J Technol Transf

DOI 10.1007/s10961-016-9470-y

Who is the academic entrepreneur? The role of graduate

students in the development of university spinoffs

Christopher S. Hayter1 • Roman Lubynsky2 •

Spiro Maroulis3

 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Abstract Academic entrepreneurship, the establishment of new companies based on

technologies derived from university research, is a well-recognized driver of regional and
national economic development. For more than a decade, scholars have conceptualized
individual university faculty as the primary agents of academic entrepreneurship. Recent
research suggests that graduate students also play a critical role in the establishment and
early development of university spinoff companies, but the nature of their involvement
through the entrepreneurial process is not yet fully understood. Employing a case study
approach, this paper investigates the role of graduate students in early-stage university
spinoff companies from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. We find that graduate
students play role similar to that of individual faculty entrepreneurs in university spinoffs,
both in terms of making the initial establishment decision and in reconfiguring the orga-
nization for marketable technology development. We also find that student entrepreneurs
face unique challenges involving conflicts with faculty advisors and other students.

Keywords Academic entrepreneurship
Student entrepreneurship
University spinoffs

Technology transfer

JEL Classification L26
M13
O31
O32

& Roman Lubynsky

rml@mit.edu
Christopher S. Hayter
chayter@asu.edu
1
Center for Organization Research and Design, School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University,
Phoenix, AZ, USA
2
MIT Venture Mentoring Service, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA
3
School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA

123
 C. S. Hayter et al.

1 Introduction

Larry Page and Sergey Brin developed the underlying technology for the now-multi-billion
dollar corporation Google while graduate students at Stanford University. Beyond their
spectacular commercial success, the efforts of Messrs. Page and Brin are representative of
the entrepreneurial potential of students as ‘knowledge agents’ important for the dissem-
ination and commercialization of university knowledge, a critical ingredient for regional
economic development (Roberts 1991; Roberts and Eesley 2009; Romer 1990; Stephan
2009). In the words of Massachusetts of Technology president, L. Rafael Reif:
A powerful way that MIT graduates drive progress is by starting companies that
deliver new ideas to the world…MIT alumni have launched more than 30,000 active
companies, creating 4.6 million jobs, and generating roughly $1.9 trillion in annual
revenue (2015).
Despite the perceptible link between students and the economic impact of their companies,
scholars have largely overlooked the specific entrepreneurial role of students. Part of this
oversight may be explained by an early focus by researchers on the firm—in the case of a
university, a spinoff company—as the primary unit of analysis. A firm-level focus neglects
the role of individual entrepreneurs such as faculty and students, a challenge observed
within the broader entrepreneurship literature (Acs et al. 2009; Bradley et al. 2013a;
Braunerhjelm et al. 2010; Link et al. 2014). For example, early studies of the
entrepreneurial activities of universities focus primarily on the relative number of spinoffs
established, not necessarily entrepreneur-specific or intra-firm factors responsible for
spinoff performance and, thus, their economic impact (Hayter 2015b; Phan and Siegel
2006).
Recent studies have emphasized the role of individual ‘academic entrepreneurs’: fac-
ulty, technicians, postdoctoral fellows, or students who act as the primary entrepreneurial
agent for the dissemination and commercialization of new knowledge generated in uni-
versities (Hayter 2013, 2015b). Although early work contained a broad conceptualization
of the academic entrepreneur (e.g. Doutriaux 1987), more recent and influential scholarship
focused on the role of individual university faculty. For example, in his investigation of the
emergence and contributions of university spinoffs (specifically from MIT),1 Shane (2004)
posits that academic entrepreneurship is the establishment of new spinoff companies by
university faculty. Other studies have similarly adopted a faculty-as-entrepreneur approach
given their role as principal investigators on sponsored research projects, relatively uni-
form intellectual property guidelines for faculty who conduct federally-funded research,2
as well as their academic rank and technical knowledge, factors important for the estab-
lishment of new spinoff companies (Bradley et al. 2013a; Link et al. 2007). Indeed, studies
show that the individual academic entrepreneur, their entrepreneurial motivations and
growth ambitions (Hayter 2011, 2015a; Lam 2011) social networks (Hayter 2013, 2016a;
Rasmussen et al. 2015), backgrounds (O’Gorman et al. 2008), and access to resources

1
As of January 1, 2016, Google Scholar shows that lists Shane’s (2004) book Academic Entrepreneurship
with 1366 citations.
2
See Bradley et al. (2013a) for a detailed discussion of the emergence of the patent-centric, linear model of
technology transfer among most research universities within the United States. In practical terms, this means
that most university faculty are subject to similar technology disclosure and management processes, typi-
cally articulated within their employment contracts. This also helps explains the emphasis on licensed
technologies, a characteristic that is relatively easy to capture as opposed to other forms of entrepreneurship
(e.g. Fini et al. 2010).

123
Who is the academic entrepreneur? The role of graduate…

(Wright et al. 2007) are critical factors in the function and long-term success of university
spinoffs.
Recent research questions this narrow emphasis on faculty in the extant literature;
graduate students also play a catalytic role in academic entrepreneurship (Boh et al. 2016;
Hayter 2016a; Lubynsky 2012). However, beyond a few exceptions (reviewed in Sect. 2
below), scholars have largely eschewed knowledge-based investigations of the role of
students, especially graduate students, in the establishment and early-stage development of
university spinoff companies. For example, to what extent are student entrepreneurs
engaging in similar activities as faculty entrepreneurs? Does their engagement ebb and
flow through the life cycle of the spinoff? To what extent does their status as students
create unique difficulties and challenges? Without a better understanding of the roles and
challenges faced by student entrepreneurs, scholars, and policymakers seeking to accel-
erate the development and economic impact of university spinoffs run the risk of targeting
related programs and policies incorrectly.
Our investigation seeks to address this conspicuous gap in the literature by investigating
the role and factors associated with graduate students in the early-stage development of
university spinoffs. The reminder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews
the modest but emergent literature that examines to role of graduate students in university
spinoffs. Section 3 discusses the methodological approach taken in the present study while
Sect. 4 presents the findings of the investigation. Finally, we discuss the implications of the
paper for policy as well as future research in Sect. 5.

2 Literature review

2.1 Student entrepreneurship

Early empirical research related to student entrepreneurship focused primarily on the

emergence of entrepreneurship education programs: The response of higher education
institutions to growing student demands for entrepreneurship courses and programs along
with growing recognition that entrepreneurship is important. The growth of university
entrepreneurship education offerings has been extraordinary (Hébert and Link 2009;
Morris 2015); according to Katz (2003, 2004), the number of entrepreneurship education
programs established within universities has grown exponentially since the early 1980s
driven by student interest and the emergent economic development missions of universi-
ties. Further, Pittaway and Cope (2007) posit that a critical mass of related empirical
research exists relating to entrepreneurship education programs, including course peda-
gogy and entrepreneurial management training, as well as the establishment of student-
based ventures.
Research shows that university culture and entrepreneurship programs can positively
impact the entrepreneurial motivations and attitudes of students (Boh et al. 2016; Pittaway
and Cope 2007). How students are initially exposed to entrepreneurship matters: While
most education programs focus on teaching entrepreneurship in a classroom setting,
learning-by-doing and building relevant social networks are far more effective for spurring
entrepreneurial behavior (Rasmussen and Sorheim 2006; Shah and Pahnke 2014). Simi-
larly, Bailetti (2011) and Barr et al. (2009) compare traditional lecture format with hands-
on entrepreneurial education and find the latter is critical for enabling entrepreneurial skills
important to success. Facilitated student interactions with entrepreneurs and small business

123
 C. S. Hayter et al.

owners provide students with role models, practical skills, and expanded networks
(Brindley and Ritchie 2000; Fukugawa 2005; Ridder and Van der Sijde 2003; Wani et al.
2004). Similarly, Bramwell and Wolfe (2008) describe the cooperative education (‘co-op’)
program at Waterloo University that places students into companies to work on tangible
problem-solving projects and thus provides valuable experience that may be useful to
future entrepreneurial efforts.
Limited evidence shows that entrepreneurship programs do not necessarily increase the
likelihood that a student will establish a new company. Oehler et al. (2015), for example,
examine the entrepreneurial attitudes and skills among German undergraduate students
taking entrepreneurship courses and find that, though their entrepreneurial intentions are
strong, most are unsure of the efficacy of what they know or need to know to be a
successful entrepreneur. Oosterbeek et al. (2010) find that entrepreneurship programs can
moderate entrepreneurial intentions by providing students with a more realistic perspective
on the lifestyle and skills needed for successful entrepreneurship. Further, Berggren and
Dahlstrand (2009) find that regional policies and networks may have a disproportionate
impact on entrepreneurial motivations and success among students and faculty compared
to internal university factors.
Though empirical investigations of the economic impact of student entrepreneurship are
rare, scholars have shown that students establish new companies more often than faculty.
Åstebro et al. (2012), for example, find that recent university graduates are, in general,
more likely to start new businesses than university faculty by a factor of 24.3 to 1. Further,
the propensity among students to establish companies likely translates initially into life-
long entrepreneurial behavior important to regional economic growth. Roberts (1991) and
Roberts and Eesley (2009, 2011) discuss, for example, the impact students and alumni
from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and their impact on the Boston
metropolitan region. Roberts (1991) found that entrepreneurs within the Boston
Metropolitan area were most likely to establish their first company in their late 1920s or
early 1930s. However, more recent analyses of MIT students, faculty, and alumni find that
first time academic entrepreneurs are not only younger, early exposure to entrepreneurial
ideas and networks help form long-lasting entrepreneurial perspectives (Hsu et al. 2007;
Roberts and Eesley 2009, 2011; Roberts et al. 2015).

2.2 Graduate students and postdocs

Despite the considerable body of research that focuses on student entrepreneurship edu-
cation, little attention has been given to the role of students in the establishment and
development of university spinoff companies, though a few exceptions exist. Boh et al.
(2016), for example, find that among 47 university spinoffs in their sample, graduate
students and postdocs were involved in 36 (77 %), with at least 11 spinoffs established
with no faculty involvement (i.e. solely established by graduate students and/or postdocs).
The authors find that both faculty and students are heavily involved in early phases of the
spinoff but that the role of faculty (where applicable) diminishes over time whereas student
involvement is sustained over the course of the study. Further, students from different
disciplines may aid spinoff success: Business school students may possess management,
accounting, and fundraising capabilities complementary to the scientific and technical
skills of science and engineering students and faculty.
Hayter (2016a) examines the composition, contributions, and evolution of social net-
works among faculty entrepreneurs and similarly finds that graduate students play a critical
role in the early stages of spinoff development. Specifically, out of 366 business contacts

123
Who is the academic entrepreneur? The role of graduate…

reported by faculty entrepreneurs as critical to the establishment and growth of their

spinoff, 51 (14 %) were graduate students. The author found that the primary contribution
of graduate students is their role as catalysts, convincing faculty to establish their spinoff
company and then providing the time and leadership needed to do just that. In several
cases, faculty reported that their spinoff would not exist without the efforts of their
graduate students who assumed roles as co-founder or CEO. The second primary contri-
bution of graduate students was their technical expertise related to relatively fundamental
scientific problems. Graduate students are typically involved in the academic research of
faculty and work on research within a spinoff context similar to their role within a uni-
versity laboratory. Hayter (2016a) also finds that students unfortunately do not generally
possess the knowledge or networks necessary to accelerate spinoff development.
Beyond these recent contributions, however, scholars have overlooked the entrepre-
neurial role of graduate students choosing instead to conceptualize the ‘academic entre-
preneur’ as individual university faculty. This study seeks to address this oversight by
investigating the role and factors associated with students in the early-stage development
of university spinoffs. The next section discusses our methodological approach.

3 Methodology

3.1 Study approach

This paper empirically investigates the role of graduate students in the establishment and
development of university spinoff companies. A spinoff is defined as a company estab-
lished by a researcher (faculty, staff or student) based on technologies stemming from
university research. Following Link and Ruhm (2009), we frame spinoff success in terms
of technology commercialization, the sale of derivative products or services.
Studies of new entrepreneurship phenomena are criticized for their reliance on struc-
tured surveys, predefined measures, and working assumptions that exclude more inductive
responses (e.g. Cliff 1998; Brush 1992; Shane et al. 2003). Deductive approaches are
problematic for areas—such as graduate students entrepreneurship—where little empirical
research exists and theory is thus non-existent. In these cases, inductive, qualitative
approaches are recommended in order to contribute to the scholarship and inform future
theory-building efforts (Cooper 2003; Patton 2002; Phan and Siegel 2006; Shane 2004).
For the purposes of our study, we thus articulate three broad, inductive research
questions to guide our investigation:
Q1 What is the role of graduate students within university spinoffs?
Q2 What are their specific contributions to spinoff establishment and development?
Q3 What are challenges associated with graduate student involvement in university
spinoffs?
To address these questions, we accordingly adopt a case study approach (Eisenhardt 1989).
A case study approach allows researchers to ask questions of how, why, and what. Further,
case studies permits replication logic treating each case as an independent experiment to
confirm or disconfirm the inferences drawn from other cases (Yin 2003).

123
 C. S. Hayter et al.

3.2 Data collection

Given the paucity of empirical data on the topic, we investigate the role of graduate
students among a relevant sample of university spinoffs from MIT. A sample framing
strategy was crafted following procedures outlined by Miles and Huberman (1994). Eight
MIT spinoffs were selected in order to investigate the role, contributions, and challenges of
graduate student involvement therein. Spinoffs were identified based on their potential to
represent various stages of spinoff development—from pre-spinoff idea formulation to
older firms that had achieved commercialization as well as those that had not.3
All spinoffs in the sample had received assistance from MIT’s Venture Mentoring
Service (VMS) within the period of 2002–2012. Data were collected through a variety of
mechanisms, including (1) semi-structured interviews with multiple spinoff personnel, (2)
other personnel such as advisors, mentors, investors and other observers involved in the
establishment of the spinoffs, (3) archival data collected by VMS relating to spinoff
performance, and (4) other documents and materials provided by spinoff companies
themselves.
Eight spinoffs were observed through various stages of development over varying
lengths of time, from 6 months to 10 years (See Table 1), thus providing insights on
graduate student involvement within different entrepreneurial contexts. Specifically data
were collected from over 3400 documents from the VMS archives as well as 22 individuals
associated with the ideation, establishment, and subsequent development of the spinoffs.
Data were collected in person or over the phone; periodic interviews ranged in length from
90 min to 2 h. Follow-on inquiries for clarification purposes were undertaken as needed.
Table 1 presents the eight spinoffs selected for our study. Given that information dis-
closed during the study is potentially sensitive, each spinoff has been given a pseudonym
and the year of spinoff establishment has not been disclosed. The second column in
Table 1 presents spinoff industry while the third column presents the associated academic
discipline. The fourth and fifth columns list the number and position of spinoff founders at
the time of the study. The ‘Development Status’ column indicates the growth stage
achieved by the spinoff at time of observation. The final column shows the outcome
achieved since the time of the study, including in progress (i.e. pursuing commercializa-
tion); commercialization, acquisition, or failure. The next section summarizes our findings.

4 Findings

Our empirical inquiry yields three principal findings. First, graduate students, not faculty,
played the lead role in the initial establishment of all spinoffs in the sample. Second,
graduate students played a critical role in the subsequent development of the spinoff
company, including acquiring and managing resources for growth and reconfiguring the
spinoff for commercialization. Finally, we find that graduate students often faced multiple
conflicts with faculty and other students associated with tension between their academic
and entrepreneurial responsibilities. We discuss each of these findings in more detail
below.

3
Theoretical sampling introduces deductive thinking into the study (Eisenhardt 1989). Decisions about
which data should be collected next were determined by the insights revealed in the present case; collected
data guided the selection of the next case in order to maximize empirical heterogeneity, an important
consideration for early theory-building efforts (Creswell 2003).

123
 Table 1 Summary of ventures
Venture Industry Discipline Number of Founding team Years Development Outcome reached
founders observed status

Gamma Materials Materials science 1 Student 0.5 Idea exploration In progress

materials
Beta bio Biotech Biology 1 Student 1.5 Scientific research In progress
Kappa AI Software Artificial intelligence 1 Student 10 Product Failed
development
Lambda Magnetics Physics, materials 2 Student (1) Faculty 11 Product Failed
magnetics (1) development
Who is the academic entrepreneur? The role of graduate…

Epsilon energy Energy Chemical engineering 1 Student 10 Product In progress

development
Alpha chips Computing Physics 1 Student 10 Commercialized Acquired
Delta pharma Pharma Chemical engineering 1 Student 8 Commercialized Acquired
Zeta web Software Signal analysis, natural language 2 Students (2) 8 Commercialized In progress—
processing growth

123
 C. S. Hayter et al.

4.1 Students, not faculty, launched most ventures

The literature holds that faculty are primarily responsible for the launch of new university
spinoff companies. For all eight spinoffs in the sample, however, graduate students served
as the primary entrepreneurial agent for company establishment and development. Addi-
tionally, in six of the eight startups, fundamental spinoff technologies were derived from
the PhD thesis research of individual graduate students, and another from a separate (non-
thesis related) research stream originated by the student.
An important early activity for the student entrepreneur was to define the relationship
between the venture and their faculty advisor. All graduate students in the study
acknowledged the credibility that the relationship with their advisors could bring to their
spinoff, including their social networks and scientific and technical expertise. Graduate
students also (initially) viewed relationships with their advisor as symbiotic, allowing them
to provide scientific feedback and resources back to the professor and his or her lab. What
many graduate students found, however, is that their advisors did not have the time or
interest to devote to intensive management or research tasks not related to their primary
responsibilities as a university faculty member.
Consequently, faculty roles within spinoffs in our sample varied substantially. As
illustrated in Table 2, faculty were formally involved in three spinoff companies, one as
co-founder (Lamda Magnetics) and two as scientific advisor board (SAB) member
(Gamma Materials and Delta Pharma). In all three cases, the technological focus on the
spinoff company was directly related to the primary research focus of the faculty member
at that time. In the case of Beta Bio, the graduate student advisor was involved in early
spinoff-related discussions though, discussed in Sect. 4.3 below, the faculty researcher
decided to pursue their own, separate entrepreneurial venture. In the case of Alpha Chips,
the faculty researcher played an informal role in the development of the core spinoff
technology but chose not to participate because ‘‘I’ve got too many shares in too many
start-ups that never went anywhere’’ (Alpha Chips).
For the three other spinoff companies, graduate students asked their advisors to—at a
minimum—participate in their respective venture’s scientific advisory board. In all three
cases, advisors declined to take a more active role because the core spinoffs were not,
according to student entrepreneurs, well-connected to their research interests or had
‘‘moved his research in other directions’’ (Alpha Chips). Thus, while faculty roles ranged
from co-founder, to scientific advisory board (SAB) member, to no role, graduate students
were primarily responsible for the establishment and early development of university
spinoff companies within our sample.

Table 2 Initial role of students and faculty in spinoff

Venture Student role Faculty role

Gamma materials Founder Technology development; scientific advisory board member

Beta Bio Founder Early venture ideation
Kappa AI Founder None
Lambda magnetics Co-founder Co-founder
Epsilon energy Founder None
Alpha chips Founder Informal technology advisor
Delta pharma Founder Technology development; scientific advisory board member
Zeta web Co-founders (2) None

123
Who is the academic entrepreneur? The role of graduate…

4.2 Student role in resource reconfiguration

A number of empirical studies frame university spinoff success in terms of their ability to
achieve various developmental milestones. Vohora et al. (2004), for example, view spinoff
success as iterative and nonlinear, where spinoffs acquire and reconfigure necessary
resources, capabilities, and network ties necessary to pass through a series of milestones
that they term critical junctures. Spinoff success is defined as forward progression though
each critical juncture, with the eventual goal of achieving enterprise sustainability. Though
the findings are limited to faculty entrepreneurs, Hayter (2013) shows that the post-
establishment credibility phase, whereby academic entrepreneurs obtain and reconfig-
ure myriad resources important to venture success, is a critical crossroads for university
spinoffs. In the present case, graduate students are critical for obtaining and reconfiguring
critical resources; the sections below describe when and how.

4.2.1 Opportunity investigation and vetting

Each of the eight ventures in the study drew upon informal (or network) and formal
resources from MIT as well as the Boston Metropolitan region to inform their startup
decision. All graduate student founders spoke with their classmates in order to find possible
venture partners and solicit advice from those with prior experience launching companies.
Six of eight spinoff companies participated in at least one formal business plan com-
petition. Business plan competitions were particularly important for guiding spinoffs
toward the development of specific products and services; as one founder put it, business
plan competitions were a way to ‘‘pressure test’’ venture ideas. In addition to formal
competition processes, business plan competitions included mixers and other networking
events that proved valuable for graduate students to interact with others outside their
respective disciplines, especially business school students. Further, investors and attorneys
were involved within the competitions, providing valuable guidance and advice for nascent
entrepreneurs to refine their business plan. According to the founder of Gamma Materials,
competitions are an important tool for refining the venture and building confidence:
In doing the competition, I found enough to convince myself that this could be, yeah,
that there’s definitely, this is something that’s very commercially feasible. I was the
first to commit to this. I decided probably about half way through the competition
that I’m gonna start a company with this no matter what (Student Founder, Gamma
Materials, July 11, 2012).
The competition is but one component of a wide range of entrepreneurship support
programs and networks—an entrepreneurship ecosystem—within and around MIT. Many
of these resources were unknown to graduate students during their time as students as well
as the early phases of spinoff development. However, the business competition and their
participation in MIT VMS programs often led to a greater understanding of the
entrepreneurship support programs at their disposal, as did informal interactions with
students and faculty with entrepreneurial experience or interest. It was through these
multiple and iterative interactions that students were able to gain visibility and introduc-
tions to many other resources and individuals. Perhaps most importantly, these venues
often included relevant individuals from the Boston Metropolitan region, including
attorneys, investors, entrepreneurs, and other entrepreneurship support programs with

123
 C. S. Hayter et al.

whom graduate students could work in order to improve their technologies, products, and
business ideas.

4.2.2 Acquiring and managing resources

All spinoffs in the sample believed they possessed a promising technology at the time they
exited the university and devoted full time effort to the new venture. All founders even-
tually came to the realization that an early-stage technology developed within an academic
context is far from a commercial product and that further development requires substantial
time and resources. Pursuing a variety of fund-raising activities, founders responded by
collectively attracting more than $70 million in funding during their early years while
focusing on further technology development. Over 80 % of this funding initially came
from research grants given to their new spinoffs such as Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) awards and other public research funding. The grants were supplemented
with limited personal resources such as savings and small amounts of prize monies from
the business plan competitions. They also obtained small amounts of equity-type funding
from individuals who were very close to the founders such as family members and friends.
For example, one spinoff was surprised to receive an unsolicited check from their faculty
advisor after they had graduated. In the post-graduation stages of the spinoff, any equity
investments tended to come from angel investors closely connected with the primary
contacts of the founder and were motivated to invest beyond purely financial factors.
The majority of this funding went to support additional technology development
through the hiring of talented researchers and engineers. For example, Epsilon built up to
40 researchers, half of them PhDs. Alpha grew to 20 researchers, Delta Pharma had 12 and
Zeta Web had a research development staff of 12. Thus, graduate student entrepreneurs had
to quickly become effective leaders and managers who can motivate technical teams to
help meet the technical goals of the spinoff company:
Well I think the biggest maybe like thing that I couldn’t have anticipated was people.
So like learning to manage people and deal with the people aspects of an organi-
zation. That’s still a learning experience for me and something I didn’t realize I was
going to be doing. I just figured it’ll just be like MIT, like you get smart people who
make stuff, like they’ll be awesome, I’ll be awesome, we’ll all just show up for work
in our sneakers. It’ll be fine, we’ll make some stuff, it’ll be awesome. But then
you’ve got to figure how to build them into a team. (Student Founder, Alpha Chips,
June 20, 2012)
All founders described their transition from graduate student to that of an entrepreneur
as extremely challenging. While students felt they possessed the capability to deal with
technology development issues, they struggled with organizational leadership and man-
agement and often sought advice on these issues. Specifically, they received guidance from
investors, advisors and mentors, often on an ad-hoc basis. They also turned to other student
entrepreneurs who had faced similar challenges. More developed spinoffs were able to
bring on experienced entrepreneurs, initially on a part-time basis, to help direct operations.

4.2.3 Reconfiguring for commercialization

Six ventures had developed to a point where they recognized the need to develop a product
or service to drive future sales. For student entrepreneurs, this realization grew from the
aggregation of various spinoff experiences, including business plan competitions,

123
Who is the academic entrepreneur? The role of graduate…

interactions with successful entrepreneurs, or organically during the long process of

technology development. Four of the six ventures were able to transition from their nearly
singular focus on technology development to successfully commercialize a product.
Student entrepreneurs described two key challenges to this transition. The first challenge
related to managing the composition of their staff and management. All spoke about the
need to find and hire qualified individuals in product-focused and customer-facing roles,
while placing relatively importance on scientific research. The comments on one student
founder illustrated this transition:
We’ve largely proven out the technology. We’ve developed what we think has a lot
of value and we’re starting to scale that up. And so this is the first year we’re out in
external trials, we’re lining up big commercial partners. . . . It’s becoming more
industrial as we pivot from discovery into development and commercialization.
Before that though, when we were in the discovery phase, it was you know, I
wouldn’t say it was academic but it was much more open and collaborative. . . . So
we’re starting to hire fewer PhD-level people. . . . We’ll be hiring more sort of
downstream field-type people. We’ll probably hire some more engineering people. . .
. We’ll retask some of the PhDs for where you need a high level of technical
sophistication. . . . We’ll probably hire a few more executives. So we’re going to
have to expand the management team for sure. (Student Founder, Epsilon Energy,
July 25, 2012)
The second challenge for graduate student entrepreneurs was managing the transition to
different funding sources. While all ventures in the study benefited from research grants
and early-stage angel investments, it became necessary to approach professional investors
as the spinoff developed; larger levels of financing were required to fund the organizational
shift to commercialization and, thus, new hires and capital expenditures. During the study
period, four of the eight spinoffs raised significant equity investment (totaling over $50
million) from professional venture capital firms. Both Zeta Web and Epsilon Energy took
large rounds of venture financing from professional venture capital firms.
To manage this transition, the student founders needed to expand their understanding of
venture financing options and tradeoffs associated with different options. They did seek out
and receive significant support from the local entrepreneurial ecosystem. For example, they
received coaching and ‘‘pitch scrubs’’ from the mentors at VMS. However, this transition
from research development to presenting a viable product-focused business model was a
new experience for founders who wrestled with difficult and stressful processes.
I’d say the darkest things were usually around fundraising. Like, are we going to be
able to raise funds to sustain the company, are we going to have to cut staff? We have
lots of families that depend on us . . . to keep things going. That keeps me awake. . . .
We’re actually raising money right now and that is largely to get things into com-
mercial development, to start the regulatory process . . . to the point where we can
start selling things. (Student Founder, Epsilon Energy, July 25, 2012)
I was pretty confident that it would work out, even though we didn’t have money at
many points in the process…. The transition points is where it gets very difficult
sometimes … like every round you can feel the tension between the investors…. This
last round there’s some, I didn’t like it too much, the way it happened, because of the
tensions from investors. (Student Founder 1, Zeta Web, July 24, 2012)

123
 C. S. Hayter et al.

Alternatively, Alpha Chips and Delta Pharma explored venture capital financing but, in
the process, decided that the best path was to move their product to the brink of com-
mercialization and seek an acquisition from a strategic buyer with the deep pockets and
resources needed to scale and grow. At this point, both spinoffs were still led by the
founding researcher as CEO and neither had taken professional venture capital, with all
equity funding coming strictly from angel investors.
In both cases, the decision was the result of a thorough analysis of the remaining
technical and market risks involving consultation with their various advisors, mentors and
angel investors. Both spinoffs were successfully sold to industry leaders at substantial
valuations. The founders explained:
With a huge additional risk and a lot more time invested and also trying to raise the
money just when a lot of VCs were pulling out of these types of investments. The
way our finances and our market worked out this was a good path for us (Student
Founder, Alpha Chips, June 20, 2012).
We needed to step down as much of the risk associated with that product as possible
to the point where we could license that to a pharma . . . by bringing it to the point of
being ready for human clinical trials (Student Founder, Delta Pharmaceuticals, July
18, 2012).

4.3 Conflict associated with student entrepreneurship

The student founders of four of the eight spinoffs in the study described encountering two
types of significant conflict within the early years of venture establishment. The first set of
issues related to students encountering conflicts with faculty advisors. The second group
arose during business plan competitions with newly recruited team members.

4.3.1 Conflicts with faculty

Three graduate students who launched spinoff companies before they graduated experi-
enced conflict with their faculty advisors. For example, the founder of Beta Bio founder
was a few months away from graduation when he decided to enter a business plan com-
petition based on technologies stemming from his PhD research. He had previously dis-
cussed the idea of establishing a spinoff company with his faculty advisor and believed that
the advisor would serve as scientific advisor. After a series of ‘‘confusing conversations’’,
the graduate student realized that he and his advisor had different expectations about the
formation of the new company.
The graduate student founder of Beta Bio later discovered that his advisor had decided
to establish a separate venture based on similar technologies with himself as CEO. The
graduate student confronted his advisor and, from that point on, their relationship rapidly
deteriorated, to the point where the college’s administration moved the graduate student to
another advisor so that he might complete his thesis and graduate. Further, the conflict
extended to intellectual property ownership issues. Initial discussions with MIT’s tech-
nology transfer office included both faculty and student. However, even though the
graduate student was intimately involved in the development of the core spinoff tech-
nology, university rules favor faculty. Thus the advisor’s spinoff received the option to
license the core technology, requiring the student and his spinoff team to create a new
technology.

123
Who is the academic entrepreneur? The role of graduate…

While Beta Bio may represent an extreme example of conflict, is it illustrative of the
broader conflict between the academic responsibilities of graduate students and the oper-
ational responsibilities of establishing and developing a university spinoff. In an effort to
mitigate conflict of interest and maintain academic integrity MIT implemented strict
policies to govern the advisor-student relationship. However, numerous opportunities for
conflict exist and faculty and students may not know or understand these regulations.
Further, regulations cannot anticipate every scenario.
In at least two other spinoffs (Gamma Materials and Delta Pharma) faculty were deeply
involved in the establishment of student spinoffs. Thus, both student and advisors were
faced with scenarios and decisions that might have also resulted in serious conflict,
especially relating the student’s academic responsibilities.
For example, the student founder of Gamma Materials began his PhD with the intent of
pursuing an academic career. However, during the course of his experience in a business
plan competition he became convinced that launching and leading a company as soon as
possible was the best way to advance the technology. It became clear that he would not be
able to continue as a student and launch his company at the same time as conversations
with his advisor resulted in the realization that there would be a conflict of interest with
both of them involved as active founders. After careful consideration, the student decided
to withdraw from his PhD program to launch a venture and provide full time attention to it.
The founder of Delta Pharma encountered a similar issue with his faculty advisor while
still a PhD student and deciding to launch a venture. In this case, the advisor was not
expecting to be deeply involved as a founder, but would have an affiliation as a scientific
advisor. The key issue in this case was the conflict of interest of an advisor receiving
spinoff equity before a student had graduated. In this case the outcomes were safely
achieved, but the potential for a serious problem was present. As the founder of Delta
Pharma described:
I think at the time there weren’t as many safeguards or rules in place or if there were
I wasn’t aware of them and certainly my advisor didn’t indicate she was aware of
any. So I mean we were kind of, you know I was still finishing up my PhD and we’re
kind of haggling on how to split up this company… But it took a while for me to
work out an arrangement. (Student Founder, Delta Pharmaceuticals, July 18, 2012)

4.3.2 Conflicts with other students

As mentioned, the business plan competition was one of the first times that graduate
student entrepreneurs were required to focus on how their spinoff would provide value. In
the course of doing this, three spinoffs—Epsilon Energy, Gamma Materials, and Delta
Pharma—recruited additional teams members to aid the founding entrepreneur often
leading to conflict. The codification of spinoff ownership seemed to be a source of conflict
among the three spinoffs. Spinoff companies are in the very early stages of development
yet business plan competition team members may want to know ‘‘who owns what.’’ While
all three spinoffs experienced some level of conflict, the founders of Epsilon Energy and
Gamma Materials recommended that these discussions be postponed until spinoffs are
further developed.
I’d say even though…they tell you to make a founder’s agreement and everything in
the competition. I don’t think that’s a good idea because I think you don’t know
anything at that point. You know absolutely nothing with regards to what your team
needs to be later, and how an equity split would be, and what are reasonable

123
 C. S. Hayter et al.

expectations, and what people’s time commitments should be, and what are things
that could go wrong. You know nothing at that point and just doing a founder’s
agreement at that point, all that does is set expectations that should’ve never been set
(Student Founder, Gamma Materials, July 11, 2012).
In both cases, the teams resolved their discussions but, at Delta Pharma, the resulting
conflict was more serious. While preparing for the business plan competition, the founder
of Delta Pharma partnered with four business school students. The four students asked for
major equity positions in a future spinoff (one had yet to be established) during the
competition but the founder told them there was as of yet no practical role for them as he
continued developing the technology.
When he established the spinoff, the graduate student founder offered the business
school students small equity shares in the company and three out of the four agreed. The
fourth student, however, refused the small stake and asked for 20 % of the company. When
the founder refused, the business school student sued:
About a week before I was going to defend my thesis, a knock comes on our
apartment door. My wife answers and it’s the constable delivering essentially a
notice of I’m being sued and the company’s being sued. And not only that but he’s
filed for a preliminary injunction on the company, which meant if I don’t show up in
court in the next 10 days or whatever I basically, it shuts down the whole thing. . . . I
had no money in the company, I had not even gotten my PhD yet, I had no prospects
of money. . . . But I knew I had to defend. (Student Founder, Delta Pharmaceuticals,
July 18, 2012)
The founder decided to fight the lawsuit and, while expensive and time consuming, after
about 7 years a judge eventually found for Delta Pharma and found the lawsuit to be
frivolous, awarding the company sanctions.

5 Discussion

By examining a small but rich sample of cases from a well-established entrepreneurship

support program at MIT, this paper is among the first to carefully investigate the role of
graduate students in the establishment and development of university spinoffs. While great
care should be taken in extending our findings to other contexts, including those that
examine the role of graduate students in spinoffs not affiliated with the university (e.g.
Hayter 2016a; Boh et al. 2016), or to generalizing about the behavior of other universities,
our study provides a better and more nuanced understanding of role of students in uni-
versity spinoffs and thus sets the stage for broader studies with more generalizable sam-
ples. Our findings (1) confirm and expand upon existing work that graduate students play
an important role in university spinoff companies, and (2) introduce previously unrealized
challenges faced by these students.
The entrepreneurial role of the graduate students begins with knowledge production; six
of the eight spinoffs in our sample were established based on the individual research
projects of students. Following Hayter (2016a), graduate students also serve as the catalyst
for spinoff establishment by formulating initial spinoff ideas and investigating mechanics
associated with firm establishment. Once the commitment to establish a spinoff is made,
graduate students undertake a lengthy process—what we term resource reconfiguration
(Vohora 2004)—of idea refinement, technology development, and resource acquisition

123
Who is the academic entrepreneur? The role of graduate…

that, if successful, enables spinoffs to transition from an enterprise focused primarily on

academic research to a company focused on the development and commercialization of
products and services.
The difficulty of reconfiguring resources within university spinoffs is well-established in
the literature and largely attributed to the limited, homophilous social networks of aca-
demic entrepreneurs (Hayter 2015a, 2016; Rasmussen et al. 2015; Vohora 2004). Student
entrepreneurs in our sample attend a well-regarded research university known for its
entrepreneurial history and culture; indeed, many students came to MIT because of its
entrepreneurial culture. Thus, student entrepreneurs in our sample are surrounded by rel-
atively entrepreneurial students and faculty—and often draw on these individuals in sup-
port of their spinoff endeavors.
Graduate students also have access to business plan competitions, the Venture Men-
toring Service, the Deshpande Center for Technological Innovation, and numerous other
formal entrepreneurship support programs at MIT. While prior studies provide operational
detail relating to these entrepreneurship support mechanisms (e.g. Bradley et al. 2013b;
Audretsch et al. 2015; Swamidass 2013), we find that these programs not only provide
formal structures and incentives for entrepreneurship, they also serve as mechanisms to
connect graduate students to individuals outside the university with access to resources
critical to spinoff success, an important factor in academic entrepreneurship (Hayter
2016b). In other words, the development and success of student-run spinoffs are intimately
linked to the availability of and connections to relevant contacts and their resources in the
surrounding region.
For example, the National Science Foundation (NSF) established it’s highly regarded
I-Corps Program in 2011 to indoctrinate university researchers (faculty, postdoctoral fel-
lows, and graduate students) to entrepreneurial thinking and practices while building
connections with such contacts and resources (Reich 2011). In so doing, the NSF recog-
nized the important entrepreneurial role of the students and postdocs in the establishment
and development of new university spinoffs that might later be eligible for other support
programs such as SBIR awards. The program assumes that the graduate student or postdoc
will undertake full-time responsibility for the new company while faculty remain in their
academic positions (Blank and Engel 2016). Future research might focus on the efficacy of
university entrepreneurship support programs specifically tailored to the roles and needs of
graduate students, among others.
In addition to elaborating on the activities of students in university spinoffs, we also
unearthed unique conflicts that arise during the entrepreneurial experience of graduate
students thus far only elucidated in the popular press (e.g. McMurtrie 2015). While con-
flicts over ownership shares and functional roles among co-founders and employees are
common in the general entrepreneurship literature, graduate students are enrolled in aca-
demic programs the primary goal of which is conferring an advanced degree. The estab-
lishment and development of a spinoff company—a component of the emergent economic
development mission of research universities—may conflict with these academic aims,
however. Specifically, the academic responsibilities and entrepreneurial ambitions of
graduate students often conflict with students frequently prioritizing the latter.
Perhaps more serious are scenarios whereby student entrepreneurial activities create
conflict with faculty advisors. Faculty advisors have enormous authority relating to the
academic progress and standing of graduate students. While most advisors remained
agnostic, if not supportive of student entrepreneurship (so long as students fulfill their
academic responsibilities), myriad conflicts could arise relating to IP, grades/academic
credit, and spinoff ownership. The most serious conflict within our study related to varying

123
 C. S. Hayter et al.

views of IP ownership and competition between a student-initiated spinoff and the

entrepreneurial efforts of their faculty advisor. While these conflicts may (or may not) be
rare, they pose serious risks to university operations and should be investigated further.
To be clear, this finding in no way implies that universities should deemphasize student
entrepreneurship; the activity is vital for knowledge dissemination and commercialization.
It is to say, however, that research universities should be aware of and anticipate these
conflicts—and consequently create mechanisms and policies to manage and resolve them,
ideally identifying and addressing them early before they escalate. Future research might
investigate the nature of conflict associated with student entrepreneurship and promising
approaches taken to manage conflict. Further, how does graduate student entrepreneurship
differ within other universities, especially those not located within large metropolitan
regions? Left unexplored in this paper, future research might also examine the role of
university IP policy in graduate student entrepreneurship. To what extent do university IP
policies promote (or discourage) student entrepreneurship and subsequent spinoff success?
Finally, researchers might build on our findings by exploring additional elements of
success associated with graduate student entrepreneurship. A further focus on under-
graduates and postdocs is also welcome as well as greater depth related to student-advisor
interaction. What our study illuminates, however, is that academic entrepreneurship
research—and perhaps more importantly entrepreneurship support policies and pro-
grams—can no longer focus primarily on faculty. Instead a more encompassing view of
entrepreneurial actors within a university context is required, one that includes their
identification, interaction, and specific organizational, regional, and policy-related factors
that enable academic and entrepreneurial success.

References
Acs, Z., Braunerhjelm, J. P., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The knowledge spillover theory of
entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32(1), 15–30.
Åstebro, T., Bazzazian, N., & Braguinsky, S. (2012). Startups by recent university graduates and their
faculty: Implications for university entrepreneurship policy. Research Policy, 41(4), 663–677.
Audretsch, D. B., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (Eds.). (2015). Concise guide to entrepreneurship, technology
and innovation. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Bailetti, T. (2011). Fostering student entrepreneurship and university spinoff companies. Technology
Innovation Management Review, 1, 7–12.
Barr, S., Baker, T., Markham, S., & Kingon, A. (2009). Bridging the valley of death: Lessons learned from
14 years of commercialization of technology education. Academy of Management Learning & Edu-
cation, 8(3), 370–388.
Berggren, E., & Dahlstrand, Å. L. (2009). Creating an entrepreneurial region: Two waves of academic spin-
offs from Halmstad University. European Planning Studies, 17(8), 1171–1189.
Blank, S., & Engel, J. (2016). The National Science Foundation I-Corps Teaching Handbook. https://
venturewell.org/wp-content/uploads/I-Corps-Teaching-Handbook-Jan16.pdf. Accessed 26 Jan 2016.
Boh, W. F., De-Haan, U., & Strom, R. (2016). University technology transfer through entrepreneurship:
Faculty and students in spinoffs. Journal of Technology Transfer (forthcoming).
Bradley, S., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013a). Methods and models of university technology transfer.
Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 9(6), 571–650.
Bradley, S., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013b). Proof of concept centers in the United States: An
exploratory look. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38, 349–381.
Bramwell, A., & Wolfe, D. A. (2008). Universities and regional economic development: The entrepreneurial
University of Waterloo. Research Policy, 37, 1175–1187.
Braunerhjelm, P., Ács, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2010). The missing link: Knowledge
diffusion and entrepreneurship in endogenous growth. Small Business Economics, 34(2), 105–125.

123
Who is the academic entrepreneur? The role of graduate…

Brindley, C., & Ritchie, B. (2000). Undergraduates and small and medium-sized enterprises: Opportunities
for a symbiotic partnership? Education & Training, 42(9), 509–517.
Brush, C. (1992). Research on Women business owners: Past trends, a new perspective, and future direc-
tions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Summer, 12, 27–35.
Cliff, J. (1998). Does one size fit all? Exploring the relationships between attitudes towards growth, gender,
and business size. Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 523–542.
Cooper, A. (2003). Entrepreneurship: The past, the present, the future. In Z. Acs & D. Audretsch (Eds.),
Handbook of entrepreneurship (pp. 21–36). The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methodsapproaches (2nd ed.).
New York: Sage.
Doutriaux, J. (1987). Growth patter of academic entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 2,
285–297.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14,
532–550.
Fini, R., Lacetera, N., & Shane, S. (2010). Inside or outside the IP system? Business creation in academia.
Research Policy, 39, 1060–1069.
Fukugawa, N. (2005). Characteristics of knowledge interactions between universities and small firms in
Japan. International Small Business Journal, 23(4), 379–401.
Hayter, C. S. (2011). In search of the profit-maximizing actor: Motivations and definitions of success from
nascent academic entrepreneurs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 340–352.
Hayter, C. S. (2013). Harnessing university entrepreneurship for economic growth: Factors of success
among university spin-offs. Economic Development Quarterly, 27(1), 17–27.
Hayter, C. S. (2015a). Public or private entrepreneurship? Revisiting motivations and definitions of success
among academic entrepreneurs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40, 1003–1015.
Hayter, C. S. (2015b). Social networks and the success of university spinoffs: Toward an agenda for regional
growth. Economic Development Quarterly, 29, 3–13.
Hayter, C. S. (2016a). Constraining entrepreneurial development: A knowledge-based view of social net-
works among academic entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 45, 475–490.
Hayter, C. S. (2016b). A trajectory of early-stage spinoff success: The role of knowledge intermediaries
within an entrepreneurial university ecosystem. Arizona State University Working Paper.
Hébert, R. F., & Link, A. N. (2009). A history of entrepreneurship. London: Routledge.
Hsu, D. H., Roberts, E. B., & Eesley, C. E. (2007). Entrepreneurs from technology-based universities:
Evidence from MIT. Research Policy, 36, 768–788.
Katz, J. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education. Journal
of Business Venturing, 18(2), 283–300.
Katz, J. (2004). Survey of endowed positions in entrepreneurship and related fields in the United States.
Available at SSRN 1234582.
Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’,
‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Research Policy, 40, 1354–1368.
Link, A. N., & Ruhm, C. (2009). Bringing science to market: Commercializing from NIH SBIR awards.
Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 4, 381–402.
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 and Corporate Change, 16(4), 641–655.
Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (Eds.). (2014). The Chicago handbook of university technology
transfer and academic entrepreneurship. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lubynsky, R. (2012). Critical challenges to nascent academic entrepreneurs: From lab bench to innovation,
University of Maryland, unpublished dissertation.
McMurtrie, B. (2015). Inside startup U: How Stanford develops entrepreneurial students. The Chronicle of
Higher Education. http://chronicle.com/article/Inside-Startup-U-How/233899. Accessed 01 Nov 2015.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morris, M. H. (2015). Entrepreneurship, education and the unreasonable. In D. B. Audretsch, C. S. Hayter,
& A. N. Link (Eds.), Concise guide to entrepreneurship, technology and innovation. Northampton,
MA: Edward Elgar.
O’Gorman, C., Byrne, O., & Pandya, D. (2008). How scientists commercialise new knowledge via
entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 23–43.
Oehler, A., Hofer, A., & Schalkowski, H. (2015). Entrepreneurial education and knowledge: Empirical
evidence on a sample of German undergraduate students. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40,
536–557.

123
 C. S. Hayter et al.

Oosterbeek, H., van Praag, M., & Ijsselstein, A. (2010). The impact of entrepreneurship education on
entrepreneurship skills and motivation. European Economic Review, 54(3), 442–454.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Phan, P., & Siegel, D. (2006). The effectiveness of university technology transfer: Lessons learned.
Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 77–144.
Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the evidence. Inter-
national Small Business Journal, 25(5), 479–510.
Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2015). The transformation of network ties to develop entrepre-
neurial competencies for spin-offs. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 27(7–8), 430–457.
Rasmussen, E., & Sorheim, R. (2006). Action-based entrepreneurship education. Technovation, 26,
185–194.
Reich, E. S. (2011). Scientists, meet capitalists. Nature, 480(7375), 15.
Reif, L. R. (2015). Personal communication with author, December 10.
Ridder, A., & van der Sijde, P. (2003). Raising awareness of entrepreneurship and e-commerce: A case
study on student-entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Man-
agement, 3(5), 609–620.
Roberts, E. (1991). Entrepreneurs in high technology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, E. B., & Eesley, C. (2009). Entrepreneurial impact: The role of MIT. Ewing Marion Kauffman
Foundation.
Roberts, E. B., & Eesley, C. (2011). Entrepreneurial impact: The role of MIT—an updated report. Foun-
dations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 7(1–2), 1–149.
Roberts, E. B., Murray, F., & Kim, J. D. (2015). Entrepreneurship and Innovation at MIT: Continuing global
growth and impact. Technical Report: http://web.mit.edu/innovate/entrepreneurship2015.pdf. Acces-
sed January 9, 2016.
Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 71–102.
Shah, S. K., & Pahnke, E. C. (2014). Parting the ivory curtain: Understanding how universities support a
diverse set of startups. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 780–792.
Shane, S. A. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Northampton,
MA: Edward Elgar.
Shane, S., Locke, E., & Collins, C. (2003). Entrepreneurial motivation. Human Resource Management
Review, 13, 257–279.
Stephan, P. (2009). Tracking the placement of students as a measure of technology transfer. In G. Libecap
(Ed.), Measuring the social value of innovation: A link in the university technology transfer and
entrepreneurship equation (Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation & Economic
Growth, Volume 19) (pp. 113–140). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Swamidass, P. (2013). University startups as a commercializing alternative: Lessons from three contrasting
case studies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38, 788–808.
Vohora, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech
spin-out companies. Research Policy, 33, 147–175.
Wani, V., Garg, T., & Sharma, S. (2004). Effective industry/institute interaction for developing entrepre-
neurial vision amongst engineers for the sustainable development of SMEs in India. International
Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialization, 3(1), 38–55.
Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Mustar, P., & Lockett, A. (2007). Academic entrepreneurship in Europe.
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

123