IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/crt/wpaper/1609.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Setting up a Technology Commercialization Office at a Non-Entrepreneurial University: An Insider's Look at Practices and Culture

Author

Listed:
  • Katerina Sideri
  • Andreas Panagopoulos

    () (Department of Economics, University of Crete, Greece)

Abstract

The introduction of the entrepreneurial university and the accompanying drive for science to acquire commercial relevance has created tensions (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997; Slaughter and Rhoades, 2000; Ferne, 1995; Bennich-Bjorkman, 1997). One reason is that faculty scientists are nowadays expected to think as entrepreneurs (Lockett and Wright, 2005), and many feel uneasy with both their participation in the commercialization process and the role of University Technology Commercialization Offices (TCO) (Martinelli et al., 2008, Louis et al., 1989). Considering that the main resource for the creation of entrepreneurial universities is human capital (Guerrero and Urbano, 2012), the way faculty scientists view their role and their respective goodwill toward entrepreneurship and the TCO, must be considered when building an entrepreneurial environment (Krueger et al., 2000). Looking into faculty's perceptions is important because they encompass attitudes and values shaping informal rules of interaction in organisations (North, 1990; Vanaelst et al., 2006). The few studies analysing entrepreneurship among faculty scientists indicate that scientists have raised concerns about the role of markets in influencing academic freedom (Baldini, 2008; Davis et al., 2011), especially in terms of autonomy in self-selecting a research agenda and the respective method of dissemination (Jacobsen et al., 2001, Davis et al., 2011). Their concerns relate to the ways the pressure to patent can skew research priorities at the expense of fundamental research, and shift the attention of faculty away from activities best suited to their skills (Nelson, 2001), forcing universities to behave more like firms. Others fear that university patenting may restrict communication with colleagues (Blumenthal et al., 1996; Martinelli, et al., 2008), increase secrecy (Blumenthal et al., 1986), the withholding of data (Campbell et al., 2000), and inevitably limit the dissemination of knowledge (Calderini and Franzoni, 2004; Lee, 2000). This article builds on these insights and offers qualitative evidence about a related category of reasons for the hostile attitude towards commercialization of academic research: lack of a common mindset between TCO's and research faculty. It frequently escapes attention that the prerequisite for arranging a commercial deal is the existence of shared understandings and orientation towards common goals between the TCO, faculty and industry, so that a TCO assesses potential opportunities and sets up well defined legal relationships between the university and a commercial firm (Kaghan and Lounsbury, 2006). These shared understandings play an important role since faculty scientists are effectively gate keepers that control the informal flow of knowledge that is indispensable to the translation of academic research to products with commercial value (Agrawal and Henderson, 2002; Agrawal, 2006; Thursby et al., 2001; Thursby and Thursby, 2002). It follows that faculty's views of the merits of commercialisation and their role in the process can hinder or even sabotage technology transfer. Dispersing myths and addressing suspicion and deep misunderstandings held by communities of practice, such as the community of faculty researchers, is of paramount importance in order to develop a sense of comfort and build trust among faculty and the TCO.

Suggested Citation

  • Katerina Sideri & Andreas Panagopoulos, 2016. "Setting up a Technology Commercialization Office at a Non-Entrepreneurial University: An Insider's Look at Practices and Culture," Working Papers 1609, University of Crete, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:crt:wpaper:1609
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://economics.soc.uoc.gr/wpa/docs/1609.pdf
    File Function: First version
    Download Restriction: No

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vohora, Ajay & Wright, Mike & Lockett, Andy, 2004. "Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 147-175, January.
    2. Philippe Aghion & Mathias Dewatripont & Jeremy C. Stein, 2008. "Academic freedom, private-sector focus, and the process of innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(3), pages 617-635.
    3. Link, Albert N. & Siegel, Donald S. & Wright, Mike (ed.), 2015. "The Chicago Handbook of University Technology Transfer and Academic Entrepreneurship," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, number 9780226178349.
    4. William Knudson & Allen Wysocki & Joseph Champagne & H. Christopher Peterson, 2004. "Entrepreneurship and Innovation in the Agri-Food System," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(5), pages 1330-1336.
    5. Andreas Panagopoulos & Elias Carayannis, 2013. "A policy for enhancing the disclosure of university faculty invention," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 341-347, June.
    6. 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.
    7. Maribel Guerrero & David Urbano & James Cunningham & Damien Organ, 2014. "Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions: a case study comparison," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 415-434, June.
    8. Mario Calderini & Chiara Franzoni, 2004. "Is academic patenting detrimental to high quality research? An empirical analysis of the relationship between scientific careers and patent applications," KITeS Working Papers 162, KITeS, Centre for Knowledge, Internationalization and Technology Studies, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy, revised Oct 2004.
    9. David C. Mowery & Bhaven N. Sampat, 2005. "The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University--Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 30(2_2), pages 115-127, January.
    10. Jerry G. Thursby & Marie C. Thursby, 2002. "Who Is Selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of Growth in University Licensing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 90-104, January.
    11. Paul Heisey & Sarah Adelman, 2011. "Research expenditures, technology transfer activity, and university licensing revenue," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 38-60, February.
    12. Nelson, Richard R, 2001. "Observations on the Post-Bayh-Dole Rise of Patenting at American Universities," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 26(1-2), pages 13-19, January.
    13. KruegerJR, Norris F. & Reilly, Michael D. & Carsrud, Alan L., 2000. "Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 15(5-6), pages 411-432.
    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. 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.
    16. Maribel Guerrero & David Urbano, 2012. "The development of an entrepreneurial university," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 43-74, February.
    17. Lockett, Andy & Wright, Mike, 2005. "Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 1043-1057, September.
    18. Thursby, Jerry & Fuller, Anne W. & Thursby, Marie, 2009. "US faculty patenting: Inside and outside the university," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 14-25, February.
    19. 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.
    20. Jerry G. Thursby & Marie C. Thursby, 2004. "Are Faculty Critical? Their Role in University-Industry Licensing," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 22(2), pages 162-178, April.
    21. Ben R. Martin, 2012. "Are universities and university research under threat? Towards an evolutionary model of university speciation," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(3), pages 543-565.
    22. Owen-Smith, Jason & Powell, Walter W, 2001. "To Patent or Not: Faculty Decisions and Institutional Success at Technology Transfer," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 26(1-2), pages 99-114, January.
    23. David Kirby, 2006. "Creating Entrepreneurial Universities in the UK: Applying Entrepreneurship Theory to Practice," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 599-603, September.
    24. Campbell, Eric G. & Weissman, Joel S. & Causino, Nancyanne & Blumenthal, David, 2000. "Data withholding in academic medicine: characteristics of faculty denied access to research results and biomaterials," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 303-312, February.
    25. H. Bulut & G. Moschini, 2009. "US universities' net returns from patenting and licensing: a quantile regression analysis," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 123-137.
    26. Ajay Agrawal & Rebecca Henderson, 2002. "Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 44-60, January.
    27. Markman, Gideon D. & Phan, Phillip H. & Balkin, David B. & Gianiodis, Peter T., 2005. "Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 241-263, March.
    28. Thursby, Jerry G & Jensen, Richard & Thursby, Marie C, 2001. "Objectives, Characteristics and Outcomes of University Licensing: A Survey of Major U.S. Universities," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 26(1-2), pages 59-72, January.
    29. Arianna Martinelli & Martin Meyer & Nick Tunzelmann, 2008. "Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 259-283, June.
    30. Lee, Yong S, 2000. "The Sustainability of University-Industry Research Collaboration: An Empirical Assessment," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 111-133, June.
    31. Lee Davis & Maria Larsen & Peter Lotz, 2011. "Scientists’ perspectives concerning the effects of university patenting on the conduct of academic research in the life sciences," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 14-37, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    technology; non-profit; university; patent;

    JEL classification:

    • K20 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - General
    • I20 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - General
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital

    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:crt:wpaper:1609. 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: (Kostis Pigounakis). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/deuchgr.html .

    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.