A Qualitative Research on Academic Entrepreneurship Motivations and Activities

Abstract

Academic entrepreneurship, which is seen as one of the main drivers of economic, technological and social change, is seen as an important element of achieving the public goals set at the national and regional development level. The increase in the interaction between universities and industry has allowed the commercialization of academic knowledge, in other words, the development of academic entrepreneurship. In this context, the aim of the research is to examine how the phenomenon of academic entrepreneurship is realized in practice with an emic approach. Within the scope of the qualitative study, in-depth interviews were conducted with 10 academic entrepreneurs and discourse analysis was carried out in line with the data obtained. According to the results of the research, it is seen that academic entrepreneurs mostly have motivations for the transformation of scientific knowledge into a product. The activities carried out generally focus on science projects and consultancy. The most prominent themes among the problems faced by academic entrepreneurs are bureaucratic obstacles and administrative/organizational problems. It is anticipated that the study will contribute to filling the gap in the national literature in terms of being a descriptive study on academic entrepreneurship in Turkey. It is hoped that the results obtained will guide policy makers while taking steps to develop academic entrepreneurship in the future.

Keywords

• Academic Entrepreneurship
• Academic Entrepreneurship Motivation
• Academic Entrepreneurship Activities

Akademik Girişimcilik Motivasyonları ve Faaliyetleri Üzerine Nitel Bir Araştırma

Abstract

Ekonomik, teknolojik ve sosyal değişimin ana itici güçlerinden biri olarak görülen akademik girişimcilik, ulusal ve bölgesel kalkınma düzeyinde ortaya konan kamusal hedeflere ulaşmanın önemli bir unsuru olarak görülmektedir. Üniversiteler ile sanayi arasındaki etkileşimin artması, akademik bilginin ticarileştirilebilmesine bir başka ifadeyle akademik girişimciliğin gelişimine olanak tanımıştır. Bu bağlamda araştırmanın amacı, akademik girişimcilik olgusunun uygulamada nasıl gerçekleştiğinin emik bir yaklaşımla incelenmesidir. Nitel olarak tasarlanan çalışma kapsamında 10 akademik girişimci ile derinlemesine görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiş ve elde edilen veriler doğrultusunda söylem analizi yapılmıştır. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre akademik girişimcilerin çoğunlukla bilimsel bilginin ürüne dönüştürülmesi adına motivasyonları olduğu görülmektedir. Gerçekleştirilen faaliyetlerin ise genellikle bilim projeleri ve danışmanlık üzerine yoğunlaşmaktadır. Akademik girişimcilerin karşılaştığı sorunlar içinde en öne çıkan temalar ise bürokratik engeller ve yönetsel/organizasyonel sorunlardır. Söz konusu çalışmanın, Türkiye’deki akademik girişimciliğe yönelik betimleyici bir çalışma olması açısından ulusal literatürdeki boşluğun doldurulmasına katkı sağlayacağı öngörülmektedir. Elde edilen sonuçların, gelecek dönemde akademik girişimciliğin geliştirilmesine yönelik adımlar atılırken politika yapıcılara yön göstermesi umulmaktadır.

Keywords

• Akademik Girişimcilik
• Akademik Girişimcilik Motivasyonu
• Akademik Girişimcilik Faaliyetleri

References

1. Abreu, M. ve Grinevich, V. (2013). The Nature of Academic Entrepreneurship in The UK: Widening The Focus on Entrepreneurial Activities. Research Policy, 42(2), 408-422.
2. Anderseck, K. (2004). Institutional and Academic Entrepreneurship: Implications for University Governance and Management. Higher Education in Europe, 29(2), 193-200.
3. Audretsch, D. (2014). From The Entrepreneurial University to The University for The Entrepreneurial Society. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 313-321.
4. Balbachevsky, E. (2008). Incentives and Obstacles to Academic Entrepreneurship. in University and Development in Latin America (21-42). Brill Sense.
5. Baldini, N., Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., ve Sobrero, M. (2014). Organisational Change and The Institutionalisation of University Patenting Activity in Italy. MINERVA, 52, 27-53.
6. Balven, R. Fenters, V., Siegel, D. S. ve Waldman, D. (2018). Academic Entrepreneurship: The Roles of Identity, Motivation, Championing, Education, Work-Life Balance, and Organizational Justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(1), 21-42.
7. Barba-Sánchez, V. ve Atienza-Sahuquillo, C. (2012). Entrepreneurial Behavior: Impact Of Motivation Factors on Decision to Create A New Venture. Investigaciones Europeas de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa, 18(2), 132-138.
8. Bercovitz, J. ve Feldman, M. (2008). Academic Entrepreneurs: Organizational Change at the Individual Level. Organization Science, 19(1), 69-89.

9. Bin, A. Gavira, M. O., Figueira, J. B., Carvalho, T. M. B., Salles-Filho, S. L. M. ve Colugnati, F. A. B. (2018). Profile of Academic Entrepreneurship in Brazil: Evidence from The Evaluation of Former Holders Oo Undergraduate Research, Master and Phd Scholarships. Innovation ve Management Review, 15(4), 394-415.
10. Binkauskas, G. (2012). Academic Entrepreneurship: Barriers and Fears Versus Wishes and Opportunities. International Journal of Technology Management ve Sustainable Development, 11(3), 231-244.
11. Brennan, M. C. ve McGowan, P. (2006). Academic Entrepreneurship: An Exploratory Case Study. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 12(3), 144-164.
12. Brennan, M. C., Wall, A. P. ve McGowan, P. (2005). Academic Entrepreneurship: Assessing Preferences in Nascent Entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 12(3), 307-322.
13. Brockhaus R. H. (1987). Entrepreneural Research: Are We Playing the Correct Game?. American Journal of Small Business, 11(3), 43-50.
14. Cansız, M. (2016). Türkiye’de Akademik Girişimcilik. Ankara: Kalkınma Bakanlığı.
15. Cantu-Ortiz, F. J., Galeano, N., Mora-Castro, P., ve Fangmeyer Jr, J. (2017). Spreading Academic Entrepreneurship: Made in Mexico. Business Horizons, 60(4), 541-550.
16. Cooke, P. ve Leydesdorff, L. (2006). Regional Development in the Knowledge-based Economy: the Construction of Advantage. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 5-15.
17. D’este, P., ve Perkmann, M. (2011). Why Do Academics Engage with İndustry? The Entrepreneurial University and Individual Motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 316-339.
18. Darlington, Y. ve Scott, D. (2002). Qualitative Research in Practice: Stories from the Field. Singapore: South Wind Productions.
19. Dawson, C., Henley, A. ve Latreille, P. (2014). Individual Motives for Choosing Self Employment in the UK: Does Region Matter?. Regional Studies, 48(5), 804-822.
20. Davey, T., Rossano, S., ve Van Der Sijde, P. (2016). Does Context Matter in Academic Entrepreneurship? The Role of Barriers and Drivers in The Regional and National Context. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(6), 1457-1482.
21. Denzin, N. K. ve Lincoln. Y. S. (1994). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.
22. Devanath T. (2008). Role of Technological Innovations for Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 17(2), 103-115.
23. Dierdonck, V. R. ve Debackere, K. (1988). Academic Entrepreneurship at Belgian Universities. RveD Management, 18(4), 341-353.
24. Etzkowitz, H. ve Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The Dynamics of Innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" To A Triple Helix of University-İndustry-Government Relations, Research policy, 29(2), 109-123.
25. Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The Triple Helix: University-Industry-Government Innovation in Action. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
26. Etzkowitz, H., (1998). The Norms of Entrepreneurial Science: Cognitive Effects of The New University–Industry Linkages. Research Policy, 27(8), 823-833.
27. Fältholm, Y., Abrahamsson, L. ve Källhammer, E. (2010). Academic Entrepreneurship: Gendered Discourses and Ghettos. Journal of Technology Management ve Innovation, 5(1), 51-63.
28. Farsi, J. Y., Modarresi, M., Motavaseli, M., ve Salamzadeh, A. (2014). Institutional Factors Affecting Academic Entrepreneurship: The Case of University of Tehran. Economic Analysis, 47(1-2), 139-159.
29. Flick, U. (2014). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
30. Franzoni, C. ve Lissoni, F. (2006). Academic Entrepreneurship, Patents, and Spin-Offs: Critical Issues and Lessons for Europe. Kıtes Working Paper No. 180, Kıtes, Centre For Knowledge, Internationalization and Technology Studies, Bocconi University, Milan. Erişim adresi https://ideas.repec.org/p/cri/cespri/wp180.html
31. Gartner, W. B. (1988). “Who is an Entrepreneur?” Is The Wrong Question. American Journal of Small Business, 12(4), 11-32.
32. Gilad, B. ve Levine, P. (1986). A Behaviour Model of Entrepreneurial Supply. Journal of Small Business Management, 24, 45-54.
33. Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S. ve Wright, M. (2011). 30 Years After Bayh–Dole: Reassessing Academic Entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1045-1057.
34. Guerrero, M., Cunningham, J. A. ve Urbano, D. (2015). Economic Impact of Entrepreneurial Universities’ Activities: An Exploratory Study of The United Kingdom. Research Policy, 44(3), 748-764.
35. Haeussler, C. ve Colyvas, J. A. (2011). Breaking The Ivory Tower: Academic Entrepreneurship in The Life Sciences in UK and Germany. Research Policy, 40(1), 41-54.
36. Harrell, M. C. ve Bradley, M. A. (2009). Data Collection Methods: Semi-Structured Interviews and Focus Groups. California: The RAND Corporation.
37. Hayter, C. S. (2015). Public or Private Entrepreneurship? Revisiting Motivations and Definitions of Success Among Academic Entrepreneurs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(6), 1003-1015.
38. Huczynski, A. A. ve Buchanan, D. A. (2007). Organizational Behaviour: An Introductory Text. England: Prentice Hall.
39. Karagöz, Ö. S., Kocakoç, İ. D., ve Üçdoğruk, Ş. Girişimcilik ve Yenilikçilik Faaliyetleri Odağında Türkiye’deki Üniversitelerin Etkinlik Analizi. İzmir İktisat Dergisi, 35(4), 713-723.
40. Karasar, N. (1995). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi. Ankara: Araştırma Eğitim Danışmanlık.
41. Klofsten, M. ve Jones-Evans, D. (2000). Comparing Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe – The Case of Sweden and Ireland. Small Business Economics, 14, 299-309.
42. Kritikos, A. S. (2014). Entrepreneurs and Their Impact on Jobs and Economic Growth, IZA World of Labor, 8, 1-10.
43. Küçük, O. (2014). Girişimcinin Kuruluş Yeri Kararını Etkileyen Farklı Faktörlerin Belirlenmesi: Bir Alan Araştırması. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 29(1), 161-190.
44. Lacetera, N. (2009). Academic Entrepreneurship. Managerial and Decision Economics, 30(7), 443-464.
45. Lam, A. (2011). What Motivates Academic Scientists to Engage in Research Commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘Ribbon’ or ‘Puzzle’?. Research Policy, 40(10), 1354-1368.
46. Laukkanen, M. (2003). Exploring Academic Entrepreneurship: Drivers and Tensions of University‐Based Business. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 10(4), 372-382.
47. Lobiondo-Wood, G. ve Haber, J. (1990). Nursing Research: Methods, Critical Appraisal and Utilisation. St Louis: Mosby.
48. Lockett, A., Siegel, D., Wright, M. ve Ensley, M. (2005). The Creation of Spin-Off Firms at Public Research Institutions: Managerial and Policy Implications. Research Policy, 34(7), 981-993.
49. Long, T. ve Johnson, M. (2000). Rigour, Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. Clinical Effectiveness in Nursing. 4(1), 30-37.
50. Lynch, M., Kristoffer, S., Federico, L., Martin, S. ve Gunnar, A. (2017). Examining Entrepreneurial Motivations in an Education Context. 21st International Conference On Engineering Design, ICED17, 21-25 August 2017, The Unıversity Of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
51. Marcolongo, M. (2017). Academic Entrepreneurship How to Bring Your Scientific Discovery to a Successful Commercial Product. New Jersey, USA: John Wiley ve Sons.
52. Mars, M. M. ve Rios-Aguilar, C. (2010). Academic Entrepreneurship (Re)Defined: Significance and Implications for The Scholarship of Higher Education. High Education, 59(4), 441–460.
53. Meglino, B. M. ve Korsgaard, A. (2004). Considering Rational Self-Interest As A Disposition: Organizational Implications of Other Orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 946-959.
54. Miranda, F. J., Chamorro-Mera, A. ve Rubio, S. (2017). Academic Entrepreneurship in Spanish Universities: An Analysis of The Determinants of Entrepreneurial Intention. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 23(2), 113-122.
55. Morales-Gualdrón, S. T., Gutiérrez-Gracia, A. ve Dobón, S. R. (2009). The Entrepreneurial Motivation in Academia: A Multidimensional Construct. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 5, 301-317.
56. Novotny, A. (2017). Academic Entrepreneurship in Eastern Europe: Motivations and Success of University Spin-Offs in Hungary. The World Scientific Reference on Entrepreneurship, 4-5, 137-164.
57. Omoruyi, E. M. M., Olamide, K. S., Gomolemo, G. ve Donath, O. A. (2017). Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth: Does Entrepreneurship Bolster Economic Expansion in Africa?. Journal of Socialomics, 6(4), 1-11.
58. O'Shea, R., Allen, T. J., O'Gorman, C. ve Roche, F. (2004). Universities and Technology Transfer: A Review of Academic Entrepreneurship Literature. Irish Journal of Management, 25(2), 11-29.
59. Osiri, J. K., McCarty, M. M., ve Jessup, L. (2013). Entrepreneurial Culture in Institutions of Higher Education: Impact on Academic Entrepreneurship. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 16, 1-11.
60. Polit, D. ve Hungler, B. (1989). Essentials of Nursing Research: Methods, Appraisal, and Utilization. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
61. Pourezzat, A. A., Gholipour, A., ve Nadirkhanlou, S. (2010). Representating Barriers to Academic Entrepreneurship and Knowledge Commercialization at University of Tehran. Journal of Science ve Technology Policy, 2(4), 65-67.
62. Rodeiro, D., Fernández, S., Vivel, M., ve Rodríguez, M. J. (2012). Academic Entrepreneurship and Financial Problems: The Capital Structure of The University Spin-Offs. Edited by Thierry Burger-Helmchen in Entrepreneurship: Born, Made and Educated, 93-110, Rijeka: InTech.
63. Rolfe, G. (2006). Validity, Trustworthiness and Rigour: Quality and the Idea of Qualitative Research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(3), 304-310.
64. Rothaermel, F. T. Agung, S. D. ve Jiang, L. (2007). University Entrepreneurship: A Taxonomy of The Literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691-791.
65. Sanayi ve Teknoloji Bakanlığı (2021). Teknoloji Geliştirme Bölgeleri. Erişim adresi https://www.sanayi.gov.tr/istatistikler/istatistiki-bilgiler/mi0203011501
66. Sánchez, P. P. I. ve Maldonado, M. C. J. (2015). RveD Activity of University Spin-Offs: Comparative Analysis through The Measurement of Their Economic Impact. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 18(1), 45-64.
67. Sandelowski, M. (1993). Rigor or Rigor Mortis: The Problem of Rigor in Qualitative Research Revisited. Advances in Nursing Science, 16(2), 1-8.
68. Schjoedt, L. ve Shaver, K. G. (2007). Deciding on an Entrepreneurial Career: A Test of the Pull and Push Hypotheses Using the Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics Data. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(5), 733-752.
69. Sharma, P. ve Chrisman, J. J. (1999). Towards A Reconciliation of The Definitional Issues in The Field of Corporate Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 11-27.
70. Sharma, S. (1999). Trespass or symbiosis? Dissolving the boundaries between strategic marketing and strategic management. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 7(2), 73-88.
71. Siegel, D. S. ve Wright, M. (2015). Academic Entrepreneurship: Time for a Rethink?. British Journal of Management, 26(4), 582-595.
72. Stake R. E. (2010). Qualitative Research: Studying How Things Work. New York: The Guilford Press.
73. Stephan, U., Hart, M. ve Drews, C. C. (2015). Understanding Motivations for Entrepreneurship: A Review of Recent Research Evidence. Birmingham, UK: Enterprise Research Centre.
74. Tirupati, D. (2008). Role of Technological Innovations for Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 17(2), 103–115.
75. TÜBİTAK (2021). 1513 - Teknoloji Transfer Ofisleri Destekleme Programı. Erişim adresi https://www.tubitak.gov.tr/tr/destekler/sanayi/ulusal-destek-programlari/icerik-1513-teknoloji-transfer-ofisleri-destekleme-programi
76. TÜBİTAK (2021). Girişimci ve Yenilikçi Üniversite Endeksi. Erişim adresi https://www.tubitak.gov.tr/tr/girisimci-ve-yenilikci-universite-endeksi
77. Urbano, D. ve Guerrero, M. (2013). Entrepreneurial Universities: Socioeconomic Impacts of Academic Entrepreneurship in a European Region. Economic Development Quarterly, 27(1), 40-55.
78. Volkmann, C. K., Tokarski, K. O. ve Grünhagen, M. (2010). Entrepreneurship in a European Perspective: Concepts for the Creation and Growth of New Ventures. Berlin: Gabler Verlag.
79. Wadhwani, R. D., Galvez-Behar, G., Mercelis, J. ve Guagnini, A. (2017). Academic Entrepreneurship and Institutional Change in Historical Perspective. Management ve Organizational History, 12(3), 175-198.
80. Wood, M. S. (2011). A Process Model of Academic Entrepreneurship. Business Horizons, 54(2), 153-161.
81. Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Mustar, P. ve Lockett, A. (2007). Academic Entrepreneurship in Europe. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
82. Yıldırım A. ve Şimşek H. (2000). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
83. Yıldırım, A. (1999). Nitel Araştırma Yöntemlerinin Temel Özellikleri ve Eğitim Araştırmalarındaki Yeri ve Önemi. Eğitim ve Bilim Dergisi, 23(112), 7-17.
84. Zhao, F. (2004). Academic Entrepreneurship: Case Study of Australian Universities. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 5(2), 91-97.