The role of social embeddedness in professorial entrepreneurship: A comparison of electrical engineering and computer science at UC Berkeley and Stanford

Research Policy

Volumn 33, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 691-707

  Kenney, Martin ^a   Goe, W Richard ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer science; Electrical engineering; Entrepreneurship; Professors; University

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SCIENCE; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; INVESTMENTS; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

ENTREPRENEURSHIP; PROFESSORS; SOCIAL EMBEDDEDNESS; UNIVERSITY;

PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS;

EID: 2942665709     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2003.11.001     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Adams, R., 1978. Venture Capital - A Policy Paper for Stanford University. Stanford University Archives, Lyman Papers, Box 33, Folio AD12.2, 12 October.
2. Agrawal A., Henderson R. Putting patents in context: exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science. 48(1):2002;44-60.
3. Argyres N.S., Liebeskind J.P. Privatizing the intellectual commons: Universities and the commercialization of biotechnology. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 35:1998;427-454.
4. Audretsch D., Stephan P. Company-scientist locational links: the case of biotechnology. American Economic Review. 86(3):1996;641-652.
5. Bok, D., 2003. Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
6. Brooks, H., 1993. Research Universities and the Social Contract for Science. In: Branscomb, L. (Ed.), Empowering Technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (Chapter 7).
7. Brown, J.S., Duguid, P., 2000. Mysteries of the region: knowledge dynamics in Silicon Valley. In: Miller, et al. (Eds.), The Silicon Valley Edge: A Habitat for Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Stanford University Press, pp. 16-45.
8. Brown J.S., Duguid P. Organizational learning and communities of practice. Organization Science. 2(1):1991;40-57.
9. Cohen, W., Nelson, R., Walsh, J., 1996. Appropriability Conditions and Why Firms Patent and Why They Do Not in the American Manufacturing Sector. Paper Presented at the OECD Conference on New Indicators for the Knowledge-Based Economy.
10. Crane, D., 1972. Invisible College: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
11. Dacin M.T., Ventresca M., Beal B.B. The embeddedness of organizations: debates, dialogue, dialogue & directions. Journal of Management. 25(3):1999;317-356.
12. Davis Jr., T.J., 1957. Letter from Thomas Davis to Frederick Terman. Stanford University Archives, Frederick Terman Papers, Series 3, Box 34, Folio 6, 18 November.
13. Di Gregorio, D., Shane, S., 2000. Why Do Some Universities Generate More Start-ups than Others. Unpublished manuscript.
14. Dillman, D.,1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. Wiley, New York.
15. Etzkowitz H., Wester A., Gebhardt C., Terra B. The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of the Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial Paradigm. Research Policy. 29:2000;313-330.
16. Feldman M., Feller I., Bercovitz J., Burton R. Equity and the technology transfer strategies of American Research Universities. Management Science. 48(1):2002;105-121.
17. Feldman M.P., Desrochers P. The evolving role of research universities in technology transfer: lessons from the history of Johns Hopkins University. Industry and Innovation. 10:2003;5-24.
18. Geiger, R., 1986. To Advance Knowledge: the Growth of American Research Universities, 1900-1940. Oxford, New York.
19. Goldfarb B., Henrekson M. Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy. 33:2003;639-658.
20. Granovetter M. Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology. 91:1985;481-510.
21. Hall, B., Ziedonis, R.H., 2000. The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the US Semiconductor Industry, 1979-95. Paper Presented at the 2000 Academy of Management, Toronto, Canada.
22. Inktomi, Inc., 1998. SEC S-1 Filing. http://www.sec.gov.
23. Jaffe, A., 1989. The real effects of academic research. American Economic Review 79 (5), 957-970.
24. Jaffe A., Trajtenberg M., Henderson R. Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 57(3):1993;577-598.
25. Kenney, M., 1986. Biotechnology: The University Industrial Complex. Yale University Press, New Haven.
26. Kenney M., von Burg U. Technology and path dependence: the divergence between Silicon Valley and Route 128. Industrial and Corporate Change. 8(1):1999;67-103.
27. Koshland D.E. Jr. Conflict of interest. Science. 249:1990;109.
28. Ku, K., 2003. Telephone interview by Martin Kenney. 10 July.
29. Lave, J., Wenger, E., 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. University of Cambridge Press, Cambridge.
30. Lenoir, T., 2002. Biochemistry at Stanford: The Formation of an Entrepreneurial Culture. http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/TimLenoir/Startup/ QuarterlyRpts/Lenoir-StartupRptApr02.pdf, 21 April.
31. Lowen, R., 1997. Creating the Cold War University. University of California Press, Berkeley.
32. Mansfield E. Academic research underlying industrial innovations: sources, characteristics and financing. Review of Economics and Statistics. 77(1):1995;55-65.
33. Mansfield, E., 1991. Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy 20, 1-12.
34. Mansfield E., Lee J.Y. The modern university: contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support. Research Policy. 25(7):1996;1047-1058.
35. Matkin, G.W., 1990. Technology Transfer and the University. Macmillan, New York.
36. Merges R.P., Nelson R.R. On the complex economics of patent scope. Columbia Law Review. 90(4):1990;839-916.
37. Moore, G., 1997. Interview by Business Week. http://www.businessweek.com/ 1997/34/trans34/moore.htm.
38. Mowery, D., Ziedonis, A., 2001. The Geographic Reach of Market and Non-market Channels of Technology Transfer: Comparing Citations and Licenses of University Patents. NBER Working Paper 8568, October.
39. Mowery, D., Nelson, R., Ziedonis, A., Sampat, B., 2004. The Bayh-Dole Act and the Commercialization of University Research. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
40. Noble, D., 1977. America by Design. Oxford University Press, New York.
41. Polanyi, K., 1944. The Great Transformation. Holt, Reihhart, New York.
42. Rappert B., Webster A., Charles D. Making sense of diversity and reluctance: academic-industrial relations and intellectual property. Research Policy. 28:1999;873-890.
43. Reimers, N., 2003. Transcript of the Meeting - the Evolution of Policies and Procedures for the Handling of University Intellectual Property. Asia Pacific Research Center, Stanford University, 30 January.
44. Rosenberg N., Nelson R. The role of universities in the advance of industrial technology. Research Policy. 3(23):1994;323-348.
45. Saxenian, A., 1994. Regional Advantage. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
46. Scalise, K., 2000. Professor A. Richard Newton Appointed New Dean of University of California Berkeley's College of Engineering. Media Relations, University of California, Berkeley, 30 June.
47. Snow, C.P., 1959. The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
48. Stanford University Department of Electrical Engineering, 2003. http://www-ee.stanford.edu/history.php (accessed 16 September 2003).
49. Stanford University Office of Technology Licensing, 2002. http://otl.stanford.edu (accessed 18 May 2003).
50. Sturgeon, T., 2000. How Silicon Valley came to be. In: Kenney, M. (Ed.), Understanding Silicon Valley. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
51. Sturgeon, T., 1988. The Origins of Silicon Valley. Masters Thesis, Department of Geography, University of California, Berkeley.
52. Swann P., Prevezer M. A comparison of the dynamics of industrial clustering in computing and biotechnology. Research Policy. 25:1996;1139-1157.
53. Terman, F.E., 1957. Letter from Frederick E. Terman to Thomas J. Davis Jr., Stanford University, Frederick Terman Papers, Series 3, Box 34, Folio 6, 27 November.
54. University of California Board of Regents, 1926. Minutes of the Board of Regents Meeting, 9 March.
55. University of California Board of Regents, Committee on Finance, 1931. Minutes of the Committee on Finance Meeting, 15 September.
56. University of California Board of Regents, Committee on Finance and Business Management, 1943. Minutes of the Committee on Finance and Business Management Meeting, 18 May.
57. Uzzi, B., 1999. Embeddedness in the making of financial capital: how social relations and network benefit firms seeking capital. American Sociological Review 64 (4), 481-505.
58. Veysey, L.R., 1965. The Emergence of the Research University. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
59. Wagner H.E. The open corporation. California Management Review. 33(4):1991;46-60.
60. Watkins, D.A., 1957. Letter from Dean A. Watkins to Thomas J. Davis Jr., Stanford University, Frederick Terman Papers, Series 3, Box 34, Folio 6, 27 October.
61. Weiner, C., 1982. Science in the marketplace: historical precedents and problems. In: Whelan, W., Black, S. (Eds.), From Genetic Engineering to Biotechnology: The Critical Transition. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 123-131.
62. Zucker L.G., Darby M., Armstrong J. Commercializing knowledge: university science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science. 48(1):2002;138-153.
63. Zucker L.G., Darby M., Brewer M.B. Intellectual human capital and the birth of US biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review. 88(1):1998;290-306.