IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tik/inowpp/20120323.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

“But Peter’s in it for the money” – the liminality of entrepreneurial scientists

Author

Listed:
  • Magnus Gulbrandsen

    (Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo)

Abstract

Entrepreneurial scientists who patent, start spin-off companies and commercialise in other ways are usually seen as occupying a dual role with one leg each in the academic world and another in the entrepreneurial world. This article instead argues that many entrepreneurial scientists should be considered liminal, i.e. at a boundary between these two worlds rather than inside both of them. In statements about research orientations, motivations for entering commercialisation, experiences, co-operation and more, many Norwegian entrepreneurial scientists create a certain distance to other faculty members and private entrepreneurs. The status of liminality or “in-between-ness” allows a flexible networking and commercialisation process. One the other hand, liminal entrepreneurial scientists seem to be locked out of many planning processes for initiatives like technology transfer offices in the wake of a recently changed legislation regarding ownership of research results in Norway.

Suggested Citation

  • Magnus Gulbrandsen, 2012. "“But Peter’s in it for the money” – the liminality of entrepreneurial scientists," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20120323, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
  • Handle: RePEc:tik:inowpp:20120323
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sv.uio.no/tik/InnoWP/Gulbrandsen%2020120323.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Finn Valentin & Rasmus Lund Jensen, 2002. "Reaping the Fruits of Science: Comparing Exploitations of a Scientific Breakthrough in European Innovation Systems," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(4), pages 363-388.
    2. 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.
    3. Dahlstrand, Asa Lindholm, 1997. "Growth and inventiveness in technology-based spin-off firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 331-344, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R., 2001. "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 509-532, March.
    6. Henrekson, Magnus & Rosenberg, Nathan, 2001. "Designing Efficient Institutions for Science-Based Entrepreneurship: Lessons from the US and Sweden," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 207-231, June.
    7. Rosenberg, Nathan & Nelson, Richard R., 1994. "American universities and technical advance in industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 323-348, May.
    8. Sampat, Bhaven N. & Mowery, David C. & Ziedonis, Arvids A., 2003. "Changes in university patent quality after the Bayh-Dole act: a re-examination," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 1371-1390, November.
    9. Jensen, Richard A. & Thursby, Jerry G. & Thursby, Marie C., 2003. "Disclosure and licensing of University inventions: 'The best we can do with the s**t we get to work with'," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 1271-1300, November.
    10. Siegel, Donald S. & Waldman, David & Link, Albert, 2003. "Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 27-48, January.
    11. 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.
    12. Aldo Geuna & Lionel Nesta, 2003. "University Patenting and its Effects on Academic Research," SPRU Working Paper Series 99, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Gulbrandsen, Magnus & Smeby, Jens-Christian, 2005. "Industry funding and university professors' research performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 932-950, August.
    2. Torka, Marc & Borcherding, Anke, 2008. "Wissenschaftsunternehmer als Beruf? Berufs- und professionssoziologische Überlegungen vor dem Hintergrund aktueller (Ent-)Differenzierungsphänomene der Wissenschaft," Discussion Papers, Research Group Science Policy Studies SP III 2008-601, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    3. Goethner, Maximilian & Obschonka, Martin & Silbereisen, Rainer K. & Cantner, Uwe, 2012. "Scientists’ transition to academic entrepreneurship: Economic and psychological determinants," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 628-641.
    4. Tüzin Baycan & Roger Stough, 2013. "Bridging knowledge to commercialization: the good, the bad, and the challenging," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 50(2), pages 367-405, April.
    5. Devrim Göktepe-Hulten & Prashanth Mahagaonkar, 2010. "Inventing and patenting activities of scientists: in the expectation of money or reputation?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 401-423, August.
    6. Magnus Gulbrandsen & Lars Nerdrum, 2007. "University-industry relations in Norway," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20070613, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    7. Heike Grimm & Johannes Jaenicke, 2015. "Testing the causal relationship between academic patenting and scientific publishing in Germany: Crowding-out or reinforcement?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 512-535, June.

    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:tik:inowpp:20120323. 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: (H&kon Normann). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/tkuiono.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.