IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pad/wpaper/0156.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How does the entrepreneurial orientation of scientists affect their scientific performance? Evidence from the Quadrant Model

Author

Listed:
  • Naohiro Shichijo

    (Waseda University)

  • Silvia Rita Sedita

    (University of Padova)

  • Yasunori Baba

    (University of Tokyo)

Abstract

Using Stokes's (1997) "quadrant model of scientific research", this paper deals with how the entrepreneurial orientation of scientists affects their scientific performance by considering its impact on scientific production (number of publications), scientific prestige (number of forward citations), and breadth of research activities (interdisciplinarity). The results of a quantitative analysis applied to a sample of 1,957 scientific papers published by 66 scientists active in advanced materials research in Japan found that (i) entrepreneurial scientists publish more papers than traditional scientists do, (ii) the papers published by Bohr scientists (traditional scientists with a stronger intention to fundamentality) demonstrate better citation performance than those published by Pasteur scientists (entrepreneurial scientists with a stronger intention to fundamentality) do, on average; (iii) if the focus is confined to high-impact papers, their prestige (i.e., forward citation counts) is favored by the authorship of Pasteur scientists; and (iv) the portfolio interdisciplinarity of papers authored by Pasteur scientists is higher (more diverse) than that of Bohr scientists.

Suggested Citation

  • Naohiro Shichijo & Silvia Rita Sedita & Yasunori Baba, 2013. "How does the entrepreneurial orientation of scientists affect their scientific performance? Evidence from the Quadrant Model," "Marco Fanno" Working Papers 0156, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche "Marco Fanno".
    • Handle: RePEc:pad:wpaper:0156
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://economia.unipd.it/sites/economia.unipd.it/files/20130156.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Owen-Smith, Jason, 2003. "From separate systems to a hybrid order: accumulative advantage across public and private science at Research One universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1081-1104, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Entrepreneurial scientists
      by UDADISI in UDADISI on 2013-04-30 01:45:00

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chan-Yuan Wong & Hon-Ngen Fung, 2017. "Science-technology-industry correlative indicators for policy targeting on emerging technologies: exploring the core competencies and promising industries of aspirant economies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 841-867, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paula Susana Figueiredo Moutinho & Margarida Fontes & Manuel Mira Godinho, 2007. "Do individual factors matter? A survey of scientists’ patenting in Portuguese public research organisations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(2), pages 355-377, February.
    2. Toleubayev, Kazbek & Jansen, Kees & van Huis, Arnold, 2010. "Commodification of science and the production of public goods: Plant protection research in Kazakhstan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 411-421, April.
    3. Suzanne G. Tilleman & Michael V. Russo & Andrew J. Nelson, 2020. "Institutional Logics and Technology Development: Evidence from the Wind and Solar Energy Industries," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(3), pages 649-670, May.
    4. Véronique Schaeffer & Sıla Öcalan-Özel & Julien Pénin, 2020. "The complementarities between formal and informal channels of university–industry knowledge transfer: a longitudinal approach," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 31-55, February.
    5. Kitagawa, Fumi & Wigren, Caroline, 2010. "From Basic Research to Innovation: Entrepreneurial Intermediaries for Research Commercialization at Swedish ‘Strong Research Environments’," Papers in Innovation Studies 2010/2, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    6. Wesley M. Cohen & John P. Walsh, 2008. "Real Impediments to Academic Biomedical Research," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 8, pages 1-30, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Ryan, Paul & Geoghegan, Will & Hilliard, Rachel, 2018. "The microfoundations of firms’ explorative innovation capabilities within the triple helix framework," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 76, pages 15-27.
    8. Owen-Smith, Jason & Powell, Walter W., 2003. "The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: assessing the importance of experience and connectivity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1695-1711, October.
    9. Bhawani Bhatnagar & Viktor Dörfler & Jillian MacBryde, 2023. "Navigating the open innovation paradox: an integrative framework for adopting open innovation in pharmaceutical R&D in developing countries," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 2204-2248, December.
    10. Perkmann, Markus & Schildt, Henri, 2015. "Open data partnerships between firms and universities: The role of boundary organizations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1133-1143.
    11. Andrew J. Nelson, 2016. "How to Share “A Really Good Secret”: Managing Sharing/Secrecy Tensions Around Scientific Knowledge Disclosure," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 265-285, April.
    12. Clovia Hamilton & Simon P. Philbin, 2020. "Knowledge Based View of University Tech Transfer—A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-28, September.
    13. Hewitt-Dundas, Nola, 2012. "Research intensity and knowledge transfer activity in UK universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 262-275.
    14. Lam, Alice, 2011. "What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1354-1368.
    15. Jeannette Colyvas & Kaisa Snellman & Janet Bercovitz & Maryann Feldman, 2012. "Disentangling effort and performance: a renewed look at gender differences in commercializing medical school research," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 478-489, August.
    16. Lehrer, Mark & Nell, Phillip & Gärber, Lisa, 2007. "A National Systems View of University Development: Towards a Broadened Perspective on the Entrepreneurial University Based on the German and US Experience," Kiel Working Papers 1370, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    17. Etzkowitz, Henry & de Mello, Jose Manoel Carvalho & Almeida, Mariza, 2005. "Towards "meta-innovation" in Brazil: The evolution of the incubator and the emergence of a triple helix," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 411-424, May.
    18. Kenney, Martin & Patton, Donald, 2009. "Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the Current University Invention Ownership Model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 1407-1422, November.
    19. Phil Yihsing Yang & Yuan-Chieh Chang, 2010. "Academic research commercialization and knowledge production and diffusion: the moderating effects of entrepreneurial commitment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(2), pages 403-421, May.
    20. Grimaldi, Rosa & Kenney, Martin & Siegel, Donald S. & Wright, Mike, 2011. "30 years after Bayh-Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1045-1057, October.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pad:wpaper:0156. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Raffaele Dei Campielisi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dspadit.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.