Different yokes for different folks: Individual preferences, institutional logics, and the commercialization of academic research

Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Economic Growth

Volumn 21, Issue , 2010, Pages 1-25

  Fini, Riccardo ^a   Lacetera, Nicola ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857011046     PISSN: 10484736     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1108/S1048-4736(2010)0000021004     Document Type: Article

References (96)

1. Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., & Stein, J. (2008). Academia, the private sector, and the process of innovation. RAND Journal of Economics, 39, 617-635.
2. Agrawal, A. (2006). Engaging the inventor: Exploring licensing strategies for university inventions and the role of latent knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 63-79.
3. Arce, D. G., Enders, W., & Hoover, G. A. (2008). Plagiarism and its impact on the economics profession. Bulletin of Economic Research, 60(3), 231-243.
4. Argyres, N. S., & Liebeskind, J. P. (1998). Privatizing the intellectual common: Universities and the commercialization of biotechnology. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 35, 427-454.
5. Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM). (2006). AUTM licensing survey: FY. AUTM: Northbrook, IL.
6. Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Warning, S. (2005). University spillovers and new firm location. Research Policy, 34, 1113-1122.
7. BBC. (2004). The Dark Secret of Hendrik Schon. TV Show ‘‘Horizon’’ broadcast on February 5th. Transcript available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/hendrikshontrans.shtml
8. Beckers, H. L. (1984). The role of industry. In: H. I. Fusfeld & Halisch (Eds), Universityindustry research interactions. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
9. Bell Laboratories. (2002). Report of the Investigation Committee on the possibility of Scientific Misconduct in the work of Hendrik Schon and Coauthors.
10. Ben-David, J. (1977). Centres of learning: Britain, France, Germany, United States. New York: McGraw-Hill.
11. Boardman, P. C., & Bozeman, B. (2004). University scientist role strain: Scientific values and the multipurpose multidiscipline University Research Center. Working Paper. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
12. Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13. Bozeman, B. (2002). Institutional innovation in science and technology: Organizational design and performance of U.S. Science centers. Working Paper. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
14. Braun, E., & Macdonald, S. (1978). Revolution in miniature: The history and impact of semiconductor electronics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Bray, R. (1982). Interview with P. Henriksen, Niels Bohr Library. New York: American Institute of Physics.
16. Bray, R. (1997). A case study in serendipity: Why was the transistor invented at bell laboratories and not at Purdue University? The Electrochemical Society Interface (Spring), 24-31.
17. Brewer, G. D. (1999). The challenges of inter disciplinarity. Policy Sciences, 32, 327-337.
18. Brown, E. S. (2005). DuPont MIT alliance stretches beyond biotech. Technology Insider (June), 7-8.
19. Carayol, N., & Thi, T. U. N. (2003). Why do academic scientists engage in interdisciplinary research? Working Paper. BETA, Strasbourg, France.
20. CBS. (2005). Menopause doc fudged data. CBS News, June 21.
21. Chang, K. (2004). Researcher loses Ph.D. Over discredited papers. The New York Times, June 15.
22. Cockburn, I., & Henderson, R. (1998). Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior, and the organization of research in drug discovery. Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(2), 157-182.
23. Cockburn, I., Henderson, R., & Stern, S. (1999). Balancing incentives: The tension between basic and applied research. NBER Working Paper no. 6882. Cambridge, MA.
24. Cohen, W., Florida, R., & Goe, R. University-Industry Centers in the United States (August 1994), Final Report to the Ford Foundation.
25. Colombo, M., & Piva, E. (2010). Firms’ genetic characteristics, competence enlarging strategies and performnce: A comparison between academic and non-acadmeic high-tech start-ups. Working Paper. Politecnico di Milano, Italy.
26. David, P. (2004). Understanding the emergence of ‘‘open science’’ institutions: Functionalist economics in historical context. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(4), 571-589.
27. David, P. (2005). Innovation and Europe’s universities: Institutional reconfiguration and the triple helix. The 5th Triple Helix Conference: Turin.
28. Davies, K. (2001). Cracking the genome. New York: Free Press.
29. Enders, W., & Hoover, G. A. (2004). Whose line is it? Plagiarism in economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(3), 487-493.
30. Enders, W., & Hoover, G. A. (2006). Plagiarism in the economics profession: A survey. Challenge, 49(5), 92-107.
31. Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International Journal of Technology and Globalization, 1(1), 64-77.
32. Fifield, A., & Cookson, C. (2006). Seoul searching: Koreans find their rapid development has hard scientific limits. Financial Times, January 19.
33. Fini, R. (2010). Career paths, organizational affiliation and the enactment of entrepreneurial intentions. Working Paper. Imperial College London, London, UK.
34. Freeland Judson, H. (2004). The great betrayal: Fraud in science. Orlando, FL: Harcourt.
35. Geiger, R. L. (2004). Knowledge and money. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
36. George, G., Zahra, S. A., & Wood, D. R. (2002). The effects of business-university alliances on innovative output and financial performance: A study of publicly traded biotechnology companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(6), 577-609.
37. Geuna, A., Salter, A., & Steinmueller, W. E. (Eds). (2003). Science and innovation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
38. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., & Scott, P. (1994). The new production of knowledge. London: Sage. Gross
39. Levi, B. (2002a). Bell labs convenes committee to investigate questions of scientific misconduct. Physics Today, July. Gross
40. Levi, B. (2002b). Investigation finds that one lucent physicist engaged in scientific misconduct. Physics Today, November.
41. Haeussler, C. (2009). Information-sharing in academia and industry: A comparative study. Working Paper. Munich School of Management, München, Germany.
42. Haeussler, C., Jiang, L., Thursby, J., & Thurby, M. (2009). Specific and general information sharing among academic scientists. NBER Working Paper no.15315. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
43. Hall, B. H., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2000). Universities as research partners. NBER Working Paper no. 7643. Cambridge, MA.
44. Hall, S. (1987). Invisible frontiers: The race to synthesize a human gene. New York, NJ: Atlantic Monthly Press.
45. Henderson, R., & Cockburn, I. (1994). Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 63-84.
46. Hoddeson, L. (1980). The entry of the quantum theory of solids into the bell telephone laboratories, 1925-1940: A case study of the industrial application of fundamental science. Minerva, 38(3), 422-447.
47. Howitt, P. (2003). The economics of science and the future of universities. The Timlin Lecture, University of Saskatchewan, Canada.
48. Institute for Food and Agricultural Standards (IFAS). (2004). External review of the collaborative research agreement between Novartis agricultural discovery institute, inc. And the regents of the University of California. East Lansing: Michigan State University.
49. Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions. American Economic Review, 91(1), 240-259.
50. Kenney, M. (1986). Biotechnology: The industry-university complex. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
51. Kintisch, E. (2006). Poehlman sentenced to 1 year of prison. Science NOW Daily News, June 28.
52. Kolata, G. (2005). A cloning scandal rocks a pillar of science publishing. The New York Times, December 18.
53. Lacetera, N. (2009a). Academic entrepreneurship. Managerial and Decision Economics, 30(7), 443-464.
54. Lacetera, N. (2009b). Different missions and commitment power in R&D organization: Theory and evidence on industry-university alliances. Organization Science, 20(3), 565-582.
55. Lacetera, N., & Zirulia, L. (2010). Knowledge spillovers, competition, and taste for science in a model of R&D incentive provision. Working Paper. University of Bologna, Italy.
56. Lacetera, N., & Zirulia, L. (Forthcoming). The economics of scientific misconduct. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization.
57. Lawler, A. (2003). Last of the big-time spenders? Science, 299, 330-333.
58. Lerner, J. (2004). The university and the start-up: Lessons from the past two decades. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1-2), 49-56.
59. Llerena, P., & Meyer-Krahmer. (2003). Interdisciplinary research and the organization of the university: General challenges and a case study. In: A. Geuna, A. J. Salter & W. E. Steinmuller (Eds), Science and innovation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
60. Lowe, R. (2002). Entrepreneurship and information asymmetry: Theory and evidence from the University of California. Working Paper. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburg, PA.
61. Mansfield, E., & Lee, J.-Y. (1996). The modem university: Contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support. Research Policy, 25, 1047-1058.
62. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737-738.
63. Masten, S. E. (2006). Authority and commitment: Why universities, like legislatures, are not organized as firms. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 15(3), 649-684.
64. McKelvey, M. D. (1996). Evolutionary innovations: The business of biotechnology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
65. Merton, R. K. (1973). In: N. W. Storer (Ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
66. Mokyr, J. (1990). The lever of the riches: Technological creativity and economic progress. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
67. Motohashi, T. (2004). Economic analysis of industry-university collaborations: The role of new technology based firms in Japanese national innovation reform. Working Paper. Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo, Japan.
68. Mowery, D., & Teece, D. J. (1996). Strategic alliances industrial research. In: S. Rosenbloom (Ed.), Engines innovation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
69. National Science Foundation. (2002). Science and Engineering Indicators.
70. Nelson, R. (1962). The link between science and invention: The case of transistor. In: The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors. Princeton: National Bureau of Economic Research, Princeton University Press.
71. Nelson, R. (2004). The market economy and the scientific commons. Research Policy, 33, 455-471.
72. Office of Research Integrity. (2005). Dr. Eric T. Poehlman Press Release. March 17.
73. Ossicini, S. (2007). Fraud and the structure of the scientific research: The Jan Hendrik Schon case. Working Paper. University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy.
74. Page, S. E. (2007). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
75. Pozzi, A., & David, P. (2007). Empirical realities of scientific misconduct in publicly funded research. Working Paper, Stanford University, Stanford.
76. Press, E., & Washburn, J. (2000). The kept university. The Atlantic Monthly, (March).
77. Reuters. (2006). Korean scientist paid mafia for mammoth. October 25.
78. Rinia, E. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., van Vuren, H. G., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2001). Influence of interdisciplinarity on peer-review and bibliometric evaluations in physics research. Research Policy, 30(3), 357-361.
79. Riordan, M., & Hoddeson, L. (1997). Crystal fire. New York: W.W. Norton.
80. Roach, M., & Sauerman, H. (Forthcoming). A taste for science? PhD scientists’ academic orientation and self-selection into research careers in industry. Research Policy.
81. Ronstadt, R. (1990). The educated entrepreneurs: A new era of entrepreneurial education is beginning. In: C. A. Kent (Ed.), Entrepreneurship education: Current developments, future directions. Westport: Quorum Books.
82. Rosenberg, N. (1994). Exploring the black box. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
83. Rosenberg, N., & Nelson, R. R. (1994). American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy, 23(3), 323-348.
84. Rothaermel, F., Agung, D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691-791.
85. Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. C. (2005). Incubator firm failure or graduation? The role of university linkages. Research Policy, 34(7), 1076-1090.
86. Santoro, M. D., & Chakrabarti, A. (2002). Firm size and technology centrality in industryuniversity interactions. Research Policy, 31, 1163-1180.
87. Shane, S. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
88. Shockley, W. (1956). Transistor technology evokes new physics. Nobel Lecture.
89. Stern, S. (1995). Incentives and focus in university and industrial research: The case of synthetic insulin. In: A. Gelijns & N. Rosenberg (Eds), The university-industry interface and medical innovation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
90. Stern, S. (2004). Do scientists pay to be scientists? Management Science, 50(6), 835-853.
91. Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
92. Swazey, J. P., Anderson, M. S., & Louis, K. S. (1993). Ethical problems in academic research. American Scientist, 81, 542-553.
93. Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958-1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 801-843.
94. Toole, A. A., & Czarnitzki, D. (2005). Biomedical academic entrepreneurship through the SBIR program. NBER Working Paper no. 11450. Cambridge, MA.
95. Veugelers, R., & Cassiman, B. (2005). R&D cooperation between firms and universities: Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 23, 355-379.
96. Zucker, L., & Darby, M. (1995). Virtuous cycles of productivity: Star bioscientists and the institutional transformation of industry. NBER Working Paper no. 5342. Cambridge, MA.