interested in the dynamics of the knowledge marketplace within which such academic entrepreneurs operate. The study also builds on our previous work (Brennan et al., 2005) which more fully explores the streams of research literature that contribute to the domain. The following summa- rizes the key parts of the chapter and the research process. In the literature review section, an attempt is made to define the scope of academic entre- preneurship with reference to three streams of complementary research. Of necessity the literature cited is representative and ‘genealogical’ rather than broad based and comparative. The methodology section details the three- stage process used to investigate academic entrepreneurs and prospective academic entrepreneurs in a single university setting. In the discussion and management implications section, the results are explored and the implica- tions of the study discussed in terms of how they add to an understanding of the knowledge marketplace.
Given that little theoretical work has been done on academic entrepre- neurs within universities (as opposed to academic spin-out firms) it was decided to focus exclusively on one university rather than include rela- tionships with other parts of innovation clusters in the wider regional or national economy. This is clearly a limitation but one that is justified in an attempt to understand knowledge use within one institutional setting. As such it might be considered as investigating a subliminal phenomenon that adds to previous research on university spin-out firms (Birley, 2002;
Shane, 2004).
In terms of outcomes, the chapter suggests different ways in which aca- demics can better understand their own approach to academic entrepre- neurship with regard to how they use knowledge and their relationship with their host university. Such an understanding is clearly also of interest to high-tech firms in how they interface with academics who are located within universities. This has implications for university managers and the practical ways in which they can promote entrepreneurship – or at least reduce barriers to entrepreneurship taking place. At a theoretical level, the proposed typology of academic entrepreneurs is offered as a clarification of what to date have been contradictory definitions of the aca- demic entrepreneur.
understood as converging to form a coherent domain for the study of aca- demic entrepreneurship. The first research stream is readily identifiable as the study of technology-based firms (Oakey, 1984 et seq.). The second research stream relates to the field investigating the commercialization of academic knowledge (Gibbons and Wittrock, 1985). The third and final field is that which explores the changing role of universities in society and indeed the emergence of the ‘entrepreneurial university’ (Etzkowitz, 1983 et seq.). By conceptualizing the three streams of research as overlapping fields (Figure 4.1) it is possible to visualize one understanding of acade- mic entrepreneurship that explicitly encompasses the phenomenon of high-tech start-ups.
The overlapping fields of interest allow the identification of seven component parts:
Figure 4.1 The domain of academic entrepreneurship 4
6
3
1
7
5
2 Technology-based firms
Role of universities in society
Commercialization of discipline knowledge
1. The academic entrepreneur who balances the disciplinary considera- tions with the technology transfer strategy of a host university institu- tion and opportunities arising from exploiting intellectual capital through technology-based firms (Jones-Evans, 1987; Dickson et al., 1998; Birley, 2002; Laukkanen, 2003; Shane, 2004).
2. A discipline context that determines academic credibility especially in terms of innovation (Faulkner, 1994; Csikszentmihalyi, 2001; Birley, 2002).
3. A university context that increasingly recognizes organizational knowledge capital as well as individual capital (Collins, 1993; Blacker, 1995; Askling et al., 2001; Etzkowitz, 2003).
4. Technology-based firms with a competence based on specialist know- ledge (Roberts, 1991; Oakey, 1995; Autio, 1997; Storey and Tether, 1998).
5. University interventions to commercialize organizational knowledge (Jones-Evans, 1998; Etzkowitz, 2003).
6. University interventions to create/support/own science-, engineering- and technology-based firms (Kinsella and McBrierty, 1997; Ferguson, 1999).
7. Academics who engage with technology-based firms independent of a host university (Samsom and Gurdon, 1993; Carayannis et al., 1998;
Cooper, 2000).
The above takes place in the entrepreneurial environment in which universities exist and markets and policy makers operate (Gibbons et al., 1994; Spilling, 1996; Nowotny et al., 2001; Neck et al., 2004; Shane, 2004).
The overarching domain of academic entrepreneurship described above and illustrated in Figure 4.1 is useful in that it creates conceptual bins within which previous research can be located and grouped. Perhaps more importantly it visually illustrates how such research is juxtaposed with other, complementary research areas to create new research stream com- binations. For example, the central conceptual bin (identified by the number 1 in Figure 4.1) draws together different typologies of entrepre- neur who can be identified as having a knowledge relationship with academia in a number of different permutations. These are detailed in Table 4.1.
Previous research on academics involved in entrepreneurship has tended to focus on those from science- or technology-based disciplines. For example, in a study of technical entrepreneurs, Jones-Evans (1987) found that the occupational/work background of the entrepreneur was an important factor in understanding how such individuals approach entrepreneurship. The research entrepreneur is identified as the category of technical entrepreneur most likely to be involved in a university/academic setting. This type of
individual was described as having: ‘a knowledge-oriented, science and technology background having worked in higher education/academia or in a non-commercial laboratory’ (Cooper, 2000: 237).
Dickson et al. (1998) identified three types of entrepreneur based on a perceived transition from a posture of being purely academic to one of exploiting science. First, the academic entrepreneur is identified as someone who engages in entrepreneurial endeavours, but only as an adjunct to their academic work. Second, the entrepreneurial scientist is described as the scientist who was operating full-time in a business venture while still essentially dedicated to scientific interests. Third, the scientific entrepreneur is identified as someone with both science and business qualifications, operating in a venture and regarding science as business (Dickson et al., 1998).
Birley (2002) suggested a typology based on distinct types of spin-outs.
First the orthodox spin-out is described as a company formed by one or more academics who leave the university to form the company. Interestingly, in a seeming contradiction to the Dickson et al. description, Birley identifies these founders as academic entrepreneurs. Second, the technology spin-out is described as a situation when an outside investor/manager buys or leases the intellectual property (IP) from the university and forms a new company.
Table 4.1 Entrepreneurship typologies
Basis of categorization Categories Author
Occupational/work Research technical Jones-Evans, 1987 background of the entrepreneur
individual entrepreneur Producer technical entrepreneur User technical
entrepreneur Opportunist
technical entrepreneur
Extent to which an Academic Dickson et al., 1998
academic is involved in entrepreneur the practice of Entrepreneurial entrepreneurship scientist
Scientific entrepreneur
The extent of involvement Orthodox spin-out Birley, 2002 by an academic with a Technology spin-out
spin-out company Hybrid spin-out
The inventor academic(s) is (are) described as having no involvement with the running of the company. Third, the hybrid spin-out is identified as the predominant form of spin-out in Imperial College – the focus of the Birley study. It is suggested that in the hybrid form of spin-out there is a combination of inventor and founding academics with varying degrees of involvement with spin-out companies. In the context of promoting entre- preneurship among academics, Birley also reports a shift in university policy, ‘from a technology transfer strategy that focused upon licensing technologies to large organisations and positively discouraged faculty entre- preneurial activity to one that focuses upon actively encouraging the creation of new ventures from faculty research’ (Birley, 2002: 135). The examples detailed above serve as an illustration of how entrepreneurs involved in high-tech start-ups, are a highly diverse group of individuals demonstrating complex interaction with other components of a knowledge market.
The Knowledge Marketplace
Coincidently, the confluence of the three distinct research streams – technology-based firms; the commercialization of academic discipline knowledge; and the role of universities in society – is consistent with a cor- porate (rather than an individual) view of academic entrepreneurship. In other words the focus on the individual, central in the corpus of entrepre- neurship research largely ignores the corporate context. We suggest that a corporate entrepreneurship (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2003) perspective better addresses important relationships among academic entrepreneurs, host institution and parent academic discipline. Sharma and Chrisman (1999) suggest that three types of phenomena form the focus for under- standing corporate entrepreneurship: venturing, innovation and renewal.
Table 4.2 presents a tentative framework for understanding the recent
‘genealogy’ of academic entrepreneurship and the sorts of entrepreneur- ship processes that merit investigation.
The attempt to conceptualize the domain of academic entrepreneurship by identifying contributory streams of research, relating these to categories of corporate entrepreneurship and making these categories operational (as opportunity, novelty and advantage seeking), can provide a focus for enquiry with which to investigate processes in the knowledge market.
Indeed, the need for such a focus is implicit from the work of Lundvall (1990) on national/regional systems of innovation and more specifically from Saxenian’s (1996) study of regional networks in Silicon Valley and Oakey’s (1995) work on high-tech firms in the UK.
METHODOLOGY
The aim of the study was to investigate entrepreneurship among estab- lished and prospective academic entrepreneurs as a foundation for better understanding and supporting high-tech start-ups. In particular we were interested in the dynamics of the knowledge marketplace within which such academic entrepreneurs operate. The research was of practical relevance as both authors are involved in the teaching and promoting of entrepreneur- ship among academics and students in universities. This ‘embeddedness’ in the phenomenon suggested the need for a constructivist, interpretative approach (Schwandt, 2000) that recognized our inherent subjectivity. Such a context suggested a methodology that draws on two strategies of enquiry (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000): case-study research and action research.
Assumptions and Definitions
A definitional understanding of the concepts of entrepreneurship and entrepreneur is acknowledged as: ‘Entrepreneurship encompasses acts of organisational creation, renewal, or innovation that occur within or outside an existing organisation’ (Sharma and Chrisman, 1999: 18).
For this study we suggest that the organizational context of a university setting is central in understanding how academic entrepreneurship takes place and how high-tech firms interact with academia. Further:
‘Entrepreneurs are individuals or groups of individuals, acting independently Table 4.2 A ‘genealogy’ of academic entrepreneurship
Contributory Category of Academic Entrepreneurship research streams academic entrepreneurship definitional support and foundational entrepreneurship processes
researchers
Technology-based Venturing Opportunity Zahra and Dess, 2001
firms (Oakey, 1984) seeking Miles and Covin, 2002
Commercialization Innovation Novelty seeking Brazeal and Herbert, of discipline 1999
knowledge Tidd et al., 2005
(Gibbons and Wittrock, 1985)
The role of the Renewal Advantage Hitt et al., 2001 university in society seeking Dess et al., 2003 (Etzkowitz, 1983)
or as a part of a corporate system, who create new organisations, or instigate renewal or innovation within an existing organisation’ (ibid.). For the pur- poses of this study, academics demonstrating the above behaviour were deemed to be academic entrepreneurs.
Strategies of Enquiry
Two types of case study were felt to be relevant in terms of ‘bounding’ the research effort. Primarily the research was viewed as an intrinsic case, that is, because the authors wanted to gain a better understanding of a specific phenomenon in a unique university setting. Second, it was viewed as an instrumental case, that is, a contribution to the wider issue of understand- ing academic entrepreneurship as a phenomenon in its own right (Stake, 2000). The focus on a single case raised issues of validity of the research outcomes. To address this issue, a triangulation tactic was used as an alter- native to validation (Fine et al., 2000; Stake, 2000) whereby three different perspectives from the single-case setting were selected: university managers of innovation, academic entrepreneurs and graduate students. In this way a multi-perspective and rich understanding was anticipated.
The case context and desired pragmatic outcome suggested an action research approach in terms of an iterative staged sequence consisting of a
‘spiral of repeated cycles of planning, acting observing and reflecting’
(Kemmis and McTaggart, 2000: 595). In particular, an action research approach justified the collection of quantitative data as: ‘approximations to the ways participants understand themselves’ (ibid.: 600). In this way a practical tool – the academic entrepreneurship questionnaire (AEQ) – was developed that could be used to profile both academic entrepreneurs and prospective academic entrepreneurs.
Research Design
The research design is based on, and is an extension of, an approach previ- ously developed by Brennan et al. (2005) and consisted of three stages:
1. In-depth interviewing of university managers of innovation and acad- emic entrepreneurs. The intention was to identify a set of common themes determined to be important in understanding the nature of academic entrepreneurship.
2. Development of a questionnaire, based on the key themes identified in stage 1, which could be used to survey academic entrepreneurs.
The intention was to gain an understanding of how academic entre- preneurs understood themselves with specific reference to the key
themes and if possible characterize different types of academic entrepreneurship.
3. The use of thematic characteristics (and academic profile types) as a practical tool in understanding the nature of academic entrepreneurs in three distinct groups. First, a group of science, engineering and tech- nology graduates participating in an introduction to entrepreneurship seminar (SET graduates). Second, a group of teams short-listed for a regional university-based entrepreneurship competition. These teams consisted of academics and students (competition teams). Third, a group of doctoral students in two cohorts (A and B), with no stated interest in entrepreneurship.
Details of each stage and associated research activity are presented in Table 4.3.
Stage 1: key themes
University-based managers of innovation and established academic entre- preneurs were selected on the basis of purposeful sampling. The managers of innovation were those individuals tasked with deciding and implement- ing policy within the corporate structure and pursuing specific strategic objectives. The managers in turn identified academic entrepreneurs who were explicitly known to the institution. All 12 individuals participated in in-depth interviews that were recorded and later transcribed. Questions Table 4.3 Summary of design stages
Design Focus Technique How How Output
stage captured interpreted
1 Academic In-depth Audio tape Sense- Key themes
entrepreneurship interviews and making processes in a (n12) transcription university setting
2 Key theme 24-item Seven-point Value Profile
dimensions and questionnaire Likert scale patterns characteristics
academic (n9)
entrepreneurs completed
3 Profile 24-item Seven-point Profile Assessing
characteristics questionnaire Likert scale comparisons preferences in
academic groups (n124) academics
(n4) completed
Note: Total n145.
were asked using the three academic entrepreneurship processes detailed in Table 4.2 (opportunity-, novelty- and advantage-seeking activity). Each process was explored using five levels: at the level of the individual; com- munity of practice; academic school; university institution; and the wider entrepreneurial system. The last – the entrepreneurship system – was defined as the individual and corporate actors who interact in a recogniz- able context to form the infrastructure for entrepreneurship (Van de Ven, 1993; Spilling, 1996). Overall, the questioning tactic of stratifying was felt to be consistent with the idea of understanding a hierarchy of interaction, moving from the individual outwards to the entrepreneurial environment as a whole.
The text material was interpreted using a sense-making process of repeated cycles of: analysis, synthesis, sharing and summarizing (Weick, 1995). The output of this process was the identification of four key themes:
● Work relationships– the extent to which and nature of how an individ- ual academic works with others while undertaking entrepreneurship.
● Knowledge production– the way in which an academic uses discipline knowledge to produce new knowledge.
● Knowledge acquisition – the way in which an academic uses know- ledge networks.
● Organizational orientation– how academics regard and manage their relationship with their host university institution.
Stage 2: profiling academic entrepreneurs
The key themes produced as an outcome of stage 1 were then explored by revisiting the management literature that initially informed our under- standing of the domain of academic entrepreneurship. Four pairs of bipolar preferences were identified that both addressed the key themes identified in stage 1 and built on previous research. These are detailed in Table 4.4, along with the key references used to inform the construction of the 24-item (AEQ) questionnaire.
Nine academic entrepreneurs (seven academics from the stage 1 popula- tion and an additional two individuals) were asked to complete the AEQ.
The academics came from a range of disciplines and four types of entre- preneur were identified on the basis of differing patterns of response:
● Hero– an academic who is highly social with discipline work col- leagues and also produces knowledge at the forefront of their disci- pline. They tend to use the institutional knowledge acquisition network while engaged fully with the host university and the wider entrepreneurial environment.
● Maverick– an academic who engages strongly with discipline work colleagues but is less interested in knowledge production at the forefront of their discipline. They have a strong interest in interdisci- plinary knowledge production and on the application of knowledge to problems outside academia. They tend not to engage with know- ledge acquisition through university systems but use their own scanning network. They are also strongly orientated towards oppor- tunities in the external entrepreneurship system. The term ‘maverick’
is intended to convey the idea that such academics, while highly successful in terms of entrepreneurship, tend not to engage with university systems.
● Broker – an academic who is highly social with discipline work colleagues but is less interested in producing knowledge at the forefront of their discipline. Rather they are interested in interdis- ciplinary knowledge trading or exchange and the application of knowledge in the wider entrepreneurial environment. They use both institutional and their own scanning networks for knowledge acquisition, while at the same time they are equally orientated towards the host university and the wider external entrepreneurship environment.
● Prospector – an academic who is highly individualistic with low engagement with discipline work colleagues and less interest in knowledge production at the forefront of their discipline. Their main interest is in the application of discipline knowledge and inter- disciplinary knowledge trading/exchange. Knowledge acquisition is based strongly on their own scanning network with low use of Table 4.4 Key themes in academic entrepreneurship
Theme Bipolar preferences References
Work Social Individual Nonaka, 1994
relationships Storey, 2000
Knowledge Mode 1 Mode 2 Gibbons et al., 1994
production (discipline focus) (interdiscipline) Nowotny, 2001
Knowledge Receiver Scanner Cohen and
acquisition Levinthal, 1990
Ekvall, 2002 Organizational Internal External Tidd et al., 2005
orientation Etzkowitz, 2003
Source: Brennan et al. (2005).
university-based systems. They are strongly orientated towards the external, wider entrepreneurial environment.
The difference between the four types of academic entrepreneur is charac- terized in terms of their approach to discipline knowledge (contrasting the production/useof discipline knowledge with the trading/exchangeof disci- pline knowledge) and their relationship with their host university (balanced in terms of engagement with systems and colleagues contrasted with a skewedengagement in terms of being extremely individualistic and/or not using university systems). In addition no single type was associated with a particular discipline background (Table 4.5).
Stage 3: assessing preferences in prospective academic entrepreneurs The four types of academic entrepreneur identified in stage 2 reflected differing preferences in terms of how the individuals involved undertook academic entrepreneurship. Consistent with the overall aim of under- standing academic entrepreneurship and the dynamics of the knowledge marketplace, four groups of academics/graduates including two groups of prospective entrepreneurs (Hisrich and Drnovsˇek, 2002; Erikson, 2003) were identified that could be profiled in terms of the four types of acade- mic entrepreneur identified in stage 2.
First, a group of SET discipline graduates who participated in an intro- duction to entrepreneurship seminar. The graduates were all self-selecting in that they applied to participate in a seminar whose aim was to assist those interested in entrepreneurship. The seminar lasted three days and had a focus on the commercialization of academic research and the key stages involved in the entrepreneurship process. The group completed the AEQ during the final stage of the seminar.
The second group consisted of self-selecting teams of academics and graduates who had been short-listed for a regional, university-based entre- preneurship competition. The competition involved the completion of a Table 4.5 A typology of academic entrepreneurs
A typology of academic Academic–university
entrepreneurs relationship
Balanced Skewed
Discipline knowledge Producer/user Hero Maverick
Trading/exchange Broker Prospector
Source: Brennan et al. (2005).