Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why do scientists create academic spin-offs? The influence of the context

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this work is to examine the nature of academic spin-offs in a specific context: the Emilia-Romagna region (Italy). More specifically we investigate the individual reasons as to explain why scientists create academic spin-offs and how the creation process unfolds. Most economics and management literature on the topic considers the technological characteristics of such a choice, although recently the individual motivations behind the creation of such ventures have been investigated. However, less attention has been paid to the social and contextual dimensions of the matter. This study relates contextual characteristics to individual motivation. In particular it is argued that the funding constraints of the Italian academic environment, the low level of demand for doctorate holders within the Italian public and private sectors and the presence of favourable supporting policy tools in the region analysed, play a fundamental role in shaping the individual motivation of scientists in choosing this option. By way of a multiple case study research this work provides evidence that the academic spin-off in Emilia-Romagna is, for young scientists, a way to escape the bottlenecks of the Italian academic system allowing them to work in their field of expertise. This paper builds on the research regarding individual reasoning underlying personal decisions to create an academic spin-off and the need to analyse the phenomenon in relation to its context. Finally some policy implications are put forth.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The Eurostat database does not yet contain any relevant information enabling us to compare Italy and other countries in terms of employment characteristics of doctorate holders. However, it emerges that in Italy the share of human resources employed in ‘Science and Technology’ reveals itself to be significantly lower than its major European counterparts.

  2. First level of permanent position in the Italian academic recruitment system in the time interval analysed here.

  3. Chambers of Commerce organisation.

  4. In this and following sections we refer to young or temporary scientists or researchers to indicate non-tenured academics, while we refer to senior or tenured scientists or researchers to indicate academics with permanent positions within the university.

  5. Other studies find that often ASOs are formed by scientists in the early part of their career (e.g. Bercovitz and Feldmann 2008). However the profile of our ‘senior researchers-based spin-off’ is to be considered as a firm in which academics create a venture in their later stages of career.

  6. We have been able to obtain such information only for 18 of the 21 total ASOs from the University of Ferrara: some of the population firms are ASOs as defined in the broad sense, therefore the University does not detain any share and the TTO staff was not able to provide us with such information; some of these ASOs did not answer our information requests.

  7. Interviews were conducted in Italian, and the extracted selections have been translated by the author.

  8. It has to be acknowledged that these kind of ASO firms, although largely used in literature, do not represent the average Italian ASO firm, nor the average regional ASO firm (Fini et al 2009): in Emilia-Romagna, there were around 86 active ASO in the region, less than ten received private investment funding, and less than 20 of them were developing some patents (Aster 2008).

References

  • Amit, R., Muller, E., & Cockburn, I. (1995). Opportunity costs and entrepreneurial activity. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 95–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aster. (2008). Osiride: L’Osservatorio degli Spin-off della Ricerca della Regione Emilia Romagna. Primo rapporto, from http://www.iris.unibo.it/data_sets.html.

  • Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 893–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change and the individual level. Organization Science, 19, 69–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhola, R., Verheul, I., Thurik, R., & Grilo, I. (2006). Explaining engagement levels of opportunity and necessity entrepreneurs. In EIM business and policy research, H200610.

  • Bianchi, P., & Ramaciotti, L. (2005). Relationship between universities, research centers and district firms: The Italian case. In A. Q. Curzio & M. Fortis (Eds.), Research and technological innovation. The challenge for a new Europe. New York: Physica-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birley, S., & Westhead, P. (1994). A taxonomy of business start-up reasons and their impact on firm growth and size. Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 7–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, A. E. (1997). Small firm start-up by composers in the recording industry. Small Business Economics, 9, 463–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, C. A. (1992). A decision theory model for entrepreneurial acts. In Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17, 21–27.

  • Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiesa, V., & Piccaluga, A. (2000). Exploitation and diffusion of public research: The case of academic spin-off companies in Italy. R&D Management, 30, 329–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CIVR. (2007). Relazione finale, VTR 2001-2003, from http://vtr2006.cineca.it/.

  • Clarysse, B., & Moray, N. (2004). A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: The case of a research-based spin-off. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 55–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CONVUI. (2008). Rapporto sui dottorati di ricerca. http://www.convui.it/.

  • D’Este, P., & Neely, A. (2008). What are the factors that drive the engagement of academic research in knowledge transfer activities? Some reflections for future research. In J. Bessant & T. Venables (Eds.), Creating wealth from knowledge. Meeting the innovative challenge. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Este, P., & Patel, P. (2007). University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors determining the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy, 36, 1295–1313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 316–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, E. J., & Shepherd, D. A. (1999). Entrepreneurship as a utility maximizing response. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 231–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 488–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, D. S., & Leighton, L. S. (1990). Small business formation by unemployed and employed workers. Small Business Economics, 2, 319–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. P. (2001). The entrepreneurial event revisited: Firm formation in a regional context. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10, 861–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2009). Factor fostering academics to start up new ventures: An assessment of Italian founders’ incentives. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 380–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fontes, M. (2005). The process of transformation of scientific and technological knowledge into economic value conducted by biotechnology spin-offs. Technovation, 25, 339–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freddi, D. (2009). The integration of old and new technological paradigms in low- and medium-tech sectors: The case of mechatronics. Research Policy, 38, 548–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, J., & Silverman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management and location matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 17–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giacomin, O., Janssen, F., Guyot, J., & Lohest, O. (2011). Opportunity and/or necessity entrepreneurship? The impact of the socio-economic characteristics of entrepreneurs, MPRA Paper 29506.

  • Hayter, C. S. (2011). In search for the profit-maximizing actor: Motivations and definitions of success from nascent academic entrepreneurs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 340–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollanders, H., Tarantola, S., & Loschky, A. (2009). Regional innovation scoreboard. http://www.proinno-europe.eu.

  • Hospers, G., & Beugelsdijk, S. (2002). Regional cluster policies: Learning by comparing? Kyklos, 55, 381–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, K. D. (2003). Pushed or pulled? Women’s entry into self-employment and small business ownership. Gender, Work and Organization, 10, 433–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Istat. (2010). L’inserimento professionale dei dottori di ricerca. Statistiche in breve, www.istat.it.

  • Klofsten, M., & Jones-Evans, D. (2000). Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe—the case of Sweden and Ireland. Small Business Economics, 14, 299–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A., & Siegel, D. (2005). Generating science-based growth: An econometric analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university—industry technology transfer. The European Journal of Finance, 11, 169–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2003). Academic entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial academics? Research-based ventures and public support mechanisms. R&D Management, 33, 107–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minshall, T., & Wicksteed, B. (2007). University spin-out companies: Starting to fill the evidence gap. In R. Oakey & W. During (Eds.), New technology-based firms in the new millennium. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  • MIUR. (2006). Progetto per la ricognizione, raccolta e analisi dei dati esistenti sul dottorato di ricerca e per l’indagine sull’inserimento professionale dei dottori di ricerca. Comitato nuclei di valutazione delle università italiane. http://www.cnvsu.it.

  • Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2005). The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university–industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD Governments? Journal of Technology Transfer, 30, 115–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2006). The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university–industry technology transfer: A policy model for other governments? In B. Kahin & D. Foray (Eds.), Advancing knowledge and the knowledge economy. London: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MSE. (2009). Migliorare le politiche di ricerca e innovazione per le regioni. Contenuti e processi di policy. Dipartimento per lo Sviluppo e la Coesione Economica, http://www.dps.tesoro.it.

  • Netval. (2009). Rapporto sulla valorizzazione della ricerca in Italia. www.netval.it.

  • Ramaciotti, L., Consiglio, S., & Massari, S. (2011). Competenze, innovazione, impresa. Dal concepimento alla costituzione di imprese innovative: il caso Spinner. Il Mulino, Bologna.

  • Reynolds, P. D., Camp, S. M., Bygrave, W. D., Autio, E., & Hay, M. (2002). GEM global entrepreneurship report 2001 summary report. http://www.gemconsortium.org.

  • Ritsilä, J., & Tervo, H. (2002). Effects of unemployment on new firm formation: Micro-level panel data evidence from Finland. Small Business Economics, 19, 31–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, R. (1991). What is lesson-drawing? Journal of Public Policy, 11, 3–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2002). Selling university technology: Patterns from MIT. Management Science, 48, 122–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spin-offs and wealth creation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sonneveld, H., Yerkes, M., & van de Schoot, R. (2010). PhD trajectories and labor market mobility. A survey of recent doctoral recipients at four universities in The Netherlands. http://phdcentre.org. The Netherlands Centre for Research Schools and Graduate Schools.

  • Storey, D. J. (1991). The birth of new firms—does unemployment matter? A review of the evidence. Small Business Economics, 3, 167–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, T., & Ding, W. (2006). The social structural determinants of academic entrepreneurship: An analysis of University Scientists’ participation in commercial Ventures. American Journal of Sociology, 112, 97–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Objectives, characteristics and outcomes of university licensing: A survey of major U.S. universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 59–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TIS. (2011). Top 50 Italian Institutes. http://www.tisreports.com/category/1-Bibliometric_Analysis.aspx.

  • Uhlaner, L., & Thurik, R. (2007). Postmaterialism influencing total entrepreneurial activity across nations. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 17, 161–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vincett, P. S. (2010). The economic impacts of academic spin-off companies, and their implications for public policy. Research Policy, 39, 736–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, C. C. (2009). The motives of off-the-books entrepreneurs: Necessity- or opportunity-driven? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 5, 203–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, N., & Williams, C. C. (2012). Evaluating the socio-spatial contingency of entrepreneurial motivations: A case study of English deprived urban neighbourhoods. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 24, 661–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work benefited from valuable comments from Davide Antonioli, Davide Consoli, Massimiliano Mazzanti, Laura Ramaciotti and two anonymous referees. The author is also grateful to the participant of the “Third International Workshop on Entrepreneurship, Culture, Finance and Economic Development”, held in Namur, Belgium, on June 14 and 15 2012, for useful comments on a previous version of this paper. Usual disclaimers apply.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics and Management, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy

    Ugo Rizzo

Authors
  1. Ugo Rizzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ugo Rizzo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rizzo, U. Why do scientists create academic spin-offs? The influence of the context. J Technol Transf 40, 198–226 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9334-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9334-2

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation