This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
The growing literature on the drivers, dynamics and consequences of academic entrepreneurship shows the global diffusion of the entrepreneurial university model.
There are, of course, significant exceptions to this generalization. Many PhD students are still in an apprentice-master relationship to their supervisor, subject to exercise of both benevolent and arbitrary authority. Nevertheless, such individual authority is increasingly modified by a PhD committee supervision structure and attenuated by the student’s ability to change supervisors and by participation in a research group with multiple formal and informal mentors. On the other hand, some firms, like the old Bell Labs and Google allot researchers a limited percentage of their time to work on projects of their own choosing.
In Sweden, the “Professors’ Privilege” reserves all intellectual property rights to faculty members. In practice, university technology officers often acquire these rights from faculty members and then market them as in the US but the decision to patent, market or use the intellectual property as the basis of a firm is entirely up to the faculty member whereas in the US this decision is typically shared with the Technology Transfer Office, representing the university.
Author Interview with Dr. Ragan, Director of Columbia University's Office of Science and Technology, 1984.
Author interview with Neils Reimers, retired director of Stanford’s Office of Technology Licensing, 2005.
Leydesdorff L. Personal Communication 22, Aug 2012.
Indeed, an office previously established to arrange university-industry collaborations at MIT was transformed into a university office to deal with government contracts at the onset of the 2nd World War.
http://techventures.columbia.edu/venturelab/ctv-venture-lab-team. Accessed 9 Feb 2013.
New Survey Shows the University of Utah among Nation’s Best in Generating Companies from Research www.techventures.utah.edu/.../PR%202-26%20New%20Survey.pd. Accessed 020113.
Personal communication to the author.
These may be considered “low-ball” estimates as they are taken from results reported to AUTM, that does not include all players nor are all entrepreneurial activities on campus reported to the office. A high-end estimate may be extrapolated from studies of the entrepreneurial activities of alumni of leading universities like MIT and Stanford. See Bank of Boston MIT: The Impact of Innovation, 1997. See: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/founders/Founders2.pdf last accessed 020113 and Eesely, Charles and William Miller 2012 Stanford University’s Economic Impact via Innovation and Entrepreneurship at http://news.stanford.edu/.../innovation-economic-impact-102412.ht. Accessed 929113.
Author Interview with Bernard Denis, Associate Director of Technology Transfer at CERN, 2008.
References
Apple, R. (1989). Patenting University Research: Harry Steenbock and the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation. Isis, 80, 375–394.
Berners-Lee, T. (1999). Weaving the Web: The original design and ultimate destiny of the World Wide Web. New York: Harper.
Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E., Causino, N., & Louis, K. (1996). Participation of life-science faculty in research relationships with industry. New England Journal of Medicine, 335, 1734–1739.
Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 627–655.
Breznitz, S. (2007). From Ivory Tower to industrial promotion: The development of the biotechnology cluster in New Haven, Connecticut Revue d. Economie Industrielle n., 120(4eme trimester), 115–134.
Brittain, J. (2012) Commercialization Turnaround at Utah Presentation at “building the entrepreneurial University Workshop” Stanford University, 12 Nov 2012.
Cadwalader, E. (2013). Technology transfer: Fueling America’s innovation pipeline, Helice 1/4. http://www.triplehelixassociation.org/helice. Accessed 3 Jan 2013.
Colapinto, C., & Porlezza, C. (2012). Innovation in creative industries: From the quadruple helix model to the systems theory. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3/4, 343–353.
Cole, J. (2010). The Great American University. New York: Perseus.
Dornbusch, F., Kroll, H., & Shricke, E. (2012). Multiple dimensions of regionally oriented university involvement: how motivation and opportunity prompt German researchers to engage in different ways. Econstor Working Papers Firms and Regions. No. R6/2012. http://.hdl.handle.net/10419/67488. Accessed 5 Jan 2013.
Etzkowitz, H. (1983). Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepreneurial Universities in American academic science. Minerva, 21(2–3), 1573–1871.
Etzkowitz, H. (1994). Knowledge as property: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Debate Over Academic Patent Policy. Minerva (Winter), 32, 383–421.
Etzkowitz, H. (2002). MIT and the rise of entrepreneurial science. London: Routledge.
Etzkowitz, H. (2013). When Knowledge Married Capital: The Birth of Academic Enterprises. Journal of Knowledge-based Innovation in China, 5(1), 1–15.
Etzkowitz, H. (forthcoming) The Paradox of Success: Unrealized Technology Transfer Potential in an Exemplary Entrepreneurial University. In Special Issue on Silicon Valley: Global Model or Unique Anomaly Social Science Information.
Etzkowitz, H., & Goktepe-Hulten, D. (2009). Maybe they can? University technology transfer offices as regional growth engines. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 9(1–2), 166–181.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.
Etzkowitz, H., & Ranga, M. (2011). Gender dynamics in science and technology: From the “Leaky Pipeline” to the “Vanish Box”. Brussels Economic Review, 54(2/3), 131–148.
Etzkowitz, H., Ranga, M., Benner, M., Guaranys, L., Maculan, A. M., & Kneller, R. (2008). Pathways to the Entrepreneurial University: Towards a global convergence. Science and Public Policy, 35(9), 1–15.
Feldman, Maryann. P. (1994). The University and economic development: The case of Johns Hopkins University and Baltimore. Economic Development Quarterly, 8(1), 67–76.
Feldman, M., & Desrochers, P. (2004). Truth for its own sake: Academic culture and technology transfer at the Johns Hopkins University. Minerva, 42(2), 105–126.
Feldman, M. P., Colaianni, A., & Liu, C (2007). Lessons from the Commercialization of the Cohen-Boyer Patents: The Stanford University Licensing Program. In eds. A. Krattiger, R. T. Mahoney, & L. Nelsen, et al. (Eds) Intellectual property management in health and agricultural innovation: A handbook of best practices. MIHR: Oxford, U.K., and PIPRA: Davis, U.S.A. www.ipHandbook.org.
Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Basic Books.
Gibb, A. (2005). Towards the Entrepreneurial University: Entrepreneurship education as a lever for change. UK: National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship.
Goktepe-Hulten, D. (2008). Inside the Ivory Tower-Inventors and Patents at Lund University Lund. Lund: Lund University Press.
Graff, G. (2007). Echoes of Bayh–Dole: A survey of intellectual property and technology transfer policies in emerging and developing Economies. In A. Krattiger, R. Mahoney, L. Nelsen, et al. (Eds) Intellectual property management in health and agricultural innovation: A handbook of best practices. pp. 169–196. MIHR: Oxford, UK and PIPRA: Davis, CA.
Halley, J. (1991). Cultural resistance to rationalization: A study of an art avant-garde. In H. Etzkowitz & R. Glassman (Eds.), The renascence of sociological theory: Traditional perspectives and new directions (pp. 227–244). Itasca: Peacock Publishers.
Henton, D., & Held, K. (forthcoming) A modern proteus the dynamics of silicon valley: Creative destruction and the evolution of the social innovation habitat. In Etzkowitz, Henry (Eds) Silicon valley: Global model or unique anomaly, Social Science Information.
Hoskin, K. (1996). The awful idea of accountability: Inscribing people into the measurement of objects. In R. Munro & J. Mouritsen (Eds.), Accountability: Power, ethos and the technologies of managing (pp. 265–282). London: International Thomson Business Press.
Kaan, J., & Etzkowitz, H. (2013). The power of cultural entrepreneurship: Symbiosis of Oregon’s Shakespeare festival (OSF) and Southern Oregon University (SOU). European Commission: University-Business Cooperation Project.
Kolata, G. (1995). Researchers Find Hormone Causes a Loss of Weight. New York Times, 7-8-95(1), 20.
Krishna V. (2012). Universities in India’s national system of innovation: An overview. Asian Journal of Innovation and Policy 1(1), 1–30.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. London: Sage.
Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2010). The decline of university patenting and the end of the Bayh–Dole effect. Scientometrics, 83(2), 355–362.
Loise, V., & Stevens, A. (2010). The Bayh–Dole Act Turns 30 (p. 188). Alecandria: VA Licensing Executive Society, Les Nouvelles.
Nelson, A. (2005). Multivocal logics and technology licensing by the Stanford University department of Music. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(1), 93–118.
Paquet, G. (2009). Crippling epistemologies and governance failures—A plea for experimentalism. Ottawa: The University of Ottawa Press.
Ranga, Debackere, M. K., & Von Tunzelmann, G. N. (2003). Entrepreneurial Universities and the dynamics of academic knowledge production: A case study of basic vs. applied research in Belgium. Scientometrics, 58(2), 301–320.
Riviera, E. 2012 Mapping scientific literature: Structuring scientific communities through scientometrics. PhD Dissertation. Department of Sociology, University of Bicocca, Milan.
Rothaermel, F., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.
Schacht, W. (2012). The Bayh–Dole Act: Selected issues in patent policy and commercialization of technology. Congressional Research Service 7-5700:9. www.crs.gov. Accessed 5 Jan 2013.
Shane, S. (2004). Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh–Dole Act on university patenting in the United States. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 127–151.
Sorokin, P. (1956). Fads and foibles in modern sociology. Chicago: Henry Regnery &Co.
Stevens, A. (2004). The enactment of Bayh–Dole. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 93–99.
Tijsson, R. (2010). Personal communication.
Zuniga, P. (2011). The State of Patenting at Research Institutions in developing countries: Policy approaches and practices. WIPO Economic Research Working Papers. Working Paper. No. 4.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This comment refers to the article available at doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0001-6
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Etzkowitz, H. Mistaking dawn for dusk: quantophrenia and the cult of numerology in technology transfer analysis. Scientometrics 97, 913–925 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1007-7
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1007-7