Academic Entrepreneurship: The Roles of Identity, Motivation, Championing, Education, Work-Life Balance, and Organizational Justice

Balven, Rachel McCullagh; Fenters, Virgil; Siegel, Donald S.; Waldman, David A.

doi:10.5465/amp.2016.0127

Cited by 129 publications

(137 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

128

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They also point out that many universities are adopting a more “strategic” approach to university technology transfer and academic entrepreneurship. Balven, Fenters, Siegel, and Waldman () discuss the paucity of “microlevel” behavioral research on academic entrepreneurship and, specifically, the lack of research on micro topics, such as organizational justice. An interesting research question to explore would be how OI strategies at universities (with respect to academic entrepreneurship) affect the propensity of academics to engage in academic entrepreneurship and whether such policies reduce tensions between firms and universities.…”

Section: Collaboration and Entrepreneurshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They also point out that many universities are adopting a more "strategic" approach to university technology transfer and academic entrepreneurship. Balven, Fenters, Siegel, and Waldman (2018) discuss the paucity of "microlevel" behavioral research on academic entrepreneurship and, specifically, the lack of research on micro topics, such as organizational…”

Section: Collaboration and Entrepreneurshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On open innovation, platforms, and entrepreneurship

Nambisan

Siegel

Kenney

2018

Strategic Entrepreneurship

362

207

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Summary In recent decades, two emergent phenomena have jointly transformed the nature and pursuit of entrepreneurship across industries and sectors: open innovation and platformization. Open innovation involves a shift toward more open and distributed models of innovation, while platformization refers to the increasing importance of digital platforms as a venue for value creation and capture. Together, open innovation and platforms have created numerous opportunities for entrepreneurs and their firms—from serving as inputs for innovation for established firms to participating as complementors on existing platforms. While these entrepreneurial opportunities (and conditions) have manifested themselves in rich and varied ways, our understanding of these new forms of entrepreneurship has lagged behind. In this essay, and in this special issue, our objective is to bring a sharper focus on the important research issues and questions that frame open innovation, platforms, and entrepreneurship. Managerial Summary Digital platforms and open innovation environments have unleashed numerous promising opportunities for entrepreneurs, in industries ranging from consumer software, entertainment, and home appliances to auto, health, and energy. To pursue those opportunities, however, entrepreneurs will need to gain a deeper understanding of the factors that facilitate and constrain them. In this essay, we identify and discuss several of these factors and the associated challenges and highlight the need for additional research. We also consider some of the broader contextual factors, including regulatory policies, digitization, and globalization that shape the emerging opportunities.

show abstract

Section: Collaboration and Entrepreneurshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Collaboration and Entrepreneurshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

On open innovation, platforms, and entrepreneurship

Nambisan

Siegel

Kenney

2018

Strategic Entrepreneurship

362

207

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our study further provides theoretical arguments and empirical evidence to suggest that research group leaders are an important link between the organizational-level logic of research commercialization and the entrepreneurial intentions of their researchers. Identifying leaders as meso-level actors who are crucial for transmitting the organizational-level commercialization logic to the individual level, the present study enriches our understanding of how the multi-layered social structures in which individual researchers are embedded help to explain science commercialization through academic entrepreneurship (Balven et al, 2018;Kim et al, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

“…Prior research has established that academic leaders are crucial for science commercialization, as they may inspire their researchers to engage in academic entrepreneurship. Based on multi‐level theorizing spanning three levels, this study offers two important extensions of this prior research and contributes to expanding theory on leadership in the domain of academic entrepreneurship (Balven et al, ). Specifically, we expand extant theorizing by identifying regulative, normative and cognitive institutional elements as important contextual roots from which leaders’ influence on academic entrepreneurship originates.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Logics, Leaders, Lab Coats: A Multi‐Level Study on How Institutional Logics are Linked to Entrepreneurial Intentions in Academia

Klingbeil

Semrau

Ebers

et al. 2018

J Management Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Situated in the context of academia, this study integrates ideas from institutional theory, person‐environment fit theory and leadership research to conceptualize and examine the cross‐level link between the organizational‐level institutional logic of research commercialization and the entrepreneurial intentions of researchers. Multi‐level analyses based on a sample of 254 researchers working for 85 research group leaders in 49 German research institutes reveal that two distinct attributes of research group leaders – that is, their track records of entrepreneurial behaviour and their entrepreneurial intentions – play a significant role in transmitting the organizational‐level logic to the individual level. We also observe a complementary interaction between organizational‐level commercialization logic and the entrepreneurial track records of leaders. We discuss how these findings advance our understanding of science commercialization through academic entrepreneurship and how they inform institutional theory and theory development in other domains of entrepreneurship research.

show abstract

“…Desai and Tyler (2020) clearly outline SBE as a fruitful area of research for scholars in public administration and public policy. Their viewpoint addresses similar concerns in the fields of management and academic entrepreneurship regarding the relevancy of management research and its importance to managers and policy makers and the growth of the Responsible Research for Business and Management (RRBM) network (Balven et al ; McKiernan and Tsui ; Pearce and Huang ).…”

Section: Public Sector and Nonprofit Entrepreneurshipmentioning

confidence: 99%