sharma, P. and J.J. Chrisman (1999), ‘Towards a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship’,Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,23(3), 11–27.
Spilling, O.R. (1996), ‘The entrepreneurial system’,Journal of Business Research, 36(1), 91–103.
Stake, R.E. (2000), ‘Case studies’, in Denzin and Lincoln (eds), pp. 435–54.
Storey, J. (2000), ‘The management of innovation problem’,International Journal of Innovation Management,4(3), 347–67.
Storey, D.J. and B.S. Tether (1998), ‘Public policy measures to support new technology-based firms in the European Union’,Research Policy,26(9), 1037–57.
Tidd, J., J. Bessant and K. Pavitt (2005),Managing Innovation, Chichester: Wiley.
Van de Ven, A.H. (1993), ‘The development of an infrastructure for entrepreneur- ship’,Journal of Business Venturing,8(3), 211–30.
Weick, K.E. (1995),Sensemaking in Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zahra, S.A. and G.G. Dess (2001), ‘Entrepreneurship as a field of research: encour- aging dialogue and debate’,Academy of Management Review,26(1), 8–10.