IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/aal/abbswp/11-07.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How University Departmens respond to the Rise of Academic Entrepreneurship? The Pasteur's Quadrant Explanation

Author

Listed:
  • Yuan-Cheih Chang
  • Phil Yihsing Yang
  • Tung-Fei Tsai-Lin
  • Hui-Ru Chi

Abstract

This paper examines how universities can develop a new organizational structure to cope with the rise of academic entrepreneurship. By deploying the Pasteurian quadrant framework, knowledge creation and knowledge utilization in universities are measured. The relationships between university antecedents, Pasteurian orientation, and research performance are analyzed. A survey of university administrators and faculty members collected 634 responses from faculty members in 99 departments among 6 universities. The findings indicate that university antecedents of strategic flexibility and balancing commitment contribute to a greater Pasteurian orientation in university departments. The higher degree of Pasteurian orientation has significantly positive impacts on the performance both of knowledge creation and knowledge utilization. Moreover, the Pasteurian orientation acts as a mediator between university antecedents and research performance. Using cluster analysis, the departments are categorized into four groups. The differences between university- and department- factors in these four groups are examined and discussed. We conclude that not all university departments should move toward the Pasteurian group, and there are specific organizational and disciplinary factors resulting in mobility barriers among groups. Policies to encourage academic entrepreneurship should consider these mobility barriers, along with this new governance of science.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuan-Cheih Chang & Phil Yihsing Yang & Tung-Fei Tsai-Lin & Hui-Ru Chi, 2011. "How University Departmens respond to the Rise of Academic Entrepreneurship? The Pasteur's Quadrant Explanation," DRUID Working Papers 11-07, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
  • Handle: RePEc:aal:abbswp:11-07
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www3.druid.dk/wp/20110007.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Etzkowitz, Henry & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2000. "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 109-123, February.
    2. Tina C. Ambos & Kristiina Mäkelä & Julian Birkinshaw & Pablo D'Este, 2008. "When Does University Research Get Commercialized? Creating Ambidexterity in Research Institutions," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(8), pages 1424-1447, December.
    3. Mowery, David C. & Ziedonis, Arvids A., 2002. "Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole act in the United States," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 399-418, March.
    4. Dietz, James S. & Bozeman, Barry, 2005. "Academic careers, patents, and productivity: industry experience as scientific and technical human capital," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 349-367, April.
    5. Mikel Gómez Uranga & Goio Etxebarria Kerexeta & Jordi Campàs-Velasco, 2006. "The Dynamics of Commercialization of Scientific Knowledge in Biotechnology and Nanotechnology," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(9), pages 1199-1214, September.
    6. Goldfarb, Brent, 2008. "The effect of government contracting on academic research: Does the source of funding affect scientific output," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 41-58, February.
    7. Shane, Scott, 2004. "Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh-Dole Act on university patenting in the United States," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 127-151, January.
    8. Saul Lach & Mark Schankerman, 2008. "Incentives and invention in universities," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(2), pages 403-433.
    9. 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.
    10. Paul Swamidass & Venubabu Vulasa, 2009. "Why university inventions rarely produce income? Bottlenecks in university technology transfer," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 343-363, August.
    11. 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, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 1295-1313, November.
    12. Beesley, Lisa G. A., 2003. "Science policy in changing times: are governments poised to take full advantage of an institution in transition?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1519-1531, September.
    13. Nelson, Richard R., 2004. "The market economy, and the scientific commons," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 455-471, April.
    14. Etzkowitz, Henry & Webster, Andrew & Gebhardt, Christiane & Terra, Branca Regina Cantisano, 2000. "The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 313-330, February.
    15. Javier Revilla Diez, 2000. "The Importance of Public Research Institutes in Innovative Networks-Empirical Results from the Metropolitan Innovation Systems Barcelona, Stockholm and Vienna," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(4), pages 451-463, August.
    16. Van Looy, Bart & Callaert, Julie & Debackere, Koenraad, 2006. "Publication and patent behavior of academic researchers: Conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 596-608, May.
    17. Landry, Rejean & Amara, Nabil & Rherrad, Imad, 2006. "Why are some university researchers more likely to create spin-offs than others? Evidence from Canadian universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1599-1615, December.
    18. 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.
    19. Chang, Yuan-Chieh & Yang, Phil Y. & Chen, Ming-Huei, 2009. "The determinants of academic research commercial performance: Towards an organizational ambidexterity perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 936-946, July.
    20. Murray, Fiona, 2004. "The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: sharing the laboratory life," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 643-659, May.
    21. Mowery, David C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Sampat, Bhaven N. & Ziedonis, Arvids A., 2001. "The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 99-119, January.
    22. Di Gregorio, Dante & Shane, Scott, 2003. "Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 209-227, February.
    23. Jain, Sanjay & George, Gerard & Maltarich, Mark, 2009. "Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 922-935, July.
    24. Saul Lach & Mark Schankerman, 2004. "Royalty Sharing and Technology Licensing in Universities," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 2(2-3), pages 252-264, 04/05.
    25. Lim, Kwanghui, 2004. "The relationship between research and innovation in the semiconductor and pharmaceutical industries (1981-1997)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 287-321, March.
    26. Wright, Mike & Lockett, Andy & Clarysse, Bart & Binks, Martin, 2006. "University spin-out companies and venture capital," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 481-501, May.
    27. Markman, Gideon D. & Gianiodis, Peter T. & Phan, Phillip H. & Balkin, David B., 2005. "Innovation speed: Transferring university technology to market," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 1058-1075, September.
    28. Catherine Renault, 2006. "Academic Capitalism and University Incentives for Faculty Entrepreneurship," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 227-239, March.
    29. Meyer, Martin, 2006. "Are patenting scientists the better scholars?: An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1646-1662, December.
    30. Aldo Geuna & Alessandro Muscio, 2008. "The governance of University knowledge transfer," SPRU Working Paper Series 173, SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex.
    31. Geuna, Aldo & Nesta, Lionel J.J., 2006. "University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 790-807, July.
    32. Calderini, Mario & Franzoni, Chiara & Vezzulli, Andrea, 2007. "If star scientists do not patent: The effect of productivity, basicness and impact on the decision to patent in the academic world," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 303-319, April.
    33. O'Shea, Rory P. & Allen, Thomas J. & Chevalier, Arnaud & Roche, Frank, 2005. "Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 994-1009, September.
    34. Cooke, Philip, 2001. "Regional Innovation Systems, Clusters, and the Knowledge Economy," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(4), pages 945-974, December.
    35. Bramwell, Allison & Wolfe, David A., 2008. "Universities and regional economic development: The entrepreneurial University of Waterloo," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1175-1187, September.
    36. Powers, Joshua B. & McDougall, Patricia P., 2005. "University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: a resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 291-311, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Academic entrepreneurship; Pasteur’s quadrant; research excellence; research commercialization;

    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:aal:abbswp:11-07. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Keld Laursen). General contact details of provider: http://www.druid.dk/ .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.