There has been a conspicuous increase in patenting and licensing, which is an indicator for an aggrandisement of academic entrepreneurship at American research universities since the 1970s. The number of patents which can be issued to universities and colleges increased by more than 100 percent between 1979 and 1984, as well as between 1984 and 1989. It almost doubled once more during the 1990s. In 1980 only about 20 research universities had technology licensing and transfer offices. 10 years later that number was 200, and in 2000 just about every major research university had founded its own (Colyvas et al., 2002, P. 1). University license revenues have increased from $220 million to $698 million from 1991 to 1997 (Association of University Technology Managers, 1998).
Private sector activity is always associated with the risk of failure because of the responsibility which is connected with it. This leads us to the discussion why academics should escape from a “safe world” of their publicly financed institution to either become entrepreneurs or to work in private companies. What are the major reasons for the risk of entrepreneurial and private sector activity? The following paper tries to find an answer on this question by blending theoretical backgrounds and empirical elements.
The second chapter serves as an introduction to the subject where the issue of the paper is narrowed further down and the key questions of it are defined. The main characteristics and concepts will also be distinguished in the second chapter, as much as it will be presented which aspects are not discussed in the paper. The third chapter of this paper concentrates on how internal and external factors influence the decision of scientists to show entrepreneurial behaviour. There are different theories and surveys which try to find an answer to the question how important different elements are. The fourth chapter works out the details in differences of the factors leading either to academic spinoffs or private firm participations. The conclusion gives the final answer on how the theory and the empiricism correspond with each other and which reasons are responsible for academics to break out from the ivory tower of science.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Academic Science vs. Private Sector Activity
3 Possible factors for Private Sector Activity
3.1 Connecting theory and practice approach
3.2 Internal Factors
3.2.1 Scientific Mobility and Academic Entrepreneurship
3.2.2 Experience in Research Commercialization
3.2.3 Commercial Orientation of Colleagues
3.3 External Factors
3.3.1 Research Field
3.3.2 Geographic Location
4 Entrepreneurship vs. Working in Private Firms
5 Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
The main objective of this paper is to investigate the motivations and underlying factors that drive academic scientists to transition from purely research-oriented work within public institutions toward private sector activities, such as becoming entrepreneurs or joining established private firms. The paper aims to answer why scientists choose to leave the "ivory tower" of science by analyzing both theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence.
- Analysis of internal drivers, including scientific mobility and research commercialization experience.
- Examination of external factors, such as specific research fields and geographic location.
- Comparison of entrepreneurial activity versus traditional employment in private firms.
- Evaluation of the role of professional networks and peer influences on career decisions.
- Integration of expert interviews to contrast theoretical assumptions with practical perspectives.
Excerpt from the Book
3.2.1 Scientific Mobility and Academic Entrepreneurship
This section discusses the hypothesis that mobile scientists are more likely to show entrepreneurial behaviour than non-mobile scientists. The survey by Krabel, Siegel and Slavtchev (2009) examines the effect of mobility on entrepreneurship. The examination is based on data of researchers of the Max Planck Society. Although Max Planck Society is oriented towards fundamental research, a number of spinoff companies can be detected by scientists of the institute. The sample of entrepreneurial and non-entrepreneurial scientists is based on a survey conducted between mid-October and mid-December 2007. The population for the survey finally consisted of 2.604 scientists. The results of the survey confirm that scientific mobility is conducive to entrepreneurial behaviour. Foreign researchers are more attracted by entrepreneurial activity than their colleagues with domestic background. The distinction is highly significant. Likewise, German scientists educated abroad are significantly more attracted to be entrepreneurs than their domestic-educated colleagues. The conclusion of the examination is that mobility is an important determinant of academic entrepreneurship.
The different attributes enhancing mobile scientists’ tendency to spinoffs or private sector orientation in the theory are: the attitude towards risk and incertitude, human and social capital to a great extent and entrepreneurial commitment. Thinking of the unpredictable and sometimes remarkable changes in research positions in foreign countries which require a high degree of flexibility, the consideration of mobile scientists being comparably risk-seeking is supposable. This includes the new working circumstances and the adjustment to different cultural aspects. The adaption to a new environment may increase the skill of adjusting quickly to unexpected conditions and scenarios. This ability may in some way enlarge entrepreneurial competence because entrepreneurs are often obliged to make decisions while facing new circumstances. Such capabilities are considered of particular importance for the organization of new highly innovative firms, which cannot fall back on past experience and historical data relating to the business idea.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: This chapter introduces the increasing trend of academic entrepreneurship and defines the central research question regarding why scientists choose to engage with the private sector.
2 Academic Science vs. Private Sector Activity: This chapter distinguishes between different forms of private sector participation, such as patenting, licensing, and starting new companies, and highlights the shift from academic research to "for-profit science."
3 Possible factors for Private Sector Activity: This chapter provides a comprehensive analysis of the internal and external determinants, including mobility, commercial experience, peer influence, research fields, and geographic location, that shape a scientist's career path.
4 Entrepreneurship vs. Working in Private Firms: This chapter contrasts the distinct motivations and factors that influence the decision to become an entrepreneur versus working as an employee in an existing private firm.
5 Conclusion: This chapter summarizes the findings, concluding that intrinsic, intangible motivations often outweigh material or monetary factors when academics decide to leave the academic environment.
Keywords
Academic Entrepreneurship, Private Sector Activity, Scientific Mobility, University Spinoffs, Research Commercialization, Technology Transfer, Basic Science, Patenting, Innovation, Human Capital, Social Capital, Career Path, Biotechnology, Research Field, Academic Motivation
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper explores the motivations and influencing factors that lead academic scientists to engage in private sector activities, specifically through starting spinoffs or working in existing private firms.
What are the central thematic fields covered?
Key themes include the impact of scientific mobility, the role of research commercialization experiences, the influence of peer networks, and the significance of industry-specific research areas and geographic locations.
What is the primary research goal?
The primary goal is to identify why academic scientists choose to transition out of public, research-focused institutions and to determine if monetary gain is the primary driver behind this shift.
Which scientific methods were employed?
The author employs a mixed-method approach, combining a review of existing theoretical literature and empirical studies with qualitative insights gathered from interviews with two industry experts.
What is addressed in the main part of the paper?
The main part categorizes factors into internal (mobility, commercial experience, peer orientation) and external (research field, geographic location) drivers, followed by a comparative analysis of entrepreneurship versus traditional employment.
Which keywords best characterize this study?
The study is characterized by terms such as Academic Entrepreneurship, Scientific Mobility, University Spinoffs, Research Commercialization, and Innovation.
Why does the author focus on the "ivory tower of science"?
The author uses the "ivory tower" metaphor to describe the traditional, shielded academic environment and examines the push and pull factors that cause scientists to break out of this setting.
Do the interviewed experts agree on the influence of geographic location?
No, the opinions are mixed; while one expert from physical science emphasizes the impact of geographic location due to capital intensity, the other does not view it as a primary driver.
Does the paper conclude that money is the main motivator for scientists?
No, the paper concludes that intrinsic, intangible factors—such as the desire for expanded research possibilities—often play a more significant role than monetary rewards.
- Quote paper
- Tobias Kleinmann (Author), 2010, From Science to the Economic System, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/154486
