Navigating the role of the principal investigator: A comparison of four cases

Journal of Technology Transfer

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 33-51

  Kidwell, Donna K ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b GRENOBLE ECOLE DE MANAGEMENT   (France)

Author keywords

Academic entrepreneurship; Boundary spanning; Entrepreneurial scientists; Grantsmanship; Principal investigators

Indexed keywords

EID: 84895064961     PISSN: 08929912     EISSN: 15737047     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10961-012-9276-5     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Audretsch, D. B., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2002). Public/private technology partnerships: Evaluating SBIR-supported research. Research Policy, 31, 145-158.
2. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19, 69-89.
3. Boardman, C., & Bozeman, B. (2007). Role strain in university research centers. Journal of Higher Education, 78, 430-463.
4. Boardman, C. P., & Ponomariov, B. L. (2009). University researchers working with private companies. Technovation, 29, 142-153.
5. Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists' collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33, 599-616.
6. Butler, J. (2002). The science and practice of new business ventures: Wealth creation and prosperity through entrepreneurship growth and renewal. Presented at the Coleman Foundation Whitepaper.
7. Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15, 555-568.
8. Corbin, J. M. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
9. Dietz, J. S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). Academic careers, patents, and productivity: Industry experience as scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 34, 349-367.
10. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532-550.
11. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 25-32.
12. Fowler, F. (2008). Survey research methods, applied social research methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
13. Garrett-Jones, S., Turpin, T., & Diment, K. (2009). Managing competition between individual and organizational goals in cross-sector research and development centres. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 527-546.
14. Krabel, S., & Mueller, P. (2009). What drives scientists to start their own company?: An empirical investigation of Max Planck Society scientists. Research Policy, 38, 947-956.
15. Lam, A. (2010). From "Ivory Tower Traditionalists" to "Entrepreneurial Scientists"?: Academic Scientists in Fuzzy University-industry boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 40, 307-340.
16. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2010). Government as entrepreneur: Evaluating the commercialization success of SBIR projects. Research Policy, 39, 589-601.
17. Link, A., & Siegel, D. (2005). Generating science-based growth: An econometric analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university-industry technology transfer. European Journal of Finance, 11, 169-181.
18. Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial & Corporate Change, 16, 641-655.
19. Mangematin, V. (2000). PhD job market: Professional trajectories and incentives during the PhD. Research Policy, 29, 741.
20. Mangematin, V., & Walsh, S. (2012). The future of nanotechnologies. Technovation, 32(3-4), 157-160.
21. Melkers, J., & Xiao, F. (2012). Boundary-spanning in emerging technology research: Determinants of funding success for academic scientists. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(3), 251-270.
22. Murray, F. (2004). The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: Sharing the laboratory life. Research Policy, 33, 643-659.
23. Pettigrew, A. M. (1990). Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization Science, 1, 267-292.
24. Rowinsky, E. K. (2005). Erosion of the principal investigator role in a climate of industry dominance. European Journal of Cancer, 41, 2206-2209.
25. Santos, F. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2009). Constructing markets and shaping boundaries: Entrepreneurial power in nascent fields. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 643-671.
26. Shinn, T. (1988). Hiérarchies des chercheurs et formes de recherche. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 74, 2-22.
27. Shinn, T., & Lamy, E. (2006). Paths of commercial knowledge: Forms and consequences of university-enterprise synergy in scientist-sponsored firms. Research Policy, 35, 1465-1476.
28. Stephan, P., Black, G. C., & Chang, T. (2007). The small size of the small scale market: The early-stage labor market for highly skilled nanotechnology workers. Research Policy, 36, 887-892.
29. Stuart, T. E., & Ding, W. W. (2006). When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences. American Journal of Sociology, 112, 97-144.
30. Tushman, M. L. (1977). Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 587-605.
31. Tushman, M. L., & Scanlan, T. J. (1981). Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their antecedents. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 289-305.
32. Wolff, K. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel. New York: Free Press.
33. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.